The Saturday New York Times story on Rush Limbaugh’s eBay auction misconstrued his "phony soldiers" comment in the opening – and mysteriously, allowed Limbaugh to make his point about how it was a literal meaning about men who falsified a combat history, in paragraph 12. Stephanie Strom’s story began:
After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as "phony soldiers," he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators. He decided to auction the letter, which he described as "this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance," for charity, and he pledged to match the price, dollar for dollar.
Later in the piece, Strom added context, quoting Harry Reid, but only vaguely summarizing Limbaugh, without even using names like "Jesse Macbeth."
He predicted that the sale’s success would anger one signer of the letter, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, whom Mr. Limbaugh calls Dingy Harry.
But in a statement on the floor of the Senate on Friday, Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, praised the auction. "I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people," he said.
Dated Oct. 7, the letter read: "Although Americans of good will debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as ‘phony soldiers’ is such an outrage."
Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was referring only to one soldier, who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army, never seeing combat.
The brief story ends strangely. I’m not a lawyer, but it strikes me as weird that the Casey foundation’s donation to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation can’t be tax-exempt:
Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees charities and foundations, said the Casey foundation might incur taxes on its purchase because it would have difficulty demonstrating that buying the letter furthered a charitable purpose. "They’d have to establish the link between the transfer of money for that letter and promoting free speech," Mr. Owens said, "and that’s going to be tough."
I have no doubt that Owens has expertise, but he's also had liberal clients since leaving IRS, including a liberal Episcopal church and the NAACP.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rush Mentioned This Gal
October 20, 2007 - 15:42 ET by allanfRush Limbaugh briefly mentioned on Friday that this reporterette had called. He said he decided not to speak to her after reviewing her publication history.
Well I'm not a tax accountant, but it seems like the Times is trying to gin up trouble for Casey and Limbaugh with the quote:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs
October 20, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Khyrishttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/18/bid-sen-reids-rush-limbaugh-smear-letter-approaches-1-million#comment-459628
http://newsbusters.org/forums/latest-news/nyt-still-perpetuating-limbaugh-smear-16496
Check this out
October 20, 2007 - 16:03 ET by JeffWeimerComments From Left Field has a different take:
http://commentsfroml...
They posit the Times was too soft on Limbaugh, fawning even. They actually believe the NYT is in the pocket of the Right Wing Smear Machine (RWSM)! After all, it is from LEFT field.
I took them to task in the comments, and got patronized in return.
Can not hide it
October 20, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Jerry MackIt will be a shocking occasion when the NYT reports the facts about Rush in any article.
There is no way the left will allow Limbaugh's victory to stand
October 20, 2007 - 16:48 ET by RJIt was immediately obvious last Friday when Reid made his sleezy claim of part ownership in the charitable donation.
I posted then that his staff was undoubtedly contacting their MSM and leftist organizations to make sure they spun the story the way he wanted. Sure enough, they're determined to confuse the public about exactly what happened.
Just the latest example that DemocRATs are a disgusting group of people.....
Marine Children are not tax deductable for charity huh
October 20, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Lame CherryThe New York Times reporterette had really better THINK a little and her editor should PONDER ALLOT when trying to impune the United States Marine charities which benefits the children of those who die in service to America.
I know no one at the IRS is that base to ever start a fiasco like that as in all honesty the IRS employees have a crapper job just doing their job. It would be highly fun though now for Mr. Limbaugh to PLEASE LIST ON MONDAY TO THE RED CENT how much these 41 communist senators have given to any military charity.
Oh the Times and family in enclave Red Long Island.......or is that now Blue Long Island and Blue Square at the Kremlin to US Military charities.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
That letter is evidence of
October 20, 2007 - 17:13 ET by robert108That letter is evidence of abuse of power by Harry Reid, and Rush said so. Don't expect the MSM to report on that part of it.
"I strongly believe that
October 20, 2007 - 19:40 ET by motherbelt"I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even
Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish
good things for the American people," he said. - Sen. Reid
Come on, Harry, please explain to us how you and Rush "put our differences aside" to do this.....tell us about how the two of you talked and agreed to work together on this.....
(crickets chirping)
Reid reminds me of that slinky guy in Seinfeld, that worked with Elaine. He would disappear when the work was given out, then after Elaine did all the work, he would magically appear right up next to her, just as Peterman was praising the work, and Peterman would say "good job, both of you!"
Tim, this is what Columbia Journalism School Produces.
October 20, 2007 - 20:34 ET by acaiguanaA perfect example of poor writing and bias.
"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as "phony soldiers," he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators."
"After Rush ... referred to Iraq war veterns critical of the war..."
Nope.
He referred to one veteran. That would not be plural.
He referred to a veteran who was NOT an Iraqi war veteran. That would be an incorrect representation of what Rush did and therefore an editorial representation of a fact that was even not a fact. (Hint: Facts are true thingys.)
Warning to all mothers out there. Do not let your children around Stephanie Strom, she cannot connect with the real world; she doesn't know what a fact is and therefore will confuse your kids beyond help.
He didn't receive any letter. His syndicator received the letter. The implication was that since the Senate (as a body politic and embodied in the Constitution of the United States) was pretty much tied into this silly agency called the Federal Communications Commission (which pretty much rules the airwaves) that Mr. Mays better shape up and ship Rush OUT.
Having said all of this.
I would never have allowed this writer to walk across any stage.
Nor would I have let her take her diploma without proving she could read it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
He referred to one veteran....
October 20, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Jer"He referred to one veteran...."
I think that's still an open question. He did cite only one example at the time, and he later claimed to be only referring to Macbeth, but the fact that Limbaugh used the plural [phony soldiers] when responding to, and contrasting, the caller's description of true soldiers as those wanting, among other things, to be in Iraq, and the fact that Rush in a subsequent show on the subject added Murtha to the list of phony soldiers, raise other legitimate inferences about who and what he meant when the words were first spoken. [None of which justified the overraction of the Democrats however.]
Jer
Kinda reaching there aren't ya Jer?
October 20, 2007 - 21:24 ET by acaiguanaI heard the whole show, twice, and I have a hard time nuancing the written transcript and the issue of various 'phony soldiers'.
There have been more than one touted out by the MSM and if you go to Rush's site, he documents clearly all of the ones he is aware of and he also referenced them on the show.
So, if you are clinging to the idea that it is OK for the MSM to hold up a guy who actually spent time in the stockade for lying about being.
1. An Army Ranger.
2. Serving in Iraq.
3. Watching American troops kill innocent civilians with abandon.
...
And then on top of this silliness, accuse Rush of painting all soldiers against the war (and I know some and I know a lot more who were against the Viet Nam War) which Rush did not do;
and I am one of those who believe that a person of principle, especially one who is a real combat veteran who served in the theater referenced, can oppose any war they fought in if that is their wish.
However in this case, I believe that the 'context' is warped, out of place with transmutting the truth of the issues involed in the matter and a blatant attempt to steal away from the fact that this slimey piece of snail trail was in any way indicitive of our fighting brothers in arms.
But I guess that is just me.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA, no argument about
October 20, 2007 - 21:57 ET by JerACA, no argument about Macbeth, who is a complete phony and disgraceful fraud....I didn't hear the broadcast, but I have read the transcripts several times, and I don't think the view that Limbaugh's phrase wasn't limited to just Macbeth [and Macbeth's brand of 'phoniness'] can be summarily dismissed.
But the parsing becomes so intricate that it was stupid for the Dems to try and make a federal case out of it.
Jer
Jer, sorry, don't have time to really discuss all of this... ACA
October 20, 2007 - 22:11 ET by acaiguanaI'm sorry I don't have the time to stay and play. My bad.
But you seriously miss the point of Rush's auction and the intrinsic value of the letter. The issue is the abuse of power by a political party that happens to hold a majority in the Senate of the United States.
That would be the attempted intimidation of a private broadcast personality who is not a politician (yes, yes he is a political animal) but who is no more than an editorial writer would be in a comprable (and there ain't no comparison, right?) newspaper by actually passing a resolution and writing a letter to his 'boss' to get him fired.
There are telling symptoms here.
Rush has no 'boss'. Therefore the Democrats show they don't understand the workings of capitalism or the marketplace. Rush's market is the arena of ideas.
The Democrats show their trust in the 'big fist' of government, e.g. the FCC to intimidate speech.
QED
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca, damn, you're just no fun anymore.
October 20, 2007 - 22:16 ET by Dave RBut glad to see you back in here just the same, even if it is for a brief moment.
Just real quickly, if those
October 20, 2007 - 22:16 ET by balboaJust real quickly, if those who signed believed in the FCC, they would have petitioned them instead, right?
This letter was stupid grandstanding by the dem senators. It gets old.
Well, ACA, now you're
October 20, 2007 - 22:17 ET by JerWell, ACA, now you're raising some much larger issues. Maybe we can discuss them another time.
Later, Jer
This is another example of
October 21, 2007 - 09:27 ET by robert108This is another example of Dem arrogance that blew up in their faces, like the "Betrayus" ad in the NYT. I think they should keep telling the truth about who they really are: neocommunists who want to destroy everything America stands for.
Even FoxNews botched the
October 21, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Chris NormanEven FoxNews botched the facts of this story, reporting Rush criticized all war critics in the military as "phony soldiers" on Friday night's Fox Report. Saturday, the set up for a discussion on Fox News Live, muddled the facts yet again. None of the media get it (or want to).
Chris -- Kilmead,
October 21, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Jack BauerChris -- Kilmead, Doocy and the gang on Fox and Friends certainly got it last week.
They ran the story a coulpe of times thru the week, and were bang on Rush's side.
Jack,
October 21, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Chris NormanYeah, I think this shows the disconnect between talk shows on FoxNews and their regular news coverage. Despite the accusations by Liberals, the FoxNews staff aren't all that conservative, especially the regular reporters and news anchors, as has been demonstrated here, on NBs.
Questions for Harry Reid
October 22, 2007 - 08:58 ET by MikeHarry Reid can't have it both ways. He went to the floor of the Senate and asked Rush's boss to take care of him, and that was followed by Tom Harkin making fun of his addiction. He sent the letter to Mark Mays, not to Rush, and he had no idea it would get to Rush. If any reporter has a chance to ask Harry Reid questions, I would stick to this topic for an hour and watch him squirm.
1) On Friday you spoke of the money be raised by Rush for a charity that he sits on the board of, and you used the term "we", who are the "we" that you are referring to?
2) If you knew Rush was going to get the letter, why did you waste the time and send it to his boss?
3) If you knew that it was going to be auctioned off, and make a good amount of money, and you are such a great leader, why did you not take the time to get all of the signatures of the Senators, as according to you that would have added value to the letter?
4) If it was not an abuse of power, why did no Republican's sign the letter?
5) How much have you donated to this cause, other than the taxpayer time wasted on the floor of the Senate?
6) Was Rush a partner to this when you called him un-patriotic?
7) Now that it is over, and you have helped raise so much money, can you apologize for taking his words out of context to make money for a great charity?
He is so full of it, It makes me sick that more people do not know what he and the 41other Senators did to a private citizen to tryu to silence him. This should blow up in his face more than the rest of his 11% approval as the leader of the Senate.