NY Times Smears Limbaugh - Listen Live
If Rush is not on locally, you can listen here.
Notice how the article flatly charges that Rush did indeed “insuate that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers”. The article basically equates what Rush did with what MoveOn did, and likewise for Congress’s reactions. The writer slickly tries to give himself cover by not approving either parties’ condemnation of Rush and MoveOn, but he’s made his point, done his real damage: “Rush insinuated that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers”.
NY Times
by Carl Hulse
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.
With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” into the latest war of words over the war.
A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.
Their push, not coincidentally, comes after House and Senate Republicans maneuvered some Democrats into voting to condemn an advertisement by MoveOn.org in The New York Times last month that referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the House majority leader, said Tuesday.
The back and forth on the Petraeus advertisement and, now, over Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks, illustrates how both parties are turning miscues into fodder in the run up to the 2008 elections, particularly in the absence of serious legislative accomplishment when it comes to the war.
Republicans used to be considered superior at drumming up a quick controversy over some actual or perceived Democratic outrage. But Democrats and sympathetic advocacy groups are catching up fast. And the political exchanges are being amplified by the reach and power of the Internet and the repetition of the 24-hour news cycle.
“Maybe Rush got away with smears like this in the past, but he’s not going to on our watch,” said Jon Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, a group closely aligned with Congressional Democrats that is behind a new advertisement taking on Mr. Limbaugh.
The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio version in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh’s show. In it, a wounded veteran chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped “lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into,” according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters.
The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller’s approval: “The phony soldiers.”
After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.
Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks be repudiated.
But no Republican senators signed the letter, highlighting a significant difference between the responses to the MoveOn advertisement and the Limbaugh comments. The Republican-backed plan to condemn the Petraeus advertisement drew substantial Democratic backing in the House and Senate, while Democrats have been unable to splinter Republicans on Mr. Limbaugh.
In fact, Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, has prepared a resolution praising Mr. Limbaugh should Democrats proceed with what he said was an unwarranted attack on a private citizen. “He is a talk show host,” Mr. Kingston said. “He has a right to speak out and say what he thinks.”
The Limbaugh furor is just the latest episode in how each side has sought to paint the other as unpatriotic or unsympathetic to the military by focusing public attention on various comments that lawmakers might wish they had phrased differently or could take back.
Earlier this year, Republicans had a field day with what they decried as a morale-busting assertion by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, that the war in Iraq was already lost.
After the Petraeus testimony, Democrats returned the favor by jumping on an observation by Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, that the cost of the war in Iraq was a “small price” to pay if Al Qaeda could be stopped there.
Mr. Boehner’s aides later said he was referring to the financial costs of the war though his comment was in response to a question that also included the military toll.
There is certainly nothing new in trying to use political opponents’ words against them. But in the current environment, efforts to out-condemn one another are becoming a proxy for a more substantive fight over the war and cannot be dismissed as one factor in the low public approval ratings for Congress.
House Democratic leaders still had not decided Tuesday whether they would bring up the resolution denouncing Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, which is likely to spark a partisan free-for-all on the floor.
Mr. Hoyer, despite his goose and gander view, was not so sure that House members should get into the business of unleashing a resolution of disapproval each time they encounter something of which they disapprove.
“I think, frankly, I would like to see us restrain ourselves in condemning through resolutions all of that with which we disagree,” Mr. Hoyer said. “I have a zillion resolutions that I could think of pursuing that objective.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I wouldn’t let my dog shat upon the best page ever produced by the New York Times.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 amWho’s the hottie on the bottom left?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 amMore slime from a slimy, useless newspaper. It is good for some things though like lining flower boxes, training your dog, covering the floor of your bird’s cage, and starting trash fires.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 amFrom a small incident, like this, to the larger like the war against Al Queda in Iraq, the liberals constantly need to lie about events in order to prevail in a debate.
Moveon.orgy did in fact malign David Petraeus. There is no denying. There is no denying that the Times aided and abetted that with a discount to those metrosexuals. That is factual.
It is also factual that Rush did not call actual soldiers phoney. Jessie MacBeth and his ilk is clearly who he was referring to. Reid knows this. They all know it.
Still they lie. It is what they do best.
And with many of the mechanisms of the media abetting them, it is possible to do it.
So in one case, it is factual that Moveon.orgy DID besmirch the honor and reputation of the general who is leading us to victory in Iraq.
On the other, they twist, contort, distort and manipulate the words of a huge supporter of the US military to make it appear he does not. In fact, he was referring to actual, phoney soldiers like MacBeth and others who…suprise…lie, manipulate, distort…etc.
Truth and facts are not friends to liberals. Logic is a slippery eel in their hands. But when you have the Metrosexual Media in your corner, lies can take on substance in the minds of the people not paying closer attention.
On balance though, I would rather have facts, logic and truth on my side than Brian Williams or Frank Rich.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 amThese stupid resolutions really do need to stop. I’m not even sure it was necessary with the “Betray us” Moveon.org ad. Let the press (to include PJ and Radio media) seek the individual politician’s stand on these issues.
Let’s save the Congressional resolutions of comdemnation and the grand-standing for more important things (Iran, Osama, etc). What did Hillary have to say about the Moveon/NYT ad on the record anyway? She basically called Petraeus a liar in session, in any case, and a condemning vote from her in the Senate against the ad wouldn’t have meant a thing.
It’s strange when you follow the play by play of an issue like this. The spin and ignorance becomes so obvious. Articles like this one just show the blatant bias of the so-called “reporter” who writes it. But he was just reporting the facts, prioritizing the reactions of the important figures involved, right?
The reactions of others is mostly irrelevant when the truth is so easy to find, unless you are documenting the ill-informed opinions and the effect it has on people. But that’s what we’re doing right now by following this. Viva la Pajamas/online media!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 amRush is having a great time with this. His audience is still the same if not growing…just out of curiosity. The Clear Channel guy basically told the Dhimis to go fuck themselves…The Dhimis lost on their stupid resolution.
The point? Lies will get you nowhere Dhimis. In fact this is a good way to recruit new Limbaugh listeners from the left. Same with O’Reilley. Generating this kind of publicity normally costs big bucks. But if it can be done for free…so much the better.
They’re both just getting more popular.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 amThe hottie bottom left. Isn’t that Dana Perino? It sure ain’t Tony Snow.
I’ve been tracking Media Matters on this and they are so far out of whack it’s pathetic. Let’s call them Media Manipulation Matters. And MoveOn.org is now BowelMovement.org, as far as I’m concerned.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amAn interesting comment from a Democrat. Can you guess his name?
“…We are a little bit of a shellshocked political party. We somehow or another always figure out a way to blow it,” Democratic strategist James Carville said. “Democrats have to talk their way out of winning.”
Carville was not exactly serious but not exactly kidding. Even as all the trends seem to be breaking their way, Democrats still sound a bit like a boy who has been beaten up too many times on the playground: certain another punch is coming…”
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 amYada yada, so go on Rush’s show to tell him to his face.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:53 pmGo with Dingy Harry, nincompoop.
Take lots of lube, dude.
Tom: I love the metrosexual comment. I’m gonna start using it, if that’s alright. We are on a very slippery slope towards Socialism/Communism. Why does our government feel the need to condemn Rush? That man has always been a strong supporter of the troops. We are heading towards another round of “define what you mean by is….” Thank the Clintons.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pmDan:
“Same with O’Reilley. Generating this kind of publicity normally costs big bucks. But if it can be done for free…so much the better.”
WTF is up with O’Reilly putting a CAIR puke on his show last night to argue for public school support for Ramadan displays in the schools and coming to a ‘meeting of the minds’?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm