Do MSNBC higher-ups ever watch the garbage being spewed on a nightly basis during their primetime schedule, or does Keith Olbermann have the freedom at this point to present anything he wants on the air regardless of how vile and devoid of facts?
Take for example the fourth story on Thursday's "Countdown" when the host and his guest, Air America's Rachel Maddow, used the New York Times hit piece on John McCain to bash conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh including labeling him a homophobe.
For those that can stand it, just listen to Maddow's answer to Olbermann's question concerning what Limbaugh wants McCain to do now that the Times has attacked him this way (video available here):
He's asking John McCain to play along with the kind of Republican presidential politics that right wing radio show hosts are comfortable with. He's essentially saying, it‘s time to play along now. It's time to get inline with the way we do this. Start using Barack Obama's middle name. Start blaming the ills of America and your political problems on phantom menaces like the homosexual agenda or whatever else you want to pick out here. He's essentially saying, you know, pick on the liberal media, get over anything that is in your political DNA that would keep you out of line with the kind of politics that we‘re comfortable with. Run a George W. Bush presidential campaign.
The beauty of this response by Maddow is that it's very clear she didn't listen to what Limbaugh said about this issue on Thursday. In fact, she obviously didn't even listen to the video clip Olbermann played before he asked her opinion on the subject.
See if you can find anything in what Rush said Thursday that dealt with "using Barack Obama's middle name," "the homosexual agenda," or "blaming the ills of America and your political problems on phantom menaces":
The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. At some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes. If the right lesson is not learned from this, then it will have proved to be of no value. There's a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson and understand who his friends are and who his enemies are. He's had that backwards for way too long. He has thought the New York Times is his friend. He has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the Drive-By Media are his friends. They aren't. That's the lesson today.
Senator McCain says that he's disappointed here in the New York Times. Of course, I'm sure he's disappointed. The question is, is he surprised? If he's not surprised, that's a positive. If he's surprised by this, then we've got a problem, Houston, because he doesn't understand who he's dealing with. You know, Senator McCain has disappointed me a lot of times, accusing our intelligence officers of engaging in torture, calling people who opposed his amnesty bill nativists, supporting others who called us racists and so forth, people who opposed campaign finance reform as people unwilling to clean up corruption and so forth. You look at this, and you see it for exactly what it is. Now, here's an interesting aspect here. You talk about the details of the story and how thinly sourced and all that. Yeah, right, yada yada. It's the Drive-By Media, for crying out loud. It's the New York Times reporting about a Republican. You know damn well a story like this wouldn't run about Hillary or Obama, even Bill Clinton, a story like this wouldn't run. If it did, it would be fawning. "Oh, there's old randy Bill out there, still showing us he got some lead in the pencil here after the heart surgery. Oh, yeah!"
I don't understand why it's so hard for the people on the Republican Party side to understand who the enemy is and who they're dealing with. This is another clear-cut illustration. But even now they're tiptoeing around, don't want to make 'em too mad because Senator McCain denied everything. He had a press conference today, denied everything. Better be right. You gotta ask yourself this about the New York Times. Did they put this story out as a singular story, or as their follow-up? You gotta figure they knew what was going to happen. You have to figure that they were aware of the firestorm that this would create. Do they have any more? Is there any more to the story? Are other people going to now start working it? Will they find anything? Will Senator McCain's denials be brought back into question? Let's listen to Senator McCain this morning. He's in Toledo, Ohio, with his wife, Cindy, at a press conference. We have a couple sound bites.
MCCAIN: I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true. As has been pointed out, I've served this nation honorably for more than a half a century. When I was 17, I raised my hand and supported -- said I would support and defend this nation, and I've had the honor of serving it ever since. At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust nor make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor anyone or any organization.
RUSH: All right, so Senator McCain there says he's very, very disappointed in the New York Times. Let's not forget that during immigration battles, illegal immigration battles, this whole Abu Ghraib situation, and the ability to make our intelligence officers at Guantanamo Bay out to be torturers and so forth, and the call to close down Guantanamo Bay, where did all that stuff come from? The New York Times. Day in and day out. You know how many front-page stories there were on Abu Ghraib? And guess who was right there agreeing with everything they said? The New York Times' favorite Republican, John McCain. I'm sure he's disappointed. The question, is he going to learn the right lesson from this? That's a great opportunity. If he can learn the right lesson from this and understand who his friends really are, then there may be a positive out of this. Now, folks, I understand, I've read my e-mail today, and I had conversations with people last night when the story first came out.
In fact, the theory last night, most people's predictions last night was that this was going to finally rally conservatives to McCain. McCain couldn't do it himself, but that the New York Times could and the Drive-By Media. I got some e-mails, "That's it, Rush, I hadn't planned on voting for McCain, but I'm going to send him some money now. I'm not going to sit here and let the New York Times destroy my candidate." Well, you let the New York Times pick your candidate. The media picked the Republican Party candidate this year, folks, whether you want to believe it or not, they did. Republicans didn't, and so you see what happens.
Nothing there about Barack Hussein Obama, homosexuals, or phantom menaces, is there? Doesn't appear that either Olbermann or Maddow actually listened to what Limbaugh said on Thursday, does it?
Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise, for these folks have Media Matters to do their listening for them.
Regardless, shouldn't this concern the good folks at MSNBC? Do they want to be considered as a news organization, or did they abandon that years ago?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Olbermann says whatever he
February 23, 2008 - 16:16 ET by SMGalbraithOlbermann says whatever he wants, with no dissenting views allowed, with no checking of the allegations, with no willingness to allow a response.
The show is simply a platform for him to use to attack whatever person he chooses that day.
Full stop.
MSNBC Does Care -- But are they a 527
February 23, 2008 - 17:17 ET by allanfNoel wrote:
As we can see from the recent suspension of David Schuster NBC executives do care, when on air talent speaks ill of a Democrat. I think the network has set up some clear boundaries for its talent. I believe their prime directive is:
--"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Democrat".
Is MSNBC considered a 527 under McCain-Feingold?
No, MSNBC was reprimanded
February 23, 2008 - 20:13 ET by kgNo, MSNBC was reprimanded by their boss, the Clinton Machine. And crap runs downhill.
On a personal level, I am
February 23, 2008 - 16:18 ET by mostlymoderateOn a personal level, I am glad all this has happened with John McCain. It has shown me how vile and disgusting the wretched "liberal media" really are. It makes me realize who I really am too. I am a Republican and so long as liberal scum attack John McCain, I will stick up for JOHN MCCAIN. Let's just hope he see's the light and finds his conservative values.
Maddow was 180 deg off as usual
February 23, 2008 - 16:27 ET by exLibMaddow was, as is the usual liberal position, projecting. You see something in yourself that you don't want to face, so you project it on others.
The fact that liberals embrace the miltant homsexual agenda, and the like, for no other reason than either guilt or votes forces them to place these kinds of motives on their adversaries.
The fact that Olberman, Maddow and those who listen to them feel that religion is to BLAME for all our problems and that if it would just go away we'd all be better off, is the real issue.
It's a real backwards approach to morality. The once who are out calling sin what it is - sin, are really the ones who are "sinning". Meanwhile those who "live and let live" are the real "saints".
DUCT TAPE ALERT!!!
February 23, 2008 - 16:33 ET by motherbeltThere should have been a headline at the bottom of the screen while Maddow was speaking that said "Straw Man Argument."
I guess Maddow must have one of the "disgronificators' that Rush used to joke about, that picked out the "encoded" words when the audio is played backwards.
That explains how she got from this:
The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the
aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome
their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect
eternal love from them.
to:
Start using Barack Obama's middle name. Start blaming the ills of
America and your political problems on phantom menaces like the
homosexual agenda or whatever else you want to pick out here.
Ubbermann and Maddow are
February 23, 2008 - 16:52 ET by bigtimerUbbermann and Maddow are just mindless wittle leftists doing their mindless wittle jobs...like good wittle boys and girls...they recieve wittle gold stars and a big pat on the head from their counterparts above them....
Precious...eh?
Keith Olbermann
February 23, 2008 - 16:53 ET by BourbeauAs egregiously stupid and vile as this man's commentary is, day in and day out, the public should never lose sight of who he works for. He works for General Electric Company's entertainment division, NBC Universal. What that means is that aside from the likes of Dan Abrams and Jeff Zucker, this idiot works for Jeff Immelt and it's Jeff Immelt that needs to hear from the public about this morons antics, day in and day out. To date, they (GE Management) act like Olbermann, Matthews, and the other misguided individual, Joe Scarborough can do whatever they like without consequence. Now if you're David Schuster or Don Imus and you lose your mind for a moment, they'll suspend you or fire you, depending on the offence. But for the above mention trio of vile idiots, apparently there are no rules. So, if you feel as I do and get repulsed at this nonsense, your best bet is to send a e-mail to the GE Board of Directors; it may not work, but it's better then staying quiet about this mind numbing stupidity.
Bour... I agree with you
February 23, 2008 - 16:57 ET by bigtimerBour...
I agree with you about GE and emailing, some have said boycott the products ect...
Well, so far it has not done one damned bit of good...those vulgar leftists are going to get worse, not better before the election..agenda comes above and beyond, this has been obvious as far as I am concerned...
Agenda at all costs.
Typical radical left-wing
February 23, 2008 - 17:00 ET by lotrTypical radical left-wing drivel -- don't let facts get in your way, just revert to emotional hyperbole.
Good to see BDS is alive and well -- call me nostalgic.
Democrats are 'closet'
February 23, 2008 - 20:16 ET by kgDemocrats are 'closet' racists, 'closet' homophobics, 'closet' sexists etc. That is why they think they are experts on those subjects, they know them first-hand.
Is Olberman a homosexual?
February 23, 2008 - 17:58 ET by Lame CherryIs Oblerman a homosexual in having that on the brain, or is he blundered into telling the world that Obama is a homosexual in that the limo stories are true coming out of Minnesota.
For him to lace a story about McCain with Muslim remarks, homosexual remarks and for some reason to ignore Obama on his racial aspect is odd.
Perhaps Olberman is trying to rally the Muslim gay vote as reports indicate there are quite a few pedophiles in the Middle East shipping children around.
Be easier to understand Olberman if he actually understood what he was talking about.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC... Obama understands
February 23, 2008 - 18:08 ET by bigtimerLC...
Obama understands every single word he is saying..the question is when are the people going to wake up and smell the coffee?
Btw...I'm not talking about the average leftist lemming either...I'm talking about people who have a few brain cells left that work.
Hopefully some of them do before Nov.
I agree that there's nothing
February 23, 2008 - 17:59 ET by balboaI agree that there's nothing in Rush's spiel that indicates what was extrapolated. Rush wants McCain to stop trusting the NYT, to hate them as much as Rush does.
I don't think that's McCain. He didn't speak out against Abu Ghraib because the NYT did.
And I also disagree that the MSM picked the Republican candidate.
I've heard of leaps in logic before...
February 23, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Tom1969ca...but this one would clear the Grand Canyon!
If I'm not mistaken, the equation looks somthing like this:
Must be the New Math...
(Note to Noel: Olbermann and Maddow don't need to listen to a clip to know whether Limbaugh actually said anything racist, sexist or homophobic - he's Rush Limbaugh! Of course he said something racist, sexist or homophobic! </sarcasm off>)
~~~
I admire FDR for not insisting on getting the approval of France and Germany before going to war.
--Anne Coulter
Well, guys, as I explained
February 23, 2008 - 20:20 ET by motherbeltWell, guys, as I explained above, you have to play the audio clip backwards throurgh a "disgronificator" to hear the encoded words clearly.
<satire>
Maddow is being rather shallow.
February 23, 2008 - 19:53 ET by R D HelmThis reminds me of much of the MSM "coverage" of Rush shortly after he first hit the national scene way back when. The comments the MSM was making about him then, and what they claimed he was saying on his show at that time, bordered on the ludicrous.
It was clear then that they weren't listening to what Rush was actually saying so much as what they were just assuming what he was saying. As such, they applied just about every possible stereotype and prejudgment to the man you can imagine. They even managed to make up some totally new ones. It appears that nothing has really changed in the years since.
And how long have they been trying to stick him with the homophobe label? Rush rarely ever even talks about them.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
Heard it from sources
February 23, 2008 - 20:04 ET by VonuThe new story the Times is working on is how when McCain was Open Borders and campaign money was drying up, to keep the bus going they (according to former associates) pimped out their daughter.
developing
Freedom is a vital component of human effectiveness and fulfillment.
Oh well...the prospect of
February 23, 2008 - 21:00 ET by JerOh well...the prospect of bipartisanship recedes further into obscurity. The beknighted and indignant ideologues of the left and right will have none of it.
The outrage most of you feel as a result of the intemperate remarks of Maddow [Olbermann--in this instance at least--said nothing improper] is no doubt akin to what I have felt for the past fifteen to twenty years when tuning in to talk radio meant being instantly bombarded with an endless cacaphony of thundering reminders of just how irredeemably evil liberals and Democrats are and will forever be.
And this is what Limbaugh is suggesting--no, demanding that McCain better recognize and embrace. We are "snakes". Don't even think of reaching out to such disgusting reptiles.
Rush may never have referred to Barak Obama as B. "Hussein" Obama, but he has linked him to bin Laden and repeatedly joked about "Obama Osama...Osama Obama". And Ann Coulter just last week referred to Barak as "Hussein Obama" and "President Hussein" and said she was doing it because it was "fun".
Maddow was putting her own spin on Limbaugh's remarks. She never indicated she was quoting him directly. Some of her inferences were certainly overstretched and inappropriate, but no more so than what occurs almost daily from both ends of the political spectrum. I frequently read pronouncements [mirroring Limbaugh's] from the "principled progressives": "Conservatives are 'evil'...don't ever be deluded into thinking they will be civil or accomodative. Obama is crazy if he thinks he can reach across the aisle."
Welcome to contemporary politics--American style.
Jer
Jer...Rush is
February 23, 2008 - 21:03 ET by bigtimerJer...
Rush is right.
Maddow is wrong...and left.
Olbermann is just plain rabidly insane.
repeatedly joked about
February 23, 2008 - 21:15 ET by motherbeltrepeatedly joked about "Obama Osama...Osama Obama"-Jer
Jer, like a lot of stuff that gets attributed to Rush, that was actually a joke on Senator Kennedy, who made that stumbling mixup of Obama's name in a speech some time ago. (Ann Coulter does call him B. Hussein Obama, though).
Maddow didn't "put her own spin" on Limbaugh's words...she extrapolated them out of the ball park.
Please explain how you get from
The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle.
to:
Start using Barack Obama's middle name. Start blaming the ills of America and your political problems on phantom menaces like the homosexual agenda or whatever else you want to pick out here.
Is it like one of those puzzles where you change one word into another by changing one letter at a time?
If the example above doesn't work, please point out what Rush said to make Maddow infer that he was blaming Obama or homosexuals for anything.
mb...Having read the full
February 23, 2008 - 21:48 ET by Jermb...Having read the full transcript of Rush's Obama Osama riff, I was aware that its genesis was Kennedy's unintentional and quickly corrected slip of the tongue. But, IMO, one of Limbaugh's questionable rhetorical practices is to seize upon such 'inadvertancies' and then flog them to death [see also his "Magic Negro" parody]...as if this "opening" grants him carte blanche to be tasteless.
Maddow, again, is not quoting Limbaugh. She is suggesting however that Rush is opening the door of scorced earth partisanship against the perceived forces of evil and pushing McCain through it. Maddow believes this to be the modus operandi of the far right. I do acknowledge her use of the phrase "phantom menaces like the homosexual agenda" was misleading and unfair.
Jer
Jer, I'm really glad you
February 23, 2008 - 22:44 ET by motherbeltJer, I'm really glad you read the full transcript, because your posts are frequently prefaced by such phrases as " I haven't researched the facts on this, but".... or "I'm not sure, but to the best of my recollection"... so I'm sorry if I presumed the same.
That being said, that is what Rush does. He makes no bones about using parody and satire to lampoon liberals. He's not a journalist, not a newsperson, and makes no bones about where he stands, either. Olbermann, on the other hand, claims to do "real[ly] journalism" (his own words).
I never claimed that Maddow was quoting Limbaugh. In fact I pretty much said that everything she attributed to him was manufactured by her!
As for "Maddow believes this to be the modus operandi of the far right" it would be fair to say that Rush and others believe Maddow's "straw man" argument and outrageous extrapolation are the modus operandi of the left. You know, such as asking someone, like Tom Tancredo, who is against illegal immigration, why he hates Mexicans.
I agree with Noel. If Olbermann is going to claim that what he does is "really journalism" he needs to start having at least an occasional opposing viewpoint in his discussions, you know, a token conservative from time to time, to show that he is at least making an attempt at balance.
Update: Re the "Magic Negro" parody: Surely you are sophisticated enough to see that that was a stab at the very liberals who would have gone into a collective swoon if he, Rush, had uttered the words that the liberal LA Times columnist had written.
motherbelt....the reason I
February 23, 2008 - 23:39 ET by Jermotherbelt....the reason I am particularly careful to use such phrases as you describe is a direct consequence of your accusation several weeks ago that I have engaged in "habitual dissembling". As you recall, I had attempted to quickly summarize what I felt were the controversial political dimensions of Limbaugh's Donovan McNabb commentary. It was in response to what I thought was a good faith request from acumen, and was obviously based on my recollection from four years earlier. Apparently, because I didn't first research the precise quote, which I also advised acumen to do, you felt the need to deliver a cheap insult which you neither backed up nor apologized for.
Regarding the Magic Negro issue...it requires zero sophistication to understand Limbaugh's purpose. However, it would have reflected a degree of sophistication for Limbaugh to have actually researched the historical, literary, and sociological roots of the the phrase before launching into his insensitive parody.
Other points are addressed in my response to Noel.
Jer
Jer it wasn't a cheap
February 24, 2008 - 00:36 ET by motherbeltJer it wasn't a cheap insult; I tagged you for misstating something from years earlier, when with a moment's time and Google you could have had the right quote instead of guessing. I guess we just have different standards of what's required before we post that someone said something. I would check it out first; you prefer to toss out your possibly faulty recollection and invite others to vet it for accuracy, if they wish. To each his own.
As for the "Magic Negro" kerfuffle, Limbaugh read Ehrenstein's own description of same from his column (it's in the MediaMatters transcript of the show); in part:
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by a snarky 20th century sociologist to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. 'He has no past. He simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,' reads the description on Wikipedia" of the Magic Negro. He's there to assuage white guilt ... over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest."
Quoting Ehrenstein's own definition of the term, as it was used in his article, was shoddy research on Limbaugh's part? What would you have had him do? He was responding to Ehrenstein's article, not writing a thesis on the subject.
You just don't get it, do you motherbelt?
February 24, 2008 - 03:56 ET by JerYou just don't get it, do you motherbelt? Let me state this very plainly: You claimed I had, among other things, made a habit of dissembling. [Then you couldn't even provide a single example of my doing so.] The accusation was cheap, classless, and patently false.
I have tried very hard to conduct myself in a civil, professional and responsible manner from my very first day at NewsBusters. It really bothers me that someone would not just imply but explicitly charge me with making repeated attempts to deliberately deceive other members of this site. Yes, you and I obviously have very different standards governing what we post. And I will proudly wear that "difference" as a badge of honor.
Let's walk through it one more time:
I had posted a comment about the impropriety of Keith Olbermann making political statements during the course of his pre-NFL game duties, just as it had been for Rush with his politically tinged McNabb remarks on ESPN.
When I returned to the thread, I discovered that acumen had asked me about the political nature of Limbaugh's commentary. I assumed he was unfamiliar with the details of the episode, and so I attempted--obviously from my recollection--to summarize what I believed to be the political implications of Limbaugh's analysis that sparked the controversy. It was clear I wasn't quoting Rush, and I suggested that the actual language could be ascertained through a google search. As it turned out, I think my summarization of the contentious issues was remarkably accurate. It also turned out that acumen apparently was baiting me with the intention of then arguing the innocence of Rush's words. I felt as though I had been slightly set up by acumen, since my intent had merely been to give him the courtesy of a speedy and informative [as possible under the circumstances] response.
But that was a minor annoyance compared to your jumping in with trumped up claims of an alleged practice of carelessly posting things off the top of my head and then, when called on them, engaging in deceptive schemes to avoid accountability. As I said, you couldn't cite one example...other than the Limbaugh/McNabb post itself, and you would be laughed out of court if you based your case on that one.
You were wrong motherbelt...and if you lack the grace to apologize, I feel sorry for you.
Jer
I agree Jer, I have to
February 24, 2008 - 04:19 ET by Carl KolchakI agree Jer, I have to admit I've never seen you say anything hateful, and I'm not a Rush listener, so I don't know much about his show. I wish Phil Hendrie was still on talk radio. Phil Hendrie was great!
Thanks, Carl...I really
February 24, 2008 - 04:24 ET by JerThanks, Carl...I really appreciate that. And, I also agree with you about Phil Hendrie...brilliant and hilarious. I miss him.
Jer
Ditto
February 24, 2008 - 09:52 ET by motherbeltI agree, Carl. I've never seen Jer post anything hateful.
Good grief! You're still
February 24, 2008 - 10:54 ET by motherbeltGood grief! You're still going on over that?
So now you put your disclaimer up front?
No, Jer, you don't get it.
First of all you say You claimed I had, among other things, made a habit of dissembling.
Did I accuse you of making statements about previous events without checking for accuracy? Guilty...to that and any variations of same. What "other things"?
To the best of my recollection, (and I haven't gone back and researched it), I believe I said at the time it was just an impression from some of your posts and if I was wrong then I was sorry. I"m sure you will produce my exact quote from that thread if I am wrong about it here. And the reason that I did that was an illustration of saying something and than bactracking when called on it. In fact, I think I said "See how that works?"
And I never said you deliberately attempted to deceive anyone...I said you threw out stuff off the top of your head and then when called on it had to explain why you weren't accurate. I'll admit, "dissemble" probably wasn't the word to use. I was accusing you of carelessness, not deception.
Just before that, (to the best of my recollection), you had accused me of "avoidance" because I didn't get back into a previous thread (that I didn't even remember) to answer something that you had posted. Hello, Pot! Kettle here!
Again, I'm sure you can research these claims I'm making (as you expect others to do for yours) and will let me know if I am wrong.
In the instance you mention, you said Limbaugh had said something he didn't say, because you didn't check. You claimed that he had said McNabb( paraphrasing) was an affirmative action quarterback, when what he said was that the media was desirous that a black quarterback do well. So your contention that As it turned out, I think my summarization of the contentious issues was remarkably accurate is remarkably false.Those two statements aren't even close. I don't consider that a small error, and neither would anyone that you misquoted because you relied on your memory. Slander cases have been filed and won on those grounds. Fortunately these are just discussions here, which is why I wonder at your getting so upset about a criticism from just another poster on the internet.
(As for being laughed out of court, what do you think your chances would be, if you were dragged into court for claiming that someone had said something he never said?)
In another thread (I think it was the Willie Horton one) you said (paraphrasing) you hadn't researched the facts of the case in many years, but.....
Do you routinely go back and research random old cases from time to time? Oh, I forgot! You have a vast library, I think you told someone else! I think that was you, but I haven't researched it!
You also responded to someone's question about Judicial Watch, claiming (again after admitting that you hadn't researched it) that it was your recollection that they filed over 1000 lawsuits against the Clinton administration. The reason I remember that one is because I replied to the same post, just below your reply, with the corrct number (it was, in fact 18, not 1000). I was tempted to jab you for throwing out a number without checking, and I resisted the urge. You were wrong there, and I had the "grace" to not poke at you over it.
So please, spare me your pity.
And your lectures.
Full disclosure: This post, originally at 7AM, has been edited, to include comments from Jer that I missed earlier.
motherbelt...I'll spare the
March 2, 2008 - 06:27 ET by Jermotherbelt...I'll spare the pity, but not the lecture. It is tedius...it is repetitive...but maybe the repetition of truth will eventually produce clarity--and put an end to the misinterpretation of my motives and mischaracterization of my words.
You continue to insist I misquoted Limbaugh ["you (referring to me) said Limbaugh had said something he didn't say..." emphasis yours]. Please read and pay very close attention to the following: I...was...not...quoting...Limbaugh. I...was...not...attempting...to...quote...Limbaugh. I, in fact, suggested to acumen that he could google the actual statements made by Rush. My sole purpose was to frame what, to the best of my recollection, were the political issues inherent in Rush's remarks.
Do I wish I had made it absolutely crystal clear that I was not rendering a verbatim replication of Limbaugh's statements about McNabb? Heavens yes! It will be to my everlasting regret that I did not. In all honesty, I thought it was obvious. But certainly in hindsight I wish I had added words like "implied claims" to my interpretative, and recollected, inferences of Limbaugh's commentary. Isn't it logical though that what acumen was actually seeking was my take on the political implications of the words. After all, acumen could have easily googled the quote. As it turned out, I assume he already was in possession of the quote, and was preparing to challenge my interpretation-- since I had previously alleged Rush had made controversial political comments concerning Donovan McNabb [while adding my hope that Keith Olbermann would not inject politics into his pre-NFL game sports show].
I posted earlier to you that--considering the four-year recollection--I thought my summarization of the contentious issues was remarkably accurate. You countered that it was "remarkably false". I suppose others will have to be the judge. But let me point out that inasmuch as Limbaugh had opined that (summarizing) McNabb had not been that good from the get-go, that he thought there was some social engineering in the league taking place, and the media was desirous that a black quarterback do well , my "affirmative action quarterback" inference seems pretty close to the mark. Those are the kind of inferences which are made practically every day on the NewsBusters blogs. Indeed, NewsBusters probably couldn't exist without them.
Consequently, please spare me the lectures about slander. Nothing I said even brushes the outer edges of actionable defamation. On the other hand, your false accusations about me reveal a far greater flirtation with that unsavory area of law. Did you even know the meaning of the word "dissembling" when you tarred me with it? Finally, weeks later and after repeated objections, you have mustered up the courage to admit it "probably wasn't the word to use." Thanks, motherbelt...not much of an apology, but I guess I should appreciate every little scrap.
A few closing notes:
--I don't even understand the relevance of your Willie Horton reference. As far as any putative claim of a "vast library"--if I have ever said anything like that--I can assure you it was tongue-in-cheek. I do recall mentioning that I have a fairly extensive Civil War library--I do--but, if you will explain your point, perhaps I can respond to your concerns.
--The "Judicial Watch 1000 lawsuits" claim: I haven't found the thread, but I think you may have nailed me on that one--because I believe I did say it. And it was a stupid, irresponsible remark which I wish you had called me on. Perhaps I was thinking of the total number of motions, notices, or legal filings of all kinds by Judicial Watch during the Clinton years (and the number may still have been incorrect), but 1000 lawsuits is laugbable and I'm embarrassed to have said it. In the future, please don't resist the urge to set me straight on something like that.
--I also appreciate your echoing the sentiment that I don't post hateful comments. That does mean a lot to me, and maybe it will augur a new era of cordiality between the two of us. Hope so.
Jer
Jer
March 2, 2008 - 06:47 ET by MrShyWow, do people really come back and post replies to week-old posts? With all these daily blogs and threads here, I can never catch up on what people might have posted to me even a day ago. Are you using "NewsBusters PLUS" ? "Turbo NewsBusters" ?? :p
oh, and, this just made me think:
...but maybe the repetition of truth will eventually produce clarity.
Sounds like the MSM playbook, only the wording would need to be slightly revised:
the repetition of fabricated "truth" will eventually produce perceived truth.
And boy, has it. Just look around. Bush is Hitler. We (man) have created global warming, which is fast upon us. The world hates us. Democrats are every-man and caring. Republicans are rich and racist. Etc..
Just a small sampling of the many new "truths" for this decade... and debate is futile.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Jer
February 23, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talk radio host typically being broadcast on conservative radio stations. He needn't reach across aisles, or pretend to be in any way impartial.
Olbermann and Maddow were commenting on a cable news network. Do you see any reason why they should be more impartial and balanced? Shouldn't there have been someone there to express a contrary viewpoint? Or, should MSNBC just admit to its viewers -- much like Rush does on a daily basis to his listeners, as do the stations that carry him -- that Olbermann and his guests are pols expressing exclusively one view, love it or leave it?
Honestly, why don't folks understand this? It's not rocket science: if MSNBC wants to be left-leaning, they should just be honest about it like every conservative talk radio host! ns
Noel...If I were capable of
February 23, 2008 - 22:55 ET by JerNoel...If I were capable of creating the perfect media world, it would incorporate perfect ideological balance. Television for example would have absolutely objective news anchors, editors, and producers heading the network news divisions, each with an equal number of liberal, conservative, and independent analysts and commentators. Augmenting the traditional commercial networks would be cable news outlets consisting of one all-liberal station, one all-conservative station, and one or more independent stations.
That perfect world will never be a reality. I'm certain that seventy-five years ago, FDR was chagrined that close to eighty per cent of the print media was Republican controlled, just as I am sure that you and your fellow conservatives are distressed by the leftward trending over the past several decades.
But that leftward shift, which I readily acknowledge, hasn't always inured to the benefit of the Democrats--at least not in direct proportion to the degree of liberal influence. I think "liberal" reporters sometimes feel the need to establish their bona fides by being tough on Democrats--even though they may not have voted for a Republican in their life. And Brent and Tim could write fifty books claiming the media were shills for the Clintons, and it would never convince me. The irony is the amazing lack of media support for the Clintons--particulary during Bill Clinton's presidency. They simply had no consistent, reliable sector of the media in their corner. The left-wing media was generally critical, the NYT was outright hostile towards Bill Clinton, the Washington establishment press corps held them in contempt, and the right-wing media displayed an unrelenting pathological hatred for both.
Regarding Olbermann: I'll say what I've said on at least three other occasions--It is incomprehensible that he and/or MSNBC would contend his is a straight news show, or that he is anything other than a liberal partisan.. I also wish he would invite guests with opposing viewpoints. On the other hand, MSNBC does have conservatives as part of their daily format...Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are both staunch conservatives--each with his own show.
Jer
If the NYT reported
February 24, 2008 - 00:59 ET by JerryIf the NYT reported negatively on Clinton, it was because they absolutely had no choice... there WERE NEGATIVE things to report on. Do you actually think President Bush would have survived ANY of the following:
- Illegal possession of over 1000 confidential FBI files. FYI, Nixon aide Chuck Colson spent a year in federal prison for illegal possession of ONE FBI file.
- Taking illegal campaign contributions from COMMUNIST government officials.
- Sexually harrassing a lowly secretary and LYING in court to deny her due process.
- Being accused of RAPE by a lifelong democrat during a tearful national tv interview.
- Lying to a federal judge, lying to congress, lying to the American people.
- Taking advantage of an employee his daughter's age, and don't give me this consentual bull. According to the feminists, any "superior / subordinate" relationship in the workplace is by definition sexual harassment due to the "power" position of the superior.
- Having your commerce secretary (Ron Brown) die in a mysterious plane crash before he could testify in the China-gate / weapon technology case.
- Having a top aide (Vince Foster) who knew all the ins and outs of your shady Whitewater dealings mysteriously commit suicide.
- Having your close business associate (Jim McDougal) in the Whitewater scheme mysteriously die in prison.
- Starting a non-UN sanctioned war with Iraq for the SOLE purpose of stalling the impeachment vote.
Compare the coverage alloted to these "indiscretions" with the month long 24/7 front page coverage of the "Foley Scandal". For a month or more, every lead story on every news report was the "Foley Scandal" and the "Culture of Corruption". All for sending inappropriate TEXT MESSAGES.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Let us ask the simple question
February 24, 2008 - 00:49 ET by KC MulvilleWhy should we look to be bipartisan?
This isn't a sandbox where the toddlers are taught to play nice. These guys have turned public affairs, of which all of us ought to be concerned, into a zero sum game played by expensive consultants. To try and work to some accommodation, you need to have some minimal level of trust that the others children will play fair. Conservatives, with very good reason, feel that liberals simply don't play fair.
Personally, I think liberals crossed a line during the Bork hearings. Until then, it was generally assumed that unless a SC nominee was a complete wretch, they'd be given a relatively fair hearing. The vote may have fell along party lines, but at least the hearing was fair. But conservatives feel that the hearing against Bork was atrocious, followed not long after by the Clarence Thomas travesty. (And remember, this is a conservative distrust, not just Republican -- after all, Bork's enemies were Kennedy, Biden, and Arlen Specter.) After that, conservatives agreed that we just don't trust the liberals anymore.
I will argue that a two-party system inevitably funnels all issues into hardened silos, thwarting rational compromise. We're lucky we've lasted as long as we did, but we now face a stalemate. (The attraction of Obama is that on the surface, he projects himself as closing that gap, but all of his proposals are hardened-silo liberalism.)
Yeah, sad as it might be ... so long as we retain a two party system, stalemate is inevitable. But as much as I want the stalemate to be resolved, I will not yield unless I trust the other side to do the same. Every chance the liberals get, they exploit compromise. We won't be fooled again. And if that means deadlock, so be it.
What do you say, Jer?
I agree, KC. I get so
February 24, 2008 - 11:26 ET by motherbeltI agree, KC. I get so tired of people saying they want the parties to stop arguing and do what's best for the country. The problem is that the parties have different ideas of what is best for the country.
I also think that we have to stop labelling those in the middle as "moderates." The are, in fact "swing voters." Liberals call Republicans who agree with them on some things "moderates." Isn't it funny that you seldom hear anyone described as a "moderate" Democrat? They are few and far between, because Democrats rarely, if ever, concede that Republicans have a point on anything.
I have a favorite quote from the late Michael Kelley, writing after the even split in the Senate, when Republicans agreed to practice bipartisanship; to share power with the Democrats. What he said (gauging the Democrats' response) was:
What we [Democrats] thought we'd do, in the spirit of bipartisanship, is this:
Whack you and whack you and whack you and whack you and whack you and when
we're tired of that, whack you some more.
He was absolutely correct, as are you, when you say they exploit every concession.
And to be clear
February 24, 2008 - 13:49 ET by KC MulvilleI make no exception for conservatives, either. We can point to plenty of examples of malicious narrowness.
My point is that we have to work and negotiate our way through these issues. We can't just avoid them and point fingers at those "evil" fill-in-the-blanks. Sometimes there are good reasons to fight. But mature adults can fight fair.
The movies have portrayed Congress as a forum where heroes can expound eternal truths, as if only political heroes can lead us to heaven. Everyone wants to be Jimmy Stewart, but that means they have to see everyone else as the corrupt Claude Raines. Screw that. We ought to see Congress as a market, where citizens haggle their way to rational compromise. If we all recognize that our fellow citizens have legitmate interests, and we feel that our interests are given fair consideration, then I don't mind good old-fashioned haggling.
That's got to work better than having 535 would-be messiahs, each treating the other 534 as Pilates and Judases.
Agreed, KC, both donkeys
February 24, 2008 - 17:04 ET by motherbeltAgreed, KC, both donkeys and elephants can be mules at times.
We could never have a "Mr. Smith" now. Mr. Smith would get to DC, the party leaders would have a "talk" with him and tell him what he needed to go along with if he ever expected to get anywhere, or on a commitee, or see any re-election money.
We need to get back to the "citizen government" that the Founders intended. Term limits would be a good start.
Olbermann, of the lunatic
February 23, 2008 - 21:02 ET by GregEOlbermann, of the lunatic fringe left having interviews with lunatic fringe leftists, while opening the segment by calling conservative talk show hosts "lunatic fringe" talkers. What a riot.
Had Einstein walked in the room, there would have been a complete trio of geniuses there. LOL
Mr. Olberman is a gnat
February 24, 2008 - 00:05 ET by Iowa BoyMr. Sheppard,
I appreciate that you watch "Countdown" so I don't have to. Though I worry for you. I have conversations with some people at work and I can literally feel my IQ start to fall the longer the conversation goes. You don't have to take that bullet for us. Mr. Limbaugh has more people listening to his show during a single quarter-hour than Mr. Olberman has viewers in a whole week of shows plus repeats. I would even wager there are more of us reading about the dumb things said on his show here than actually watch the show. We should be worried about him because...?
This is just me but, I'm thinking the less said or written about Mr. Olberman, the faster his ratings will fall and the quicker he'll be hosting a special on the Discovery Channel. I'm thinking as a fill-in for Mike Rowe on "Dirty Jobs" cleaning up all the bulls*** from a certain television studio in Seacaucus, NJ.
"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller