« The Coming Gay Republican Schism?
Book Review: ‘Hitler’s Empire.’ He Was Good At War But Lousy At Governing »
Conservative Talk Show Hosts: Obama Had Little Or Nothing To Do With Rescued American Captain’s Rescue
While the vast majority of Americans of both parties, no party, conservatives, liberals and moderates came together yesterday to breathe one huge sigh of relief that U.S. Navy Seals had rescued Capt. Richard Phillips from the hands of pirates in a lifeboat off the Somali coast — and feel a sense of national pride — one segment of Americans was going on the attack:
Some conservative radio talk show hosts.
I got to monitor nearly 9 hours of weekend talk radio yesterday in a drive from Las Vegas to my home in San Diego — a trip longer than usual due to snail-paced Easter traffic. And most of the shows were not pretty as hosts expressed joy at the rescue but were on the direct or indirect attack against President Barack Obama.
If it hasn’t become clear in recent weeks, the reaction of these hosts made it clear: conservative talk radio has not just jumped the shark, it has jumped the pirate’s mast.
According to the AP, Obama did have a little to do with the events that unfolded:
President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration officials said after Sunday’s rescue.
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
But on several shows from various cities (some local talk show hosts and national ones) these are some of the things listeners were told:
*An L.A. host said Obama really had little or nothing to do with the Navy’s action. The host said his sources said the Navy captain had standing orders to do what he needed to to save Phillips. He told listeners to ignore “some reports” that were coming out. It was clearly a reference to the above AP report — the implication being that it was inaccurate, a lie or just the administration trying to grab credit.
*The Navy was decisive and all Obama was doing was getting bogged down in jurisdictional matters – -dithering, and the Navy, in effect, acted when he wouldn’t. (The full story is not out yet, but most reports suggest close coordination between the Navy and Marines in the field, the Defense Department, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, with the White House solidly backing military contingency plans)
*Obama merely wants to bring the captured 16 year old pirate back to be tried in the U.S. so the ACLU and other groups will get the justice system to go easy on him.
*Obama dragged his heels on this issue for days and it was only the Navy that responded in a decisive way — in effect dragging Obama along as it took the initiative.
*It was a “great victory for the Navy” and “indirectly a victory for Barack Hussein Obama.” This national weekend host repeatedly referred to Obama’s middle name.
On Saturday, driving to Las Vegas before the rescue, I listened to about 6 hours of conservative talk. Some were live shows and some canned reruns from the previous week. Conservative talkers were then lambasting Obama for not doing anything about the crisis, not using the Navy and not using the Navy Seals. Obama was sending a signal to the world that he was weak, to pirates that he was a pushover, was seemingly afraid to use U.S. military might, was indecisive…
It’ll be most interesting to see how conservative talkers handle this story today. Question: Must EVERY, single issue be turned into a raging diatribe against the guy who beat their candidate for President?
Talk radio has had an explosive growth in the U.S. and still gets great ratings in most markets — that is, except for most progressive talk, which you can find if you hire a private detective (and then it’s iffy).
But now conservative talk has gone to a new level or, perhaps, a new depth. It’s no longer just predictable in the ideas but in its consistent TONE which is invariably angry, demonizing and dismissive of anyone who doesn’t totally agree with the talk radio political culture conventional wisdom. It is increasingly lacking idea content and becoming a seeming nonstop grudge fest.
Conservative talkers are heavily promoting the “Tea Parties” on Tax Day — parties patterned after the historical Boston Tea Party.
But conservative talk is becoming so predictable now in tone and content that if this trend continues, the event that may most represent today’s over caffeinated version of conservatism may not be a Tea Party — but Custard’s Last Stand.
93 Responses to “Conservative Talk Show Hosts: Obama Had Little Or Nothing To Do With Rescued American Captain’s Rescue”
I have to go to my pathetic part-time job, but I just want to say, since T-Steel wanted comment, that I am really very badly confused by this threading system. I know it's supposed to make things easier, but I don't understand how it works at all. I'm having more trouble matching my or others' comments to the replies made to them than I did before.
Sorry to be a downer.
CStanley–
So, you've done the same thing Polimom did?
You've done the same thing you've spent this entire thread complaining about?
Only you put actual numbers to yours?
How is what you did any different?
The problem with calling a spade a spade is that implies both entities are spades. By and large, Olberman has backed up his assertions with facts, links to sources, etc. He has sometimes made mistakes, but that is a far cry from the new reality in whole cloth that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc have produced.
Obama is not a radical, fascist, socialist, etc. This isn't shades of grey comparison, this is the BS you wish to condone or justify? You and I have had our share of in-depth discussions, but neither has ever attempted to BS the other. Your contention that there is some seminal difference between lies and distortions as a starting point in our discussion makes me wonder who I'm talking to. Call it a personal problem on my side.
OK, I have to agree with Kathy that the threaded comments aren't functioning well in my opinion, and now George has posted a comment which I was going to reply to but there was no 'reply' button underneath it. I'll respond here, to this:
So, you've done the same thing Polimom did?
You've done the same thing you've spent this entire thread complaining about?
Only you put actual numbers to yours?
How is what you did any different?
Polimom made an assertion which I disputed, and then I made my own assertion. You have questioned that, I responded, and if you wish I'll list the specific blogs that I read regularly which specifically praised the mission (and I believe most of them specifically gave credit to President Obama- but if you want to sift through to make sure of that, go ahead.)
Anyway, my list of regular reads includes:
HotAir, particularly Ed Morrissey (who not only had a positive post about this but the other day when some conservatives were complaining that Obama was being too quiet he had posted on it by defending that tactic, saying that Obama was right to not publicly comment at that time.)
Poligazette
QandO (where I noticed that McQuain not only commented in a positive fashion but then got into an argument with a commenter who disagreed.)
Outside the Beltway
and Jonah Goldberg of NRO (who also was criticized for making a laudatory comment toward Obama, and then argued that people were being ridiculous to question that.)
And Richard Fernandez who blogs at Belmont Club, hosted by Pajamas Media.
I also have a couple of regular reads whose takes on this I didn't agree with (Rick Moran was too dismissive IMO, and I found Blackfive and other military bloggers to be disappointing- and I was surprised that the Anchoress didn't comment although she hasn't posted much today at all.)
kathyedits
Here's how it works (I think) You can leave a comment just like you did. Comments made by each person goes right below each other like a list.
The difference is when you reply to to a comment. Replies are now indented under the comment you are replying to. If they reply to your comment, it is indented under your reply. It would look like the following:
Comment A
Comment B
Reply to Comment B-reply
Reply to your comment B reply
Somebody else's reply to comment B
Comment C
Hope this helps
kathyedits
I tried to answer your questions, but the indents don't see to work in formatting my “help.” My reply ended up down below
kathyedits I used a finagle to fix the formatting. It should also be indented under your original post (let's hope)
Here's how it works (I think) You can leave a comment just like you did. Comments made by each person goes right below each other like a list.
The difference is when you reply to to a comment. Replies are now indented under the comment you are replying to. If they reply to your comment, it is indented under your reply. It would look like the following:
Comment A
Comment B
………..Reply to Comment B-reply
…………….Reply to your comment B reply
…………Somebody else's reply to comment B
Comment C
Hope this helps
And I would argue that by and large, Olberman uses other tactics besides using nonfactual statements most of the time, and occasionally veers from facts. I don't see much difference between that and Limbaugh- and even though I initially resisted doing so, you asked me for specific examples from Olbermann and I took the time to respond to that request, but you are silent in response to those examples. One of them is even a specific example of what you explained as unacceptable from Limbaugh, taking a clip and editing it to have a person's words twisted (my example was Bristol Palin, who used the word “choice' to describe her decision to bear her child when answering her critics who thought that her mother pressured her to do so, and then Olbermann claims that this shows her to be 'prochoice.')
And in your second paragraph, you're veering off into other topics which really can't be done justice in the middle of another thread IMO. The topic at hand was whether or not the conservative blogosphere is willing to give credit where due to Obama for how he handled a tense hostage situation. I don't know why you are bringing up whether Obama should be called a socialist or not.
CS
I hope my corrected thread explanation for kath helps, probably not
it should be directly above your last comment – this one
CS
CS
You obviously weren't meant to answer George. His is the only comment that doesn't have a reply button.
CStanley–
By your own admission–quoting you from one of your previous comments–you made a “personal guesstimate”, from a handful of blogs you read.
That's also what Polimom did. And she avoided blaming the entire right blogosphere, even if you didn't like her choice of qualifiers.
So again, I'd really like to know how what you did is different from what Polimom did, especially in light of your complaints.
Who deserves blame for what, CStanley?
Hey–you're right!
And I was hoping to get a comment so far over, it would be nothing but a column of single characters!! ; )
I'm sorry that I don't know how to make this more clear to you George. Polimom made an assertion which I disagreed with and I made a counterassertion which I've justified with some numbers and links when asked to do so. I'm questioning why you are asking me to provide backup when you didn't similarly feel that was necessary for PM. If your point is that I didn't immediately list all of the blogs that I was referring to, well, gee, shoot me I guess. Sometimes I state opinions and then if someone questions the basis for it I attempt to give my rationale and links or facts to back my opinion. I assume most other people do so as well. If you disagree with the asssertion I made, you are free to go round up as many links as you want to prove me wrong.
Hey, no fair! I want to get the last word!
It seems to me the talk show hosts portray themselves as the conservative leaders.
Well, of course they do, but that alone doesn't make it so. And even to the extent that they do have a big role right now, my point is that it's due to a void that needs to be filled with more serious leadership- but I think that moderates are so afraid of looking foolish for being on the same side as some blowhard entertainers that they won't even consider whether there are more serious people out there trying to lead a principled opposition to the country's leftward shift. And I was just bringing up the left wing fringe stuff to ask why it is that moderates were never similarly scared away from the Democratic party by some of the buffoons on that side.
You are exactly right,the problem is, it works.The conservatives did not complain
about it when it was beneficial to them,so why now?Turnabout?I agree with you though,it is a sad state of affairs when a draft ducking coward can ridicule a man who serves his country honorably.Where was the maturity then?
One great thing about the howling conservatives yelling “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” is that they are getting the rest of the country used to foreign (and in this case Muslim) names.
America elected it's first non-white American who has a funny name. Many people did not think America was ready for this, especially since the middle name is the same as that of one of our enemies.
So let the loonies howl.
Sure, but a lot of those who (in many cases correctly) criticized the conservatives for not speaking up then are now being just as syncophantic in regard to their party now. There's immaturity, hyperpartisanship, and heads in the sand to go around on all sides, and I think the country is best served by centrists who are willing to criticize all of it instead of just the portion which bugs them the most.
CStanley–
I've counted nine blogs there. Do you really think you got a representative sample of the right blogosphere? Enough of a sample to make the stink you made here?
I don't think Polimom needed to provide backup because she was obviously making a personal guestimate.
Polimom did something so normal that you did it yourself in the very same thread.
Didn't you?
That's my complaint. I hope it's clear enough.
And, you know, CStanley, when challenged by GreenDreams, who called your number “frankly laughable”, you didn't respond by providing your nine-blog backup. Instead–you placed the burden of proof on him: “Then please show me how my statement is inaccurate in regard to the reaction in the blogosphere to the rescue mission.”
You cannot believe everything the talk show hosts say.He did not have to be asked twice before anything.That is another lie.He gave authorization two separate times.This is how the right wing whack jobs twist the facts and make their audience seem uninformed.
And I don't think I accused Polimom of doing something beyond the pale. The 'stink' I've raised is an admittedly long series of comments as I responded to things, others responded to me, and back and forth. And during the course of that, I also realized that one reason I was really irritated with her is the way she had snarked on my comment, which she also realized and apologized for- and that's fine, we all do that at times and I have no further issue with her over it.
And in regard to your other critique (isn't this getting a bit nitpicky??) about my response to GD- I was pointing out there that he was misrepresenting my claim because the part he was saying was 'laughable' was in how influential talk radio is, which had nothing to do what I'd asserted. If he'd asked me for numbers or examples I'd have given them at my earliest convenience, just as I did for you.
I was wrong to say “fact” when what I meant was that some people have been questioning this. The report that some bloggers were questioning did make it sound like Obama held off giving the orders the first time he was asked, and although I don't know that we know that that's false, I'm more than willing to accept that he gave the authorization when it was needed. It was not my intent to dispute that, I simply pointed out that the discussion about those facts that were in question wasn't over the top in my opinion, even if I disagree with the need to question that particular detail.
I like Ed Morrissey but deleted my Captain's Quarters bookmark when he moved to Hot Air. I don't like Hot Air at all – way too much knee-jerk anti-left rhetoric. Maybe I need to give Ed another chance.
I used to read Althouse a lot but deleted that one too when I realized she was too wine-and-cheese for my taste.
I read Blackfive when I am interested in a military topic and agree his response to the pirate situation was disappointing.
Don't like Jonah Goldberg much but read NRO a lot.
I'll have to check out some of your other sites.
Right now I check out Memeorandum frequently and go where it looks interesting, plus I do like RealClear Politics for a good selection of articles. I still have Neil Boortz bookmarked mainly because he's entertaining to read and he's stayed a fiscal conservative through the whole mess of the last decade.
I think a lot of people associate Hotair with Michelle Malkin (I believe she owns it, but she doesn't blog there.) I never read it much before Morrissey moved there, but now that I'm going there to read his stuff I don't really see the knee jerk partisanship to be anywhere near what I thought it would be. I disagree with some of what the other main blogger there (allahpundit) writes and he definitely has more sarcastic tone than Morrissey but it's not like it's wingnuttery either (in fact he wouldn't fit in with a lot of wingnuts because he's a vocal atheist.)
I agree about Althouse but I still read her occasionally (love her photos, too, so I guess I lean toward the artsiness a bit.)
Boortz is from my current hometown and I enjoy listening to him on the radio even though I quite often disagree and find him obnoxious. He says what he thinks though, and it's obviously based on what he believes and not on carrying water for a politician or party. My biggest annoyance with him is over immigration- I think he really does have bigotry behind his stance and as the mother of a Hispanic child it really bothers me that he stirs up that kind of sentiment in our community.
Wow. This threaded comments “thing” is tough when there are so many. I can see that the number of comments keeps increasing, but I have to scroll all the way through, slowly and carefully, to figure out where the discussion is continuing.
I'd just like to take a moment to give a kudo to CStanley, who appears to have been taking fire all day long. For the most part, she's maintained composure and stayed on track — a difficult thing to do.
:>
Having said that….
“I think that moderates are so afraid of looking foolish for being on the same side as some blowhard entertainers that they won't even consider whether there are more serious people out there trying to lead a principled opposition to the country's leftward shift.”
CStanley, speaking for myself only, fear of looking foolish for agreeing with blowhard entertainers isn't the problem. For me, it's that these blowhards are obfuscating coherence to the point of gibberish. I do, however, agree completely that there are people out there who are seriously, rationally trying to address valid concerns. Unfortunately, they are (imo) being drowned out by the outrageous and mad.
How do you propose elevating the volume for the more serious people, so they can be heard?
Thanks, PM
On elevating the volume, I don't think it'll happen until the moderates start taking anyone on the right seriously. That's what bothers me so much about people on sites like this one who keep harping on the stoopid conservatives and completely ignoring anyone who could be taken seriously. I hate to mention Joe by name because I know he (understandably) doesn't like commenters critiquing the site for its adherence to centrism and balance, but quite honestly I've seen a major transition where he used to frequently post links from thoughtful conservatives and now those occasions are few and far between, while there's a constant drumbeat about Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.
Even if the reality is that rational conservative commentary has become more scarce, I've listed the sites I visit almost daily and there is almost always something there which could be discussed among moderates without anything but reasonable disagreement. And if moderates truly care about the health of political discourse and rational opposition to one party rule, I hope they will begin noticing that those conservative or center right commenters still exist.
I visit several of the sites you mentioned, and while I agree that they (and a number of others) can (and often do) write rationally, I've not always found the commenters to be quite as enlightened. I've also found, sometimes, very little room for dissent, no matter how moderately presented.
:>
But thinking about this further… I think the blowhards are *enabled* by the reasonable conservatives who, perhaps fearing the extreme hostility that would result, seem unable to consistently call out the problem in their own conservative ranks. I'm far more impressed, for instance, by someone on the right who's willing to call out the Glenn Becks or Rush Limbaughs. Those who do so (Rick Moran comes to mind as a recent example) attract a great deal of attention.
Yes, a lot of that attention is unwelcome, coming from enraged “fellow conservatives” — but it also attracts people like me who are then more likely to hear such a person's opinions.
Crazy as this may sound, I think it is from within that the correction will have to occur.
FWIW (and keeping w/ the spirit of this thread) — I thought the same of the left throughout the disturbing BDS displays.
You know, in theory I thought the same thing and I suppose should now think that that's the remedy for the right, but in reality I'm not so sure that it works out that way.
Look at someone like Andrew Sullivan, who came to a realization that he no longer supported the Iraq War and other policies of the Bush administration. Fine, no beef with that- much better to admit a change in viewpoint and be willing to criticize the party you previously supported on those issues where you disagree. But now, does he ever really write anything representative of conservatism?
Same with John Cole of Balloon Juice. It seems like these people become poster children of 'reasonableness' for the left and then they end up succumbing to the groupthink or something- or maybe they start to enjoy being thought of as cool and can't stop seeking the adulation.
If I could think of someone from the left who ever admitted changing their mind on anything or admitted support for Bush on ANY issue whatsoever, I'd run through in my mind whether or not it worked out that way in reverse, but I can't think of any examples like that.
But quite honestly, I do feel like most conservatives have given up trying to get any respect from moderates. If you're going to be ignored or ridiculed all of the time, why bother anymore? It's really frustrating- and when I see reasonable centrists like you or DaGoat joining in the choir of criticism of the right, I think you're playing into the hands of those on the left who want to continue to discredit conservatism in general. I realize for you guys it's a heartfelt sentiment and not intentionally trying to stifle opposition to the left, but it still results in that all the same.
Re: commenters- some blogs have good comment sections, some do not. I don't think it has much at all to do with the quality of the thinking and writing of the bloggers, but rather whether those bloggers take an active role in policing the comments and responding or enforcing comment policies. The lowest common denominator seems to gravitate to any site where they can get away with what they do.
hello there, just passing through, no one here cept the crickets on the hearth… but, I did want to say that I just sent a note to Tyrone about the threaded comments. I am finding them difficult to follow unless read the time frames posted on each one and sort of zig zag a bit. I note a couple commenters here have noted similar.
also, just wanted to mention, I think arguing points and yet weaving peace in and out of those as warranted is a class act. I found all your discussion here just that.
kindest regards,
dr.e
A big smile, thanks, Dr. E.
And thank you for explaining my thoughts on self analysis of our bias, better than I could explain them. I hadn't even made the connection to counter-transference, which I learned a bit about in a different facet of my life, but that is a wise point.
As for the threads, I'm having difficulty as well and I'm not sure whether I might have caused some of the difficulty myself by not using it properly (sometimes using 'reply' button, other times adding a new comment at the bottom) but more so than that, I find it difficult to come back and find new comments when they're interspersed in the threads instead of listed chronologically.
So, my preference would be the old non-threaded comments, but that may be just me.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of threaded comments either. I believe they distract from the coherent flow of comments.
As for the conspiracy bloviaters: Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, etc. like it or not, these people have come to represent the right for more people than you may think. FOX is hardly a fringe media outlet eh? There was a program last night on public radio, OnPoint I believe, in which they talked about the over-the-top rhetoric coming from these people, and there were many clips played that illustrated this frothing at the mouth sort of conspiracy fomenting.
As I said before, responsible republicans need to address this as it is making their party suffer. When they come out and criticize irresponsible loudmouths like Limbaugh, and then go crawling back to apologize, that doesn't really give the impression people like Limbaugh aren't calling the shots. If these are indeed fringe figures, then they shouldn't need to be kowtowed to the way they are.
And yes, there was loudmouth over-the-top ranting about Bush too, but there was no real quantitative equivalence to what we are seeing now. I certainly don't recall any democrat legislators crawling back to Elinor Clift and begging her forgiveness for criticizing any of her commentary. As for Keith Olberman, he didn't even come on the scene in any major way until Bush had already been in office for some time. Again, I see the false equivalence, and I see it being accepted from the left as well… perhaps because they are more philosophically more inclined to bend than is the right.
CS
You are absolutely right, there's no point in “debating” this question.
“taking a clip and editing it to have a person's words twisted (my example was Bristol Palin, who used the word “choice' to describe her decision to bear her child when answering her critics who thought that her mother pressured her to do so,”
From the interview:
VAN SUSTEREN, AFTER ASKING ABOUT THE TABLOIDS: What didn't anybody get? What didn't people understand?
BRISTOL: That, there's a lot of things. They thought that, like, my mom was going to make me have the baby, and it was my choice to have the baby. And it's just, that kind of stuff just bothered me.
Bristol believed it was her choice. The Prolife position is that you have no choice.
“BRISTOL PALIN: Everyone should be abstinent, whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.”
It appears Bristol also believes abstinence only is not realistic. Her words.
Bristol doesn't realize that she's pro-choice. What's your point? Olberman lied about what she said?
The two quotes above are direct from Newsbusters.
Compare these with some of Limbaugh's statements:
Discussing Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama “numerous times, three times in Illinois voted for legislation that would allow doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb. Radical stuff. Three times he voted for this.” Limbaugh misrepresented the legislation Obama voted against, a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and that opponents said was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and posed a threat to abortion rights. Mediamatters.com
Oh that's right, distortions are not lies.
“Well, we've got another tape from — I get these guys confused — Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate — that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' “
“His education plan is Maoist (no surprise given the Ayers/Klonsky influence), and he is otherwise a Bolshevik. I'm also quite sure, given his character traits, that he would be a Stalinist if he thought he could get away with it”
Do I really have to mention “Barack the Magic Negro” ?
You are absolutely right, there's no point in “debating” this question.
You are absolutely right, there's no point in “debating” this question.
Yes, I can see that I was right to assume that you believe everything is exactly the way Media Matters frames the issues, and that the criticisms of Rush Limbaugh are generally accurate (they're usually not- though I'm quick to point out that this doesn't mean I'm a fan or supporter because I think his style is divisive.)
Bristol believed it was her choice. The Prolife position is that you have no choice.
Of COURSE prolifers recognize it's a choice, but we don't believe the choice to abort is a morally permissible one and we don't believe it should be legally acceptable in most cases. It's absurd to say that anyone who recognizes that the option to abort is currently legally permissible is thus ENDORSING that situation.
And again, it's the fact that the interview was clipped to exclude why she was saying this at all- it was in response to critics who asserted that her mother had forced her to make that decision, that's why she even used the phrase that it was 'her choice'.
“BRISTOL PALIN: Everyone should be abstinent, whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.”
It appears Bristol also believes abstinence only is not realistic. Her words.
This part was taken out of context too. She is young and didn't articulate it that well, but what she was saying is that the current cultural environment doesn't empower girls (or boys, for that matter, though it rarely plays out that way) to say no, and that's why abstinence is unrealistic. It's a shame that everyone by and large missed her point, because it's a really important one that adults/parents need to wake up to.
Bristol doesn't realize that she's pro-choice. What's your point? Olberman lied about what she said?
Yes. And no, you don't know Bristol Palin's thoughts better than she knows them herself.
Compare these with some of Limbaugh's statements:
Discussing Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama “numerous times, three times in Illinois voted for legislation that would allow doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb. Radical stuff. Three times he voted for this.” Limbaugh misrepresented the legislation Obama voted against, a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and that opponents said was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and posed a threat to abortion rights. Mediamatters.com
Oh that's right, distortions are not lies.
I don't see a distortion or a lie there. Obama gave speeches on the floor of the Illinois Senate saying that this legislation was unnecessary, ignoring people who testified to the contrary. We recently saw reports of a case in FL which also proved that abortion providers can't be trusted to judge viability of neonates that survive abortions (even though FL, like IL also has laws prohibiting infanticide), which is the situation that this legislation sought to remedy. Also, Obama claimed he'd support the legislation (even though he continued to say he didn't think it was necessary) if it comported with the language in federal statutes- and then when the language was changed to do so, he still voted against it.
So what is the lie or distortion supposed to be in what Limbaugh said about this situation?
“Well, we've got another tape from — I get these guys confused — Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate — that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' “
“His education plan is Maoist (no surprise given the Ayers/Klonsky influence), and he is otherwise a Bolshevik. I'm also quite sure, given his character traits, that he would be a Stalinist if he thought he could get away with it”
I have no idea what this excerpt is about, though it seems to show Limbaugh expressing opinions in an inflammatory manner (do you dispute that Olbermann does the same?), which is something I've repeatedly expressed distaste for.
Do I really have to mention “Barack the Magic Negro” ?
Depends if you're going to mention that it was a liberal in the LA Times who wrote that and then Limbaugh picked it up to satirize about the power struggles within the black political power base. You might want to google Camille Paglia, another liberal, to get the low down on how Limbaugh was riffing on that.
Anyway, I'm glad that you can now see that I was right about how pointless it is to debate about these guys- everyone has their own opinion and pretty much claims their own set of facts to justify the opinions. I still say though that the most intellectually honest judgment is to wash your hands of all of them. I'll admit, I occasionally get drawn into defending Limbaugh against inaccurate allegations, because the allegations get repeated so often without rebuttal that people have a much different impression of him than the reality- and yet I know that even setting the record straight to that degree is pretty futile.
The kind of kowtowing that you say is limited to the right probably is best played out with regard to racial politics on the left. I think definitely that no Democratic politician would dare criticize Jesse Jackson (didn't Bill Clinton catch hell for coming close to that during the primaries?) or Al Sharpton or even an obvious criminal like Jefferson.
And in all of these cases, I think what you have to realize is that people are afraid of offending the constituents or listeners/fans- not the politician or opinionator him/herself. There's a recognition that a certain portion of that fanbase or constituency would be savvy enough to understand criticism while a sizable portion would not, and would take it as a dissing of them personally.
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” ~ William F. Buckley
ok, thank you, Jspencer and CStanley and others here throughout the threads for your comments on the 'threaded' situ. I'm passing this onto Tyrone too.
And JSpencer, thanks for the Buckley quote… there seem an awful lot of 'Bills” in the political world nowadays, arent there? But, WFB, whom I knew, is one I miss more than any, dead or alive Bills. Especially his later work. The art of wit and insight. Rare.
dr.e
A. HALIM…
My information about calico cat tea house get completed after reading this very useful and informative post ….
Dog Obedience Training…
This is an informative post. I will surely pop over again….
[...] Elections, Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservatives, Crime, Demonization, Foreign Affair…
…
Ahoy~ Check out: Primal SKy “Free Life on Heavy Seas”
The political, pirate hit of 2009~
myspace: http://www.myspace.com/primalsky2009
Captain Smith