Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've been amused watching all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over how poor Rush Limbaugh is being persecuted after being dropped from an ownership group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. Those evil liberuls are out to "destroy Rush Limbaugh," you see, and all conservatives. And conservatives would never do anything like that, only evil libs would. A Daily Kos poster invites us in to Professor Peabody's wayback machine.
Granted, this is ancient history. We have to go all the way back to the year 2005, when not only did the conservatives object to George Soros being part of an ownership group looking at buying the Washington Nationals, they threatened to take away the antitrust exemption from baseball over it. From the Washington Post on June 28, 2005:
Major League Baseball hasn't narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league's antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team."It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."
Football does as well, of course. And as far as I know, no one in Congress ever suggested any action be taken at all if Limbaugh bought a football team. The only thing that happened was that some of the players publicly said they wouldn't want to play for him because of some of his own stupid statements in the past. And then Limbaugh's own partners dumped him out of pure pragmatism. Persecution indeed.
Politics
Comments
AFAIK, baseball has an explicit exemption from the antitrust laws, based on a Supreme Court decision, while football (and basketball and hockey) do not.
Posted by: SLC | October 19, 2009 9:48 AM
SLC, I think you are right. And yet, somehow, the NFL, NHL, and (sort of) NBA have salary caps, while the MBA does not. Clearly, if they have an agreed-upon salary cap (!), they have at least a de facto anti-trust exemption.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | October 19, 2009 9:52 AM
And by "the MBA", I meant "MLB". Whoops.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | October 19, 2009 10:01 AM
I've loved this one because it has been a simple matter of the free market working without the intervention of government, you know, what conservatives insist they want!?!
The individuals involved in the process looked at a few things that Limbaugh said. Employees (players) voiced their opinions on the matter, based on these concerns his business partners terminated the agreement they had. Wonder if Rushie-boy has some inkling of how that minority or female worker, not hired, not promoted, not accepted to the university felt ... doubt he is able to see the irony of the ability he and his supporters so strongly fight for. The ability of businesses to associate with people or not associate with people. Even in this case it is a stretch because they aren't discriminating against him, he isn't a victim based on things he can't control, he was a jackass, made idiotic statements, and business partners decided he was a liability.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 19, 2009 10:12 AM
Just as a side note, former (Thankfully!) Rep. Sweeney is currently awaiting trial on a felony DWI charge after being arrested this past April, a mere 18 months after pleading guilty to misdemeanor DWI. He is also under an FBI investigation related to a no-show job for his ex-wife, against whom he is also accused of domestic violence.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 19, 2009 10:14 AM
And how is it much different than what Wildman and the AFA try to do when they launch boycotts against stores they don't like? Of course, those boycotts never work (sometimes the threats do), but the players did have a voice about who should own one of their teams and their concerns were heard. Same with the rest of the people INSIDE the NFL itself.
Yup, I agree, with dogmeatlib. The system the conservatives love so much worked fine. Just not the way they wanted... pigfuckers.
Sorry, just had to throw that last bit in.
Posted by: Skip | October 19, 2009 10:18 AM
Is then George Soros = Rush Limbaugh. Oh yeah, the Cadillac is a car, and so is the Yugo. Both have four wheels you see? Rush doesn't realise or want to accept that the rest of the country has moved past him and bigoted fanbase. He is out of touch and doesn't get it.
Posted by: rimpal | October 19, 2009 10:21 AM
Every day I wake up and wish I could be "persecuted" like a conservative/Christian. Oh, what a life that would be...
Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 10:48 AM
I guess Rush now knows what it's like to get shut out of an exclusive club by a bunch of good ole boys. I wonder if the irony occurs to him or to any of his automatons.
Posted by: jws | October 19, 2009 10:53 AM
Ed, while you are correct to point out this hypocrisy there was still a serious problem here. We had repeated media coverage of statements attributed by Rush that could not be confirmed and seemed that he had not said. And as often occurs with these things, far more attention was given to the initial accusations than the corrections. In the rush to attack someone they (quite understandably) don't like, a lot of people didn't do their homework.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 19, 2009 11:04 AM
Salary caps are not an anti-trust problem because they are agreed to in the union contract. The assumption is that the union represents the best interests of the members and thus can agree to arrangements like salary caps or hiring halls that differ from a classic free market.
This leads to the situation where the players association's most effective threat isn't to go on strike, it's to go out of existence.
Posted by: snoey | October 19, 2009 11:21 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 19, 2009 11:51 AM
Joshua Zelinsky @ 10:
Who is "we"? I don't see Ed's post doing anything of the sort.
I'm not aware of any quote-mines against Mr. Limbaugh regarding this controversy and therefore did not allow such to weigh my "hurrah" when I heard he was dropped from his consortium because many players took a principled stand. I am aware of the fact that Mr. Limbaugh is one of the most strident and most influential race baiters with a national audience over the past two decades. Therefore, I highly doubt the argument against Rush is significantly diluted merely because of a handful of quote-mines that fail to get adequate correction coverage. His record of race baiting, and arguably racism, is unequivocable.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 19, 2009 12:27 PM
Here's some support for Michael Heath's contention:
http://gawker.com/5384545/me-thinks-rush-limbaugh-protests-too-much
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | October 19, 2009 12:43 PM
Michael Heath and T. Bruce McNeely:
I appreciate your efforts, thank you. Having said that, Fuckbag Rushbo spews his crap in real time most days, so one doesn't have to go to deep into the archives.
Posted by: democommie | October 19, 2009 1:08 PM
Apart from any quotes, isn't it enough that the RL is a drug-addled sex tourist for the football owners not to want him around?
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | October 19, 2009 2:17 PM
If George Soros is so smart, why did he want to buy the Nationals?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 19, 2009 2:20 PM
It's funny how conservatives wail about people hiding behind claims of victimhood on one hand, and then do the exact same thing when one of their right-wing sacred cows is offended.
Posted by: CHV | October 19, 2009 2:42 PM
Latest reports are that Rush was approached about buying the St. Louis Blues instead, a seemingly perfect fit since hockey is such a white sport. Then he found out each team has several left wingers...
Posted by: James Hanley | October 19, 2009 2:49 PM
Michael Heath,
Rush certainly does have a background of race baiting but the point remains that many of the quotes used in the news over the last few weeks were completely unsubstantiable. This doesn't help matters. If he is going to be criticized it should be for things he said not things the rumor mill alleges he has said. And the hurry to attack Rush in this fashion further reinforced the right-wing claim that the media is biased against them. There's really no need to give that claim any even minimally valid examples.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 19, 2009 2:53 PM
Joshua Zelinsky:
Wrong, Rush deserves EXACTLY the same sort of shoddy treatment that he has given other people going back about twenty five years. Who knows with luck he might get so depressed that he'd kill himself--and,no, I would not shed a tear if he was found dead with his system full of hillbilly heroin. He's a piece of shit and deserves far worse than is happening to him here.
Posted by: democommie | October 19, 2009 3:19 PM
democommie, #21: Rush deserves EXACTLY the same sort of shoddy treatment that he has given other people....
I could be wrong, but I don't think that JZ is referring to what Limbaugh deserves. I think he is more worried that if the anti-Rush side makes too many claims that turn out to be false, then their credibility may be seriously weakened.
But I think Michael Heath has already commented (adequately, in my opinion) about this worry, too.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 19, 2009 3:49 PM
Then how about a link to a blog entry that links a whole series of Limbaugh quotes that are documented?
http://soupsoup.tumblr.com/post/216547069/my-racial-views-you-mean-my-belief-in-a
From what I've seen a few of the supposed quotes are unauthenticated, and most of the whoopla from the defenders centers almost entirely around those few. Meanwhile, a notable number of authenticated quotes are simply ignored.
- Kurt
P.S. - Credit to Little Green Footballs for bringing this article to my attention.
Posted by: Kurt | October 19, 2009 3:57 PM
I guess Limbaugh doesn't have as much faith in the invisible hand of the market, now that that hand has slapped him in the face.
Posted by: catgirl | October 19, 2009 4:49 PM
democommie/Michael Heath,
You're missing the point by a longshot here. I'm not concerned that the media is reprinting false quotes (note - this is not "quote mining" where legit quotes taken out of context to make them sound bad, this is flat out fabricated quotes) about Rush Limbaugh I'm concerned that the media is reprinting false quotes - purportedly serious news programs ran with the quotes with zero fact checking. It was pretty obvious that they deserved skepticism - they don't fit the tone of Rush's typical racebaiting and the only two places they've been traced back to is one table-pounding left-wing book and wikiquote, and neither had an air date; the ones on wikiquote were even listed in a separate disputed section at the time the stories ran since the book was the only source and no attempt at independent confirmation had turned them up. Why should anybody trust a media outlet whose idea of due dilligence is looking a controversial figure's wikiquote page?
FWIW, the NFL does have an anti-trust exemption.
Posted by: MattXIV | October 19, 2009 6:03 PM
MattXIV @ 25 stated:
Precisely what did I state that you are challenging? I advise blockquoting the statement of the commenter you intend to fisk within its proper context so we know what exactly what you are fisking. I can't find anything in your comment at 25 that even addresses my argument, let alone provides evidence "I'm missing the point".
I afforded Joshua Zelinsky @ 10 that same respect and expect it in return.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 19, 2009 6:33 PM
The NFL does not have an across- the-board antitrust exemption like MLB has. It has a limited exemption (granted in 1961) allowing it to enforce its blackout restrictions so as to boost atendence. The NFL has claimed that its exemption applies to labor and other issues, but it clearly does not. See the various Al Davis-Pete Rozelle battles.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 19, 2009 7:29 PM
Limbaugh got booted off his TV football commentary gig because of a comment that was taken to be racist or racially-tinged. That's really about all you need to know.
I suspect the crux of the matter is that Rush has never had to deal with black people who have Fuck You money, and now he's all butthurt because they called him on his bullshit.
I'm sure most of the time he makes business deals with rich people who are like-minded politically, or have financial incentives to play along with him. This time he ran into a bunch of rich influential folks who didn't need to play along with his bullshit, who can find other investors, and they told him to pound sand.
Posted by: Jon H | October 19, 2009 9:27 PM
MattXIV:
I'm not missing any point. I don't give a fuck if people lie about Limbaugh. It's not as if they're saying he raped and murdered a boy in the Dominican Republic around the same time as Glenn Bek and a number of unknown persons may or may not have raped and murdered a young girl, or girls, sometime around 1990.
I simply don't think his dittoheads would believe anything bad about Rushbo--the guy should be doing hard time for his oxycontin problem of a few years back.
Limbaugh is scum, nothing bad that happens to him will cause me to lose any sleep. He's made his career out of being a ruthless, lying sack of shit. Watching him squirm is better than watching the Yankees lose to the Angels.
Posted by: democommie | October 19, 2009 10:14 PM
It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).
Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. He is reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, "palin and simple" like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?
Posted by: Paul | October 19, 2009 10:53 PM
You should, though. If news reporters aren't doing proper fact checking about someone justifiably reviled, then you can't trust them to fact check properly at all. News is supposed to be objective and based on facts. Rush deserved to be booted from any chance to own an NFL team, that much I agree with. But a second lesson to take from this is that many supposed news reporters were so eager to put the hurt on him that they didn't do their jobs properly.
Posted by: JasonTD | October 20, 2009 5:36 AM
Gotta love those conservatives; when George Soros tries to buy a baseball team, they threaten to use their Congressional control to punish all of baseball if he is so allowed because he, as a private wealthy citizen, uses his wealth to oppose socially conservative initiatives with reason and civility. Yet when Rush is objected to as an owner (not by the government mind you, but by the players, employees, and owners within the football league) because of the frequent public vitriol and calumny he spews regarding race and gender, that is censorship, character assassination, that is "the liberal elite" using its influence to bully society.
One really must wonder; is it that they are really that shameless, or really that blind?
Posted by: Julian | October 20, 2009 8:12 AM
JasonTD:
"If news reporters aren't doing proper fact checking about someone justifiably reviled, then you can't trust them to fact check properly at all. News is supposed to be objective and based on facts."
Please see "Ballon Boy" stories and the period from 1/21/2000--2/21/2009. Accuracy and fact checking are not items that the MSM gives a flying fuck about. If you lined up a thousand quotes by Rush, quotes which were vile, inflammatory, racist or classist and sourced everyone of them to actual tape footage, it would make no difference whatsoever to his minions. To have happen, to himself, EXACTLY what he has done to others is poetic justice.
Julian:
"One really must wonder; is it that they are really that shameless, or really that blind?"
I don't, it's probably both, depending on which level of the mediotocracy you're talking about.
Posted by: democommie | October 20, 2009 8:44 AM
The normal RepubliKan game plan: "Do as we say, not as we do."
Posted by: Kenneth Mark Hoover | October 20, 2009 9:20 AM
Obviously it's the normal liberal game plan too. You objected when it was done to Soros, yet given an opportunity to do the same to a righty, you go skinny-dipping in the same toxic sewage without any hesitation at all.
It's genuinely fun watching liberals betray all their claimed principles and degenerate into the worst kind of hate-spewing bigots. Every time I think maybe there's something worth considering in the liberal point of view, you pull something like this. There is absolutely no difference between you and the right-wingers over whom you claim moral superiority.
Posted by: wolfwalker | October 20, 2009 10:23 AM
#35: I see wehat you did there.
For the record, "liberals" is plural, and "you" is singular.
Posted by: rpsms | October 20, 2009 10:29 AM
Not that #35 really deserves a response, but....
As usual, this post is more about the hypocrisy coming from the right (and the left when it's deserved).
Not to mention, the difference in circumstances, as already noted multiple times. If you still think it's the same thing, you need to either go back to school, or maybe try a lobotomy.
Posted by: FastLane | October 20, 2009 1:04 PM
Woofwalker blithered thusly:
...yet given an opportunity to do the same to a righty...
Did you even read the post? If you had, you would understand that the Rush incident is not in any way "the same" as the Soros incident.
Every time I think maybe there's something worth considering in the liberal point of view, you pull something like this.
Translation: every time Woofie starts to realize the liberals are right about something, he desperately makes up another story of "hypocricy" based on false equivalence to protect his ever-more-brittle worldview from having to face reality.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Woofwhanker:
First of all, let me say "fuck you, very much.".
Your entire premise is based on a false equivalency, which you are, I'm sure, completely aware of.
Lastly, let me say, "fuck you, very much, with "jimmies", whipped cream and a cherry on top.". You're welcome.
Posted by: democommie | October 20, 2009 3:51 PM
wolfwalker, #35: You objected when it was done to Soros, yet given an opportunity to do the same to a righty, you go skinny-dipping in the same toxic sewage without any hesitation at all.
That may be, but this wasn't an example of it. In the Soros case, it was conservatives throwing a fit because they didn't like Soros or his politics. In the Limbaugh case, it was employees of the organization (namely the players, many of whom are black) who didn't want their organization owned by a person who made derogatory statements that they found personally insulting and offensive. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
So, the points of the OP (since you seemed to have missed it) are that (1)conservatives are screaming about liberal bias when that isn't the case here at all, and (2)even if it were liberal bias, they are complaining about something that they themselves did in the very recent past.
Pretty funny OP, I thought.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 20, 2009 3:59 PM
Since the two commenters I challenged aren't responding to my questions, I'll rebut their points (Joshua Zelinsky and MattXIV).
The liberal quote-mines are irrelevant to the primary issue; it's a side show. Yes those who quote-mined were wrong in doing that, everybody here already knows that.
This issue came to a head not because of how the press handled it, they were behind the story. Instead Limbaugh's past statements and his approach to politics was considered repugnant by the players of the NFL, who had a fierce desire to maintain their disassociation with a racist, race-baitor, and hater who makes millions intentionally bringing disharmony to America.
You two were merely played by Limbaugh whining like a petulant spoiled brat where he propped himself up as a victim to the evil media when in fact his own legacy did him in well before the press started objecting. He wanted you to take your eye off the ball. Thousands of readers at the WSJ fell for it (see comments to following article). Here's the story Rush published in the WSJ.
I did see Rachel Maddow's show last night where she retracted her quote-mine, apologized, and then presented Rush in his own words going through a couple of race-baiting schticks.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 20, 2009 8:45 PM
If she and the rest of those that reported the dubious quotes had done their homework properly, there would have been no need for retractions. Also, fewer people would have been able to be "played" by Rush and his article in the WSJ.
democommie said, "Accuracy and fact checking are not items that the MSM gives a flying fuck about." in #33. As you both point out, the correct result was obtained based on Rush's actual history. I am also pleased with that (though I don't take the joy in it that democommie seems to). But I find the sloppy reporting as the media was quick to jump on him to be very disturbing. Where news is concerned, getting the right result isn't the goal. The goal should be getting the right facts.
Posted by: JasonTD | October 21, 2009 6:01 AM
JasonTD stated:
What a hoot. Uh, no. Rush would have merely came up with a different argument and those very same people would have stayed firmly entrenched in Rush's camp. Read the comment thread I linked to above, do you really think those people would have been swayed in any different manner?
The people that reacted negatively and viscerally to the announcement of Rush seeking to purchase a team did so instantly, prior to a few in the media mucking it up. Those quote-mines came after people rejected his bid. They were not identified as such until Rush published his article, which was after he was rejected by those associated with the NFL, who reacted within hours of the announcement of his bid. His failure was not a failure of the media, it was his own failure based on his legacy and not a skewed version of his legacy a few in the media messed up.
And yes, and again, of course the press mucked it up, water is also wet in liquid form. We know that. The primary point is that it had no relevancy on swaying the people that mattered given all the liberal waving of hands with false quote-mines happened after the players objected.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 21, 2009 7:11 AM
The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.
All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, (which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism, one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money (Marshall Faulk) that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well they work as a team and not on whether or not Rush is an owner.
As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)
Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last couple of days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so what is being stifled, it simply is not true, of course, you may not have a radio, so you might want to get one.
http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html
PS – I am sure someone is working to put the tapes together maybe all you subscribers can help, since you are all about getting to the truth?
PPS- Beauty Pageant Judge - Now I understand why he lost the weight, to find a new wife, creepy.
Posted by: Paul | October 23, 2009 2:38 PM
The comment thread attached to a newspaper article is going to be a very small and biased sample of the people that read that article, so it proves nothing. I did say 'fewer', didn't I? Obviously, many people will choose to believe what confirms their view regardless of facts.
Actually, I recall reading about the dubious nature of the quotes prior to the publication of Rush's response. A quick search backs that up. (See here and note the date. Rush's article has a 10/16 late evening time stamp at the WSJ page.) Even so, you are probably correct that his established reputation is what did him in, rather than these two quotes.
What I take exception to, though, is that you seem to think that means that there's no big deal. "And yes, and again, of course the press mucked it up, water is also wet in liquid form." When the press screws up against someone you dislike anyway, it can certainly seem that way. But what about the whole 'Al Gore said he invented the internet' fiasco? News media that never properly sourced the quote is why we are stuck with that crap now, since comedians kept making jokes about it afterward until it seemed true.
It was on one of the threads about Bill Maher where a commenter really explained skepticism well. He pointed out about skepticism is about how you think, rather than the results you come up with. (The point was that Maher is anti-religious like most of us, but his anti-vaccine crap ticks us off. So, he's not truly skeptical in his thinking.) For the news media, it should be more important to hold them to a high standard in regards to facts than that they get the right result.
Posted by: JasonTD | October 23, 2009 6:57 PM
JasonTD:
Set up a paypal account. I'll send you a dime so you can call somebody who gives a fuck about poor Rushbo. That somebody is not on this comment thread.
Posted by: democommie | October 24, 2009 12:22 AM
Democommie,
I've done nothing to defend Rush, nor would I. Your glee and sense of 'poetic justice' in this situation may certainly seem like a good thing until the tables are turned and the target of sloppy reporting is someone on your 'side'. Personally, I prefer real justice to poetic justice. Real justice is Rush getting hanged by the things he actually said rather than those two fake quotes. As Kurt pointed out in #23, there's plenty of ammo out there that is not in dispute.
Posted by: JasonTD | October 24, 2009 6:45 AM
JasonTD stated @ 47:
And that is exactly what happened. Do you really believe NFL players monolithically sit around watching the same few media outlets to get their marching orders and then follow in line like sheep? Rush's legacy caused the players to rise up. If a few false quotes were all that stood between him and ownership, the consortium wouldn't have dropped him since that sort of stuff dies down over time. No, Rush's attempt to centralize the story around some quote-mining was a mere diversion by Rush to avoid dealing with the reality that the NFL didn't want him because he's a racist who has used his national bully pulpit for many years now to promote racism by way of continual race-baiting and politics of hatred.
Just yesterday Rush was caught spreading a lie about Obama. Someone did some satire on an Obama college thesis where they wrote it up as he's falsely represented by guys like Limbaugh. Limbaugh thought it was real because he wanted to believe it and when caught spreading this lie on his show, claimed it was something Obama would have said (it's not). Reminds me very much of the leading propagandist of American historical revisionism, David Barton, when caught quote-mining, falsely claim the victim of your false attack "would have said something like that".
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 24, 2009 8:03 AM
Michael,
I said in #45, "Even so, you are probably correct that his established reputation is what did him in, rather than these two quotes." You are continuing to argue a point that I have basically conceded and not addressing what I'm really trying to get across.
I thought I was reasonably clear, but I'll try again anyway. What bothers me is not that Rush got what he 'deserved' (according to democommie) or that the false quotes didn't really matter anyway (your argument). What disturbs me is that the media was careless in their fact-checking because the target was someone they so obviously revile.
It is pretty obvious that just about all news sources are biased to one extent or another. Some may display that bias with willful distortions and falsehoods (aka FoxNews). But I'm not grading on a curve. Letting bias manifest as sloppy reporting when the story fits that bias still earns a 'D' if not an 'F' in my book.
Posted by: JasonTD | October 24, 2009 1:18 PM
JasonTD "What disturbs me is that the media was careless in their fact-checking because the target was someone they so obviously revile."
I hate to point this out, but they don't fact-check people they like, either.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 24, 2009 1:35 PM
Rush Limbaugh: Transcript of radio broadcast from Oct. 14, 2008
By Keith Vance
TRANSCRIPT OF RUSH LIMBAUGH ON HIS RADIO SHOW FROM OCT. 14, 2008
Editor’s note: This is a verbatim transcript of Limbaugh explaining how ACORN, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are all involved in a radical leftwing conspiracy to teach black kids to hate America.
From the time of my birth 57 years ago to today, this country has grown and expanded, prosperity has opened its doors for more and more people around the world, not just people born in this country.
We know the stories of asians immigrating and running rings around people born in this country academically in California. We know all about the immigration, legal and illegal, to get into the country. We know that the standard of living has risen. We know that technological advancement is going along at light speed.
And yet, during this period of time, whether it be the last 57 years, or the last 20 years, it seems that the majority of the black population has remained angry, frustrated and behind – they’ve been left behind. They’re acting like they’ve been left behind, and of course we’ve heard that this is because of racism, natural systemic institutional racism in America. We’re unfair. That this country is just horrible and rotten.
Do you ever ask yourself how it is that people not even born here can come here and in a few short years begin prospering in school, they’re own business, and yet people who are born in this country somehow have been raised to hate it – to still think they’re back in the days of slavery.
I actually think, after studying all this ACORN stuff, and reading what Stanley Kurtz has written about this, I actually believe that what has taken place here, in addition to liberal Democrat legislation – such as the great society and the war on poverty, which a lot of people would now acknowledge really busted up the black family by the government taking the place of a husband and father – he’s free to roam around and bear no responsibility. The mother remained the mother, she got the financial assistance from this legislation from the federal government. The federal government became the father. The father didn’t have to hang around in order for the kids to be OK – depending on how you define OK.
And as you study more and more of this ACORN stuff you find that it has been part of an entire movement that has been going for two maybe three decades right under our noses. We thought that it was just liberal welfare policies and all that that kept blacks from progressing while other minorities grew and prospered but no. It is these wackos from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to other anti-american afro-centric black liberation theologists, working with ACORN, and Barack Obama is smack dab in the middle of it. They have been training young black kids to hate hate hate this country. And they trained their parents before that to hate hate hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers anti-capitalist anti-american educational movement. ACORN is how it was implemented right under our noses.
They’re doing far more folks than just cheating when it comes to elections and registration. They’re in deep in this mortgage crisis. ACORN and Obama, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Democrat Party have their fingerprints the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The whole concept of affordable housing was people who can’t afford a mortgage are going to get one, because America is unfair.
It has been a movement. It has been a religion. And Obama and Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers were all up to their big ears in it.
--------------------------------
This is only one example, he real sounds like America’s Uniter, not a Divider, when it comes to race relations. Rush will not sue because he knows they will file a counter compliant and he will be deposed and like Nixon he knows that the tapes will sink him. For so many years he has spent his time on the radio mis-labeling and/ or mis-characterizing others. Poor little “self-centered” Rush, no out except creating the myth that everyone is out to get him. Sorry sucka you can only yourself to blame for your idiot comments. He finally had his judgment day where the NFL wins and tubby loses. Tee, hee...
Posted by: Montana | October 24, 2009 1:39 PM
JasonTD:
I am in no wise unaware of what you keep harping on. The fact is that what happened to Rushbo is an EVERYDAY occurence in the MSM. It is not a bug of the system, it's a feature. Limpdick has been instrumental in the degrading of information into infotainment
"Your glee and sense of 'poetic justice' in this situation may certainly seem like a good thing until the tables are turned and the target of sloppy reporting is someone on your 'side'."
Are you sentient? That is precisely what has been going on since, at latest, the day that William Loeb's Manchester Union Leader, portrayed Ed Muskie as a deranged lunatice. It will continue to go on. That Rush got smeared by his own creation in a.) Something I find hilarious and b.) Something that happens--and in which he participates--every fucking day. I wish the piece of shit would just die, this will do for the moment.
Posted by: democommie | October 25, 2009 8:16 AM