On Wednesday, part one of Sean Hannity's interview with Rush Limbaugh was aired on the Fox News Channel, and amongst other things, they discussed a term the conservative talk radio host coined years ago:
The Drive-By Media. It's a like a drive-by shooter except the microphones are the guns, and they drive into groups of people they report a bunch of totally wrong libelous stuff about people. They create a giant mess. Sometimes people get really harmed. They go out and try to destroy people's careers. Then they get in the convertible, head on down the road and do it all over again, while people like you and me are left to clean up the mess with the truth. So I call them the Drive-By Media.
As Hannity chuckled, Limbaugh elaborated (partial video embedded below the fold, full transcript and video available here):
While they are praising Obama at that Grant Park acceptance night, they're out in Denver when he accepted the nomination, I listened to Jon Meacham and somebody else at Newsweek say, "You know, this is creepy. It's creepy! It's like he ascends after the speech and watches us watching him." They call him "creepy" for a few brief moments, but yet at the same time he's The Second Coming. Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw one night on Charlie Rose's show, I think in preparation for the fact that they don't know what he's going to do either, got into a long discussion about how neither one of them know him. "Well, I don't know who he is," Tom said. "I don't know what books he's read. I really don't know who his role models are." Charlie Rose is echoing the same sentiment. I'm shouting at the TV, "Tom, you're at NBC! Dispatch a reporter! It's your job! Find out who he is." They didn't. They only cared... See, Sean, they've got an investment. He's too big to fail. They wanted him elected because they wanted to reassert their power, the media here, in being able to sway public opinion to the result that they wanted. So they were going to cover up the Jeremiah Wright and all these things that give indication of radicalism of Obama. Cover that up. Portray him as he wants to be portrayed: somebody who's not to be questioned, somebody who's not to be doubted.
We're just supposed to accept and trust because most of these guys came alive and came of age in the civil rights battles of the 60's. It defines who they are. They've trained the young Drive-Bys to look at events through the same prism. You know, racism in this country is the exclusive problems of the left. We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds; that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever; because his father was black, because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this. The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign. So I think they've done a great job, the media has, of covering up his deficiencies. He's too big to fail, and so whatever goes wrong, blame it on Bush, blame it on... I mean, MSNBC's new life will be criticizing you and me, because they can't criticize him.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rush has a very good
January 22, 2009 - 16:46 ET by SpaceManSpiffRush has a very good point. With Bush gone, the only villain remaining for the Left/Liberals to bash will be any conservative outlet, with media being the largest. They'll try to finalize a monopoly on information.
I wish Rush was on tv
January 22, 2009 - 16:52 ET by obxrayI wish Rush was on tv everyday but I know he hates to deal with all the crap that comes with it.He explaind things better than anyone in the elected gop.
Sad, So Sad
January 22, 2009 - 18:39 ET by CaringwhiteguyIt's terribly unfortunate, and very bad for this country, that most people who blog on this website explain things better than anyone in the elected GOP. While Rush is in a class by himself, the saddest thing of all is that most of the elected GOP CAN explain these things.
They either don't believe in the same principles we do or lack the cojones. (see the Norah O'Donnell thread from yesterday.)
Rush Is Correct
January 22, 2009 - 17:05 ET by The Smokin FrogRush is terrific and absolutely correct. The left are the ones that keep certain groups in 'their place' by the policies and laws that they pass. They keep them needing a hand out. Conservatives recognize this for what it is: racism. Rush is the left's favorite whipping boy because he says exactly what they are and what they do. Rush and many of us that have not folded to the marching orders of the Obama cheerleaders, the media, will continue to speak out against Obama's apparent redefining of America. He can name all the founding fathers he wants, but he is no where near them. He is the first president that got elected about 'nothing'. He reminds me of Mao Tse Tung and his Great Leap Forward.
the Rush is on
January 22, 2009 - 17:26 ET by soosanI've been catching bits and pieces of his show this week and he's on a roll. I'm not one of those daily listeners (though years ago I could) but every once in awhile the guy is really provocative. What I enjoy most is the left's reaction to him. He's not nearly as mean-spirited in his criticism of the incoming president as the media has been of President Bush. My kids fear him even though they've never listened to a whole show. Go figure.
el rushbo
January 22, 2009 - 18:27 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby I like Rush because he is the only one that agrees with me, thinks like I do. How did the drive-by-media( former national inquirer writers) get so hatefull of the people? I never listen to NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC or read any newspapers. FOX is the only one that reports the news instead of making it up. I'm not a ass or an elephant- I'm an AMERICAN.
Dittos!!!!!!!!!
January 22, 2009 - 20:04 ET by CapeCodScottThe Drive By's just don't get it...I don't Listen to Rush because I agree with him, I listen to Rush because HE AGREES WITH ME!
Vox Conservare (a Latin/Roman combo that means Voice of the Conservative) That's what Rush is, the voice
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
Rush is correct.
January 22, 2009 - 19:30 ET by attorneygirlRush is 100% correct on this one.
I share his opinion.
That was a good interview,
January 22, 2009 - 19:36 ET by RR GOPThat was a good interview, and I look forward to seeing the rest.
Rush is an intelligent man who rationally explains his ideas, and backs them up with logic and other stuff the Libs don't get-like historical precedent, figures, data, you know, all that cold heartless stuff that shows why their BS just doesn't work.
Of course, the only time the MSM mentions him is when he says something outrageous (as commentators will do to make a point or to satirize something) or if he (dares to) get upset about some Commie nonsense or another.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Wanna know why Rush Limbaugh
January 22, 2009 - 20:01 ET by mostlymoderateWanna know why Rush Limbaugh makes so much money every year? Because he makes more sense than all of the GOP and Democratic politicians COMBINED!
There are fundamental principles in which this country was not only founded, but how this country prospered. The democratic party wants to VOID every one of those fundamental assertions. We cannot allow everyone in this country to become reliant on the government. If we do, capitalism will be dead and China will become more democratic than the United States. How is that for irony?
Sorry, but Rush was wrong...
January 22, 2009 - 21:07 ET by JerIt is one thing to possess philosophical, ideological, and political differences with an incoming administration, and to explain and express those differences often and emphatically.
But for someone [who can sit at his $30,000,000 Palm Beach estate, smoke cigars, and collect his $3,000,000+ per month paycheck, while there are millions of his less fortunate fellow Americans facing unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptsy in these very perilous economic times] to proclaim about a just-inaugurated President: "I hope he fails" is, to say the least, somewhat galling.
I am not comparing or critiquing economic theory or monetary policy, and certainly not questioning Limbaugh's right to complain, daily and publicly. Hypothetically, Rush's analysis may be correct, his approach more effective, with positive results more likely and longer lasting. But, we have a President who has put together an economic team whose members are widely respected, eminently qualified, and hardly a collection of radical socialists. They will try their best. Let's hope they succeed.
One can only imagine if the editors of the Wall Street Journal had in March of 1933, during the midst of the Great Depression, upon the swearing in of FDR had headlined "WE HOPE HE FAILS!" That probably would have been the final headline of the WSJ. But Rush will survive and prosper.
Jer
Sorry, but you've taken that quote...
January 22, 2009 - 21:26 ET by gazakerout of context. I think I can more correctly paraphrase Rush by saying, he hopes the policies he disagrees with fail. As many on the left did with the surge in Iraq. The difference is that the left was wrong and Rush is right.
Also, don't hate Rush for his success. He's is "American exceptionalism" in action. Everyone should be following Rush's example by doing the very best they can with talents God has given them.
gazaker: Limbaugh and the cost of failure
January 24, 2009 - 06:16 ET by Jergazaker...
I understand your point, and, having read Rush's full commentary, believe I also understand the context of his argument as well. But let's consider your Iraqi surge analogy, and let's further assume that the failure of that strategy would have meant hundreds and perhaps thousands of deaths of US troops, a full-fledged sectarian civil war, and the total collapse of the Iraqi government. Do you believe in light of that possible [perhaps hypothetical] cataclysmic outcome it would have been appropriate for the "left" to HOPE for the "surge" policy to FAIL? Even if the critics on the left had good faith doubts about the wisdom of the policy? Rigorous scrutiny is one thing. So is honest dialogue. But actively and publicly yearning for failure is quite another.
That's the problem I have with Limbaugh's words. I don't begrudge his success. I don't agree with most of his views, or at least the manner in which he expresses them, but he has worked for his money, and his employers believe he is worth every nickel. So be it. That's capitalism. But this country could go into a depression that would make the 1930's look like a picnic, and Rush most likely needn't even blink [at least in the sense that his personal balance sheet would be largely unaffected--and assuming of course he had engaged in just the most basic financial planning]. However, if the new administration's economic policies fail, there will be tens of millions of ordinary Americans--who even now are just a few paychecks away from disaster--plunged into financial ruin.
Obama hasn't hired a bunch of Marxists or amateurish socialist hacks to engineer a recovery. These are highly respected, extremely talented, and very experienced individuals who are dedicated to getting the American economy back on track. You and Rush and most of his audience may vigorously disagree with the approach recommended by his advisors. Fine, disagree...suggest and debate alternatives. But, in the end, there will be policies enacted, and very likely not the ones you--or perhaps even I--would have preferred. (In fact, the proposed stimulus package is already being taken to task by both the right and the left.) However, the consequences should be considered before announcing--on the very day the new President is sworn in--"I hope he fails". Such failure might not affect Rush, and it might even ensure a Republican presidency again in four years, but, in the meantime, the cost and damage to the average American would be enormous.
Jer
Your analysis is flawed
January 24, 2009 - 08:22 ET by JWFlet's further assume that the failure of that strategy would have meant hundreds and perhaps thousands of deaths of US troops, a full-fledged sectarian civil war, and the total collapse of the Iraqi government.
1. There could be no civil war. The populations of the Shiite's and Suni's are interspersed with each other. Much like our liberals and rational peoples are interspersed. To have a civil war, you need DEFINED territories.
2. Since there could be no civil war, there can be no additiona hundreds or thousands more of our troops killed.
3. If the Iraqi government were to collapse (at least at that time), it would not have been that big a deal. WE WERE STILL THERE. The U.S would assume operational control just like we did in 2003.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Good evening Jer
January 22, 2009 - 21:30 ET by cocodrieYou're quoting out of context again.
Why don't you give all your money to the poor.
When The Chosen One gets through with us we'll all be poor.
Jesus Loves You
You're not listening to what
January 22, 2009 - 21:33 ET by mostlymoderateYou're not listening to what Rush is saying. You have taken the whole thing out of its intended context. Let me try to make this easier for you:
1. Obama wants socialist policies
2. If Obama is "successful" at enacting these socialist policies, the United States will go to hell in a handbag.
3. Therefore, Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama is "NOT" successful in doing what he "wants" to do.
You one typed a soundbite...
January 22, 2009 - 21:36 ET by Deskpilotnot the whole context of his idea. Rush's hope for failure was specifically addressing the liberalistic, socialist, tax and spend ideas that he is certain that Obama is bringing to America. It's those ideas and plans he hope that fail, and fail miserably.
Ideas that are good for the country as a whole, he is willing to support, like lower taxes, government getting out of the way, not directing Americans; proper regulation of industry, and not regulating for the sake of regulating just to expand the size and power of government.
-------
We have way too many laws on the book. There are lots of criminals, only because the complexity of the law is too great to comprehend, who are also taxpayers and employers, and good and decent men and women. If we had to have all the governement lawyers necessary to prosecute all the white collar criminals, whose only crime was that there wasn't enough years of life to know and comply with all the laws, imagine that tax burden. Once you lock 'em up, they're no longer collecting a pay check, their small businesses fail, tax paying employees are laid off, and corporate taxes stop flowing in to local, state, and federal governments. Meanwhile, the $2,000 federal lawyers are draining the General Fund, and no one is employed to refill it.
On the other hand, if government got out of the way, implemented, revised, or purged useless regulations, businessmen and women, both large and small, can prosper and hire more people. More people working = more tax revenue. The right laws and regulations would surely ferret out the real criminals and get them out of the way.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
Rush's income is a contractual...
January 22, 2009 - 21:59 ET by Deskpilotmatter between he and ClearChannel, his show's syndicator.
With a daily audience of over 20 million, radios around the country are tuned in. Those radio stations, and the network, advertise goods and services that businees are willing to pay BIG advertising dollars for. Look what happened to a small company named Snapple when they were advertising on his show. Theygew, hired more people, sold more product than could ever have dreamed of.
ClearChannel is making a business decision to pay Rush that much because he is successful at doing what they need him to do, bring an audience. Do you take the same snide toll upon the television networks when they charge $4M for a 30 second "Big Game" (can't us the S*%#@ Bowl word for fear of NFL lawyers)commercial? I think not. If you want to get your message out, you have to find the right audience. and then pay for that exposure.
If Rush didn't produce a show that could generate such a huge audience, he wouldn't be paid that kind of money. His contract is what is RIGHT with America. You may think it excessive, but that's ClearChannels problem. If Rush ever becomes an elected official (we need him where is is, and not silenced), his now private tax returns would show ridiculous amounts of donations to charities.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101907/content/01125110.guest.html
He is exchanging his, "Talent on loan from God," his voice, for advertising space. isn't that the arrangement you have with your employer? It is with me and mine, and I'm a government employee, who likes my job. in fact, I approached my employer and asked them hire me for the talent that I have and they did not. I am doing my small part in the governemtns transportation sector to decongest our highways by helping engineers, who are way smarter than me, better understand, outside of formulas and theories, what drivers are doing, and I get my points across better than anyone, because my creative talent allowed me to find and outlet that can use them, and employe them to a benefit of all.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome
- Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
!!HAHOHOHA!!
January 22, 2009 - 22:03 ET by kilrodAw man Jer, i caint quit laughing, you made my day!!
( "But, we have a President who has put together an economic team whose members are widely respected, eminently qualified, and hardly a collection of radical socialists." )
If you happen to survive whats a coming i bet you wind up matured, wiser and a conservative.!! Thanks for the laugh.!!~~!!
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Keep laughing, kilrod...
January 22, 2009 - 22:14 ET by JerKeep laughing, kilrod...
And then PM Noel and tell him what a joke HE is--since he has said virtually the same thing about Obama's economic team.
Jer
(GRINS)
January 22, 2009 - 23:12 ET by kilrodI'm still laughin, but why would i want to pm Noel?? My opinion is my opinion and i find what you said comical, as in the tax cheat for Treas. Sec..!!~~!!
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
"...but why would i want to
January 22, 2009 - 23:20 ET by Jer"...but why would i want to pm Noel??...."
Presumably to advise Noel how laughable HIS opinion is, so that maybe he will reconsider it.
Jer
You are starting to miss your "K"'s again.........
January 23, 2009 - 05:32 ET by old croPlagerism is a bad thing. You did not give credit to Noel when you first made the statement, you cannot assign blame after. Having read Noel's posts at this site, and stating "I can't speak for Noel", I am sure the comment came about "before" any serious investigation into the character of this "police line-up" group of nominees were introduced. He also may have said it in a spirit of bipartisanship, a word that has meaning to conservatives but is just a shiboleth to liberals, like yourself.
Normally, I wouldn't bother
January 23, 2009 - 17:59 ET by JerNormally, I wouldn't bother to respond to an insulting, juvenile, moronic post such as yours. But, inasmuch as you raise the issue of my reference to Noel's views regarding Obama's economic team, let me just make it clear that those were MY words which I used to describe the composition of the team. However, Noel has indicated that he agreed with those [including many Republican commentators] who have given Obama high marks for the quality, capability and expertise of the individuals selected. If he has changed his opinion, I am not aware of it.
Jer
Please........
January 24, 2009 - 04:12 ET by old crodon't bother.
Please.... Why don't you
January 24, 2009 - 06:36 ET by JerPlease....
Why don't you run along to some website where you can name-call and falsely accuse people of things you can't even spell. You're not exactly one of the shining lights of NewsBusters.
Jer
It is not my desire.......
January 25, 2009 - 04:08 ET by old croto be a "shining light" on this site. I only come here to jer people off when I disagree with their idiotic philosophy. You are probably suffering from to much glare because you are surely a star. In fact, years ago, Steve Martin starred in a movie that had you on the marque in big letters called "The Jer ".
Perhaps
January 23, 2009 - 08:35 ET by kilrod(GRINS) Perhaps you presume too much Jer.!!~~!! (GRINS)
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Sorry Jer.....
January 22, 2009 - 22:59 ET by BlondeCan't go with you on this one.
Rush is spot on. I hope HE (his policies) fails.
So do I...and every other conservative here feels the same way.
Obama wants to take from us, and dole it back in little dribs and drabs....if you think we're going to sit still for this, guess again.
Blonde... Can't win 'em
January 22, 2009 - 23:13 ET by JerBlonde...
Can't win 'em all. I still appreciate your going "with me" the other day. :-)
Jer
By the way, Blonde... If
January 23, 2009 - 00:26 ET by JerBy the way, Blonde...
If you or anyone else can provide a reference where a major liberal pundit or publication stated on the day Bush first took office "I HOPE HE FAILS", I'll eat it [as long as it's in edible form and taste like Reese's]. :-)
Jer
I do not have the resourses to find........
January 23, 2009 - 05:43 ET by old crowhat you seek. Nor do I intend to spend my time researching your quest. Just pick up any newspaper or puplication from the last 8 years and read it. You will find infinate examples of the left hoping, wishing, demanding and prophesying for president Bush to fail.
Rush.....
January 22, 2009 - 21:09 ET by AnotherFedUpOne........"I have yet to see a Happy Liberal!"
Funny....Rush is so right about how the Left is wanting to take away others rights and pleasures...and making the sheeple dependent on Gubment..
With all due respect, I
January 22, 2009 - 22:10 ET by JerWith all due respect, I believe it is MY words which are being taken out of context. [I had read the entirety of Rush's "I hope he fails" speech transcribed at his website prior to posting.]
Again, I am not debating the merits of Rush's economic philosophy--there is probably more of it with which I agree than disagree.
But his four-word summation--the headline, so to speak--"I Hope He Fails" is simply sending the wrong message at the wrong time. And, even Noel--who probably possesses the sharpest financial mind around NB, and is not exactly a radical leftist--has praised Obama's economic team.
Jer
Make distinctions
January 23, 2009 - 00:38 ET by KC MulvilleLet's face it - the question "Do you want Obama to succeed?" is horribly vague and ambiguous.
It's a "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" question, because it embeds multiple assertions, without giving me the ability to answer each assertion separately.
I'll argue, Jer, that you're helping me make my point. When you say that you might even agree with the majority of what Rush says, but it sends the wrong message ... you're implictly agreeing that the media has bundled the country's welfare with Obama's. And that's simply wrong.
Gosh, KC... I just hate it
January 23, 2009 - 01:36 ET by JerGosh, KC...
I just hate it when I make points for the "other side". But, I'm not willing to make that concession just yet. I'll argue it was Rush's failure to make distinctions and nuance his message by the issuance of his 4-word line-in-the -sand proclamation: I HOPE HE FAILS that consumes the small print contained in his thesis and poisons his argument.
Your statement about the 'media bundling the country's welfare with Obama' is not only astute, but one with which I don't disagree--implicitly or otherwise. They have abdicated an important role and responsibility, and I hope [and expect] their more traditional obligations will be soon reasserted. But I see a rather gaping distinction between the fulfillment of that role and Limbaugh's untimely and inappropriate (IMO) remark.
Jer
Rush didn't make the distinction either
January 23, 2009 - 02:26 ET by KC MulvilleWhat?! Are you insane? I ... uh ... OK, that happens to be true.
Fair point.
Drive By Jer drops a liberal bomb
January 23, 2009 - 02:46 ET by JWFSeems to be a common thread with Jer. Jer drops some little liberal bomb and then after getting round robined with replies, claims that "(whine) You guys misunderstood what I said (sniff) Please reread and reread again then reread what I said one more time (sniff)"
Jer hates me for 2 things I say on a constant basis -
1. Jer stands for everything that goes against the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Jer: "but, but, but the left loves those two documents also" Which leads me to...
2. I tell Jer "no". No, the left does not. No, you can not have that. No, you can not have the lollypop. Then I leave the room and Jer asks the mommy democrats, and they give it to him.
while there are millions of his less fortunate fellow Americans facing unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptsy in these very perilous economic times
NO! It is not his job to help the less fortunate. It is not my job. It is not the GOVERNMENTS JOB. You are less fortunate. GET A JOB. Get 2 jobs, cuz hey, you don't have much to do in your free time seeing as how you cannot afford a tv, or cable, or heat in your cold house. READ THE CONSTITUTION JER! It is not our job to take care of the less fortunate.
I hope President Obama fails too. I hope YOU fail Jer. Ohhh, I am so mean. You would think I called him a monkey, or hitler, or McChimpy, or a tyrant, or darth vader, or whatever else has been thrown out there for the last 8 years.
Ok, I am ready. I will now reread your post because I did not understand what you wrote, right? All the little bytes got scrambled on teh interwebs and now it looks like something different.
Or maybe you want me to do some googling research for you while I am in the bathroom with my laptop.
Sincerely,
A guy that always seems to take Jer's words out of context cuz hey Jer is just too smart, liberal, and elite fer me.
Agreed....
January 23, 2009 - 05:46 ET by old cro.