March 21, 2007

Irony, Mainstream-Media Style

No one does irony like the mainstream media. When an opportunity arose to skewer one of the Right's most powerful voices, they jumped all over it -- and made themselves into fools for doing so. After hounding Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for a reaction to criticism by Rush Limbaugh over his centrist policies, the Governator replied that Rush is irrelevant to his decision-making:

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are feuding.

Limbaugh says Schwarzenegger is a Democrat in GOP clothing. The governor responds that the talk show host is "irrelevant."

Limbaugh has been challenging Schwarzenegger's Republican credentials, asserting that the governor has betrayed conservative principles. Schwarzenegger has responded by turning the other cheek — until now.

"Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant. I am not his servant," Schwarzenegger said during an interview Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.

The so-called "feud" must have ended quite rapidly, because Arnold was a guest on Rush's show this morning. They spoke for 15 minutes and had a polite and constructive discussion about policy. As Rush himself noted, the "irrelevant" remark came from the constant badgering Arnold gets about Rush's commentary, as if Arnold has to answer for everything Rush says.

The media gleefully repeated the quote, however, in an attempt to score a couple of points off of Rush. How many did that? Well, let's see - besides the CBS link, we have:

Guardian (UK)
Forbes Magazine
Houston Chronicle
Sports Illustrated
Los Angeles Times
Pravda (Russia)
NBC San Diego
San Francisco Chronicle
Washington Post

In fact, over 160 news outlets chose to publish this story, plus any number of blogs. It seems to be one of the hotter stories, as it has garnered all of this attention in less than 36 hours. The mainstream media has proven that Rush Limbaugh is exceedingly relevant in its attempt to publicize this to embarrass him.

Somewhere, Rush is lighting a cigar and enjoying one of the most satisfying laughs of his life.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Irony, Mainstream-Media Style:

» Bill's Nibbles // Open Post -- 2007.03.21 from Bill's Bites
Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not related to other posts on the site. If you leave a trackback your post must include a link to this one and, as always, comments claiming the sun [Read More]

» Bill's Nibbles // Open Post -- 2007.03.21 from Old War Dogs
Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not related to other posts on the site. If you leave a trackback your post has to include a link to this one and, as always, comments claiming the [Read More]

» California: A Much Better Business Atmosphere? from Ed
During his interview with "the irrelevant Rush Limbaugh", Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "I would say a huge amount of businesses are coming back here because we are creating a much better business atmosphere". For all sorts of reasons, I find that... [Read More]

Comments (41)

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 3:16 PM

Why the over-reaction? Because they are scared to death, that's why!

They seem to think that if one conservative differs with another that the "Great Wall" is cracking and will soon tumble into dust. They don't want to admit that their opposition is not some narrow little cabal of brittle idealogues, but a very broad and diverse range of ideas and people. If they ever admitted such a heresy, they would be forced to look at themselves and why they engender such opposition. They will never do any such thing!

Posted by nandrews3 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:07 PM

Hey, Ed, as touching as it is to see you defend your friend, what's revealing is that you chose to do so by offering a long list of news outlets that carried the Schwarzenegger quote (mostly by running the AP story, from what little I sampled).

The reports were all aimed at covering what looked like (and may still be) a developing feud between Arnold and Rush (and probably others on the right). Just because the media show Arnold calling Rush irrelevant, that doesn't mean they're all calling Rush irrelevant.

But that's how you took it. You missed the point. But maybe that's how your friend saw it, too. That's certainly how an insecure person with an inferiority complex would see it. I hope he enjoys his cigar and his relevance.

Posted by bayamm [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:07 PM

Rush isn't feared, he's an object of contempt.

To add to the cigar lighting and laughter, I'd add profuse pill-popping and plans for divorce number four. What a winner.

At least he turned to Hollywood for support during his little pill-popping episodes. One of my friends in LA works for the PR firm that managed the media response. Her clients include A-list celebrities with addiction problems and Rush. What is that phrase about birds of a feather?

As for Arnold, it's obvious that most of his policies have nothing to do with Rush's beliefs. Arnold is part of the moderate wing of the party.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:22 PM

As usual, our bumbing, stumbling, wildly biased MSM gets the story wrong.

The MSM botching news stories is pretty much becoming a "dog bites man" story.

And the MSM wonders why they're losing viewers and readers in droves.

If I want to be lied to and get my news from the DNC, I'll go to the DNC website and eliminate the middle men/women.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:39 PM

What Schwarzenegger meant, is that Limbaugh (and all the other things that don't influence Kaleeforneia's economic health) are irrelevant to his decisions about California taxes, minimum wage, health care, etc. He (Schwarzenegger) can only be responsible for what affects California economy, and Limbaugh isn't one of those things. In that context, some whole nations are pretty irrelevant to California--especially the ones with very few TVs or DVD players.

Posted by A NEWT ONE [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:39 PM

Could you please add our blog to the 101st fighting keyboardists?

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:43 PM


Good points, but don't underestimate the cretins in the MSM (or the population in general). The elections weren’t that long ago. IIRC the MSM carried the water for the DNC…with good effect…¿No?

Posted by A NEWT ONE [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 4:45 PM

Please add both addresses if you could

I would be very, very grateful


Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 5:02 PM

No, you're the one who missed the point.

The Capt. did not claim that the MSM had claimed Rush was irrelevant. Please reread carefully.

His point was that the press very widely covered Schwarzeneggar's comment (and did so rather out of context).

So whatever the Governator might think, the MSM has demonstrated that *they* care a lot about Rush Limbaugh.

Hence the irony.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 5:12 PM

Why do Liberals HATE Mr. Limbaugh; FEAR... Pure raw FEAR... Liberals have no answer for Limbaugh; no way to silence him; no way to answer to him; no way to debate with him... Not one Liberal politician will ever dare to debate Limbaugh, as they can't stand up to the superior intelligence of the truth detector. They call him names, make fun of his addition to pain medication; but debate him in a forum of any kind; absolutely not; never...

Watch out now CE; you're going to drive monkei & ck off the cliff with this post... How dare you reference Rush Limbaugh; after all, the trolls have denounced this man, therefore, it is so...

Rush nailed Arnold with the truth today; bigger government role in the civilian world is not the answer; bigger government is is a move towards Socialism. Arnold is a nice enough guy, but his politics have gone pure Liberal; no talking his way out of his own actions.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 6:31 PM

Pearls of wisdom from Mr. Limbaugh...

Conservatism is what it is. Your complaint about the so-called social conservatives or the Christian right or the social wing of conservatism, if you want to describe conservatism as a stool that has three legs, you do have what you call the Soviet Union leg, and then you do have what would be called the economic leg, and then you have the social leg. But that sort of complicates the issue. I must tell you also, Richard, you've been a conservative all these years but when you say that you have this distrust, you never thought it should have been part of the conservative movement, the social aspects and then you mention the Christian right, it sounds like to me you're a little bit more of a moderate Republican than you are a conservative if you think the social conservative aspect is not valid or should not be part of it. Let me try to give you a brief definition, because everybody's asked, "Well, what is a Reagan conservative? Why are some Republicans a conservative in your mind and others are not a conservative?"

That's a long discussion for which I don't have time before the break here. But let me just explain to you in a nutshell, as best I can, in a broad sense the difference in the two. Let's accept some givens, that all people -- and I'm going to be very charitable here, because in some cases what I'm going to say is not applicable to some liberals, but just for the general discussion here, we all -- want economic prosperity. We all want opportunity. We all want a chance at the American dream. We all want to be left alone. We don't want to be hassled. We don't want to have obstacles placed in our way by government in the pursuit of our dreams. The question and the argument that we have in this country is how best to provide it. That's where the line of demarcation is broad, because on the left, liberals do not believe that a majority of people have the ability to realize the American dream on their own. Liberals have general contempt for the average American and average human being. Liberals have a condescending contempt for the abilities, the intelligence, the ambition, and desire of average human beings.
They must hold that view in order to be liberal, because liberalism is assuming people are helpless and hopeless and then growing government and all kinds of state power structures to "assist" people in their incompetence, and in the process you actually make your philosophy a self-fulfilling prediction. You disable the competitive nature; you disable the entrepreneurial spirit; you disable the American dream; and you force people to focus on government and whatever benefits they can get as a means of getting by. Conservatives have the ultimate faith in the individual. Conservatives believe that the individual, rugged individualism is what defines excellence and its pursuit is what made this country what it is. We believe that people can be better than they even know themselves or think themselves capable of being. We want to do everything we can to educate and inspire and motivate people along those lines. We want a great country! We want people who are individually able to raise families, to support them, to inspire them because they themselves are that way.

We want optimistic people of good cheer who have a hope that is realistic: that they can triumph over the obstacles that all of life throws at us. Liberals think those obstacles are insurmountable because they must. Now, that's the basic difference. So, okay: how come some people are not conservative and some are? Well, you have to get to specific issues like abortion and gay marriage and this sort of thing, and that would be one way of doing it. But any Republican who is oriented toward growth of government, the growth of the state, and the idea that people need infinite amount of help because they're incapable of doing things on their own, doesn't qualify as a conservative to me -- and there are plenty of those. There are liberal Republicans all over the place. It's not hard to make these distinctions or to draw up these definitions.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 6:48 PM

Here we go again, bash the "liberal " MSM and pretend Fox News, which is the ratings leader, isn"t part of the MSM. Everyone knows Arnold isn"t a conservative, not even close. The media outlets ran with this story because it sells! They want to make money. They put money ABOVE any political ideology. And if the neo-clown crowd want to worship Rush let them. If their idea of conservatism is represented by a man who has been divorced 3 times, an ex drug addict, and who loves to fly to the Dominican Republic (underage sex capitol of the world) with viagra(not in his name though) I say God bless these people.

Posted by digitalintrigue [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 6:59 PM

If anything proves that Rush is anything but irrelevant, the swiftness of the MSM to report this supposed 'feud' confirms it completely.

Posted by digitalintrigue [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 7:04 PM

Oh conservative democrat, where is your tolerance?? Where is the support? Why are you not embracing those who exhibit human frailty? And what's this about the DR-- is it based on first-hand knowledge?

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 7:05 PM

CD proves my point rather well; take a good look at the words of Rush Limbaugh, then take a good look at the words of a garden variety Liberal (CD)...

Pretty much sums it up as to why these folks have no answer for Mr. Limbaugh; thus the hatred...

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 7:11 PM


What the heck do you Liberals have against Viagra? I hope I live long enough to one day be very appreciative of this drug...

Posted by bloodstomper [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 7:31 PM

For Christ's sake! Limbaugh may be the cat's meow to you, but to those of us who have satisfying lives, to those of us who aren't afraid to live in the world, Limbaugh is most definitely irrelevant.

You might want to ask yourselves why you need Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 7:53 PM

I've never listened to his program in my life.

I just think it's odd how much fuss your side makes over him.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 8:03 PM

You might want to ask yourselves why you need Rush Limbaugh.

Good question; deserving of an honest answer.

I can't trust the so called MSM to give me the news without tainting the news with biased agenda driven propaganda. Rush Limbaugh & others, provide an alternate source of news & opinions.

For Christ's sake! Limbaugh may be the cat's meow to you, but to those of us who have satisfying lives, to those of us who aren't afraid to live in the world, Limbaugh is most definitely irrelevant.

Now here is where you go bad bloodstomper. I have never asked for or taken a government handout of any kind. I worked my way through college and opened up my own business when I was 28 year old. I have three wonderful children and a marriage of 27 years. I coached Little League for (7) years; I coached youth football for (6) years; I was Cub Master of our local Cub Scout program for (5) years; I have been an assistant Scoutmaster for our Boy scout troop for the past (6) years... My business is now 25 years old. Seven of my former employees have opened up their own businesses, all of them have achieved much success. CE has given us a forum to voice our opinions, while blowing off a little steam. I want my opinions heard; I appreciate the opportunity to have a voice. But lets get real here; when I get off this computer, I will be cooking dinner for my family and enjoying some basketball on TV later in this night. I get to sleep next to my soul mate; I get to hug my boys before they go to sleep.

Satisfying lives; afraid to live in the real world. Do you really think that the 20 million people that listen to Limbaugh are afraid to live in the real world? Wow, that's really deep...

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 8:12 PM

Captain: the mainstream media does the same thing when any kind of so called "feud" sparks up between any hollywood star. This whole thing is similar to their treatment of Michael Jackson. Everybody thinks that Jacko is a freak, so the media exploits that. Rush is hated by half of the country, because he's a documented liar with strong opinions. The media's only trying to make a buck.

I know you don't believe in conspiracies, and the "media" isn't out to get conservatives just because you think their treatment of people you look up to is unfair.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 8:29 PM

You see Matt & bloodstomper,

This is the kind of information that we get from the likes of Rush Limbaugh; information that we would never get through the so called MSM. Fair minded people want as much data as possible. We trust ourselves to make reasonable decisions when given the available information.

This article is not taken from a Limbaugh source, but is typical of the information discussed by Limbaugh.

BTW: Matt, as a blogger; how about providing us with some back-up for your very bold statements.

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:19 PM

Something Limbaugh does which must push the hippie retread activist press over the edge is the "audio montage" segments featured on his program. Using "reporter's" own words in context Limbaugh can easily reveal how the bulk of the old network media gets its talking points from a central source. Whether that central source is Soros, the DNC headquarters or (Soros money) which claims to own the DNC is debatable. The audio montages effectively reveal that much of the activist press are merely parrots for a common source.

The Leftist mantra is the same whether it is the Brokaws, Jenningses, Courics, Williamses, Ifills, Lehrers, Lauers, Woodruffs,Rathers, Cronkites, Coopers or other anchor pimps pretending to be news hosts, or the Sawyerses, Mitchells,Comptons, Koppels, Baba Wawas, Burys, Gregorys etc. pretending to be journalists or the former shills for specific politicians like Stuffinenvelopes, Chris Matthews, or Libby saboteur / Hillary worshipper Russert who now pretend to be objective hosts of the Sunday talking heads shows. More importantly than revealing modern activist junk journalism to be centrally sourced those audio montages reveal the preceding "journalists" to be advocates or stepandfetchits for a cause instead of anything remotely resembling objective reporting. No doubt it frosts Diane Sawyer, Anne "clenched" teeth" Compton, Dave Gregory and Katie "pom-pom" Couric to hear their scripted lines all being the same, word for word, broadcast one after the other on Limbaugh's program. Nobody is supposed to be watching all of the TV channels at once! Yet Limbaugh and Company does (credit also due to Brent Bozell and his MRC monitors). So Limbaugh feels reporter's Nagin-esque rages for Rush having easily outed the old media presstitutes. Several at a time! Whether one agrees with Rush's politics or not cannot discount his effectiveness at revealing much of modern journalism has become brazenly Leftist Agit-Prop.

Which brings us to Limbaugh's so-called irrelevancy along with his equally irrelevant 600 plus affiliate stations! The envy of reporters dearly wishing Limbaugh was irrelevant is palpable in their screeds and other efforts against him. For example: last week Rush affiliate WWL-AM (New Orleans) attempted to censor (using local advertising) a Limbaugh spoof of Al Sharpton. They must have thought they'd pulled a fast one on Rush because they smoothly continued with ads until the return from station break at which point Rush replayed the Sharpton spoof in entirety. Surprise! What that instantly revealed was how an increasingly pro-Nagin, pro-Blanco, pro-Clinton station like WWL-AM had tried to scuttle what they'd rather an audience not hear and how quickly Limbaugh's organization was able to know about it and strike that censorship down. The irony is that without Rush to keep them afloat (no pun) many stations like WWL would be small players or out of business entirely without Rush program advertising revenue.

As many here already know the target audience for irrelevancy claims are Liberals who simply hate Rush. Ask them why they hate him and you get a nebulous "because" answer. Press the typical robotic Liberal further and they can't give a straight answer for their hatred. Ask them if they've ever listened to the program and the answer almost invariably is "never." So why do you hate Rush? Uh, I don't know, uh, because... of what he says. Oh, the stuff he says which you've never heard him say? Uh, yeah, sorta. The same mentality which worshipfully follows Al Gore as a faux-climatology expert or Michael Moore propaganda as a "documentary" just because both peddled low grade party-line films!

One thing is certain. There can be no doubt that the hardcore Liberal so-called journalists claiming Limbaugh to be irrelevant wish beyond reason in their heart of hearts that they could somehow gain a power which Orwell warned us against to make their hippie dream come true. If the Dan Rathers of the world are willing to use obviously forged memos in attempt to unseat a US President you can be certain Rather's colleagues of similar mindset would have no scruples in trying the same against a phenomenally successful talk show host. I agree that Rush is probably enjoying watching the old Clinton media tie itself in knots thinking they're hurting him!

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 12:16 AM

The smell of hypocrisy is rank in this comment section. You guys go on and on about how there's this huge, back room conspiracy of journalists in a "drive by media", out to brainwash us all. They all answer to George Soros who will no one day finally reveal himself as the long anticipated anti-christ, amass an army of communists and fascists among the left, attempt to conquer the free world and institute a big brother style government, only worse. Hell, if I could bring myself to sit through a whole 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh, and I painfully listened to him repeat the phrase "drive-by-media" over and over again five hundred times into my poor ears, I might start to believe it too.

Here's the thing... you preach about the dangers of getting information from sources with bias, yet you refuse to get information from any source that isn't demonstrably biased against democrats. I have a blog that is totally, 100% biased against republicans. But I don't tell you to get your information from me. Rush is an entertainer, and he isn't shy about how much he hates liberals. The captain isn't shy about openly proclaiming his conservative beliefs. Can he be trusted for fair and balanced information? He can certainly be trusted for some of the best opinions from one side of the aisle. Sorry to bust your bubble, but that's only hearing half of the story.

If you're going to be ranting and raving about personal vendettas in journalism PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. A conservative blog isn't going to give you the slightest bit of info that may have the possibility of making a democrat look good (god forbid) and the same goes for liberal blogs. But the state of journalism as a whole, (which includes literally tens of thousands of different publications; which isn't exactly the best groundwork for an organization of bias) is debatable and subjective according to an individuals personal political beliefs.

Realism... don't you love it? I myself can't get enough.

By The Way (which I'm assuming BTW stands for) Keemo here's my backup, even though I'm keenly aware of the fact that you'll merely glimpse at it and convince yourself that it's just the product of some conniving liberal organization, controlled by the puppet strings of Soros and his minions.

It's all here:

-Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality
Keep in mind that this is a FAIR article from a decade ago and only contains statistical information available in 1994.

Throughout the nineties, Limbaugh repeatedly claimed that the dissappearing ozone layer was the product of "active volcanoes" with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up. (Volcanic chlorine rains out before it ever reaches the stratosphere) But if you listen to Limbaugh, you're already extremely paranoid about activist scientists with agendas so all this scientific mumbo jumbo may not be relevant to you.

Here are some of my other favorites:

LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)

REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")

LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.

LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)

REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2).

I've tried listening to Rush several times just to give him the chance I felt he deserved. I gave up quickly when one day he said, in all seriousness, something to the effect of... "marine biologists discovered a new species of shark today off the coast of Florida. Now wait a minute! I thought these environmentalists have been telling us all these years that all of these poor, defenseless species were in danger of being wiped off the face of the earth! Which one is it, endangered or not?!? You can't have it both ways."

Even a two year old could figure out the discrepancies in that statement.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 12:25 AM

*no doubt one day reveal himself as the anti-christ.

proof read matt, proof read. sarcasm doesn't work very well online, especially when you're sentences are missing whole words.

Posted by liontooth [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 12:52 AM

Yeah, no 'conniving liberal organization' there!

I'm keenly aware of the fact that you'll merely glimpse at it and convince yourself that it's just the product of some conniving liberal organization, controlled by the puppet strings of Soros and his minions.

It's all here: ">

Jeff Cohen founded FAIR in 1986.
Cohen was a senior producer on Donahue and an on-air commentator.
Prior to launching FAIR in 1986, Cohen worked in Los Angeles as a journalist, and as a lawyer for the ACLU. His investigative articles ran in Rolling Stone, New Times, Mother Jones and other publications.

Posted by TyCaptains [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 1:04 AM

No one fears Limbaugh - that's silly. The left will despise him just as the right will despise..oh...Franken?

The MSM covers it because it's sensationalist - e.g. "He said what?"

Look at the whole Donald Trump vs. Rosie O'Donell. Surely the left doesn't fear either of them. The latter is openly gay and the former called Bush Jr. the worst president in recent times.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 9:02 AM

bayrumm sez:

"Rush isn't feared, he's an object of contempt"

Sorry, but the rest of your hysterical post disproves your allegation.

And Matt sez:


LOL! "FAIR", Matt? Try again.

Posted by Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 9:15 AM

What's funny is that Matt declares that conservatives who get information from biased sources, then he runs to an extremely biased source for his "evidence" against Limbaugh.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 9:42 AM

Here is the profile on the guy Matt uses to discredit Mr. Limbaugh...

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that's only hearing half of the story.

Most of read a newspaper; at least one magazine; watch some prime time news; some MTV or related leftist outlet; are forced to watch CNN at airports & other venues. My biggest exposure to a leftist mentality comes from the many Democrats I associate with through my work and youth related programs within my community. Our best friends were born and raised in NY; having come to California some 20 years ago due to business. This couple is firmly planted on the middle left side of things. We have great debates, with both families influencing the other in some ways. The husband voted for Kerry, while the wife voted for Bush due to homeland protection. It was great watching these two argue over the 2004 election.

I can't stand the radical left of this country; I can't stand the radical right of this country... I'm a Conservative minded individual. Conservatism fits my spirit very well. I have many good friends that are registered Democrats; and they should be, as this ideology best fits their spirit. However, these friends are Americans first, parents second, and somewhere in the top 10, they are Democrats. I have Liberals firmly planted on the radical left. Liberals dominate the MSM. None of this is very hard to figure out; most certainly not hard to recognize. Most adults beyond the age of 35 simply want the facts and the oppertunity to make decisions based on the facts. Most adults seek various venues to gather data. Most adults are busy living life; raising families; advancing careers...

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 12:08 PM

The "I tried to listen to Rush" excuse simply doesn't wash. Again it reveals the mental trap the rabid Left falls into of listing all the things that he's allegedly said right after saying they couldn't listen to him.

If the predictable Liberal is going to spout the Left's favorite "hypocrisy" line during debate he should keep in mind that when shooting himself in the foot he should not aim too carefully.

Now, a claim that "I tried to listen to Franken but no rational station wishing to remain in business would carry his show" would hold water because Franken was and is a failure dependent (like so many of his following) on some sort of hand out.

The attempts to imagine that Soros doesn't have considerable purchasing power over DNC leadership are duly noted. Even Ed Geffen, however, has finally realized how easily Democrat candidates like Shrillary can be bought with outside money no less quickly than Bubba could sell a pardon to fugitive Mark Rich, nuclear technology to North Korea, or coffee time sold to James Riady.

For modern junk journalism it should be viewed less as a conspiracy and more as groupthink (or when reporting on Clinton: gropethink). Back in the day when CNN actually had viewers Eleanor Clift's pathetic bleatings for her love-muffin Boy Clinton were referred to by some as Monica envy. Anybody else remember the famous Pauline Kael quote from 1972 : "How could that (Nixon's re-election) be? I don't know a single person who voted for him."

That quote reveals activist junk journalism's central problem is that they've become so inbred politically they cannot handle successes like Limbaugh who spoofs them and their Democrat Party mantras.

Limbaugh's success can be summed up quickly as can be the dismal failure of activist Liberal journalism:

Rush Limbaugh claims to be a commentator and fulfills that role with great success. Modern hippie journalism purports to be objective yet the Jayson Blairs and Dan Rathers faking their way through their careers reveals them to be commentators who are pretending to be journalists.

Much of Rush's tremendous success can be attributed to his revealing of old network and old newspaper to be whores of the Democrat party leadership. The irony is that whenever the Lefty press tries to smear or mischaracterize Limbaugh his ratings skyrocket and the public hears his side of the story without media spin.

Rush has become the flea under the collar of a now openly activist press which used to control what was reported as news. It is obvious the moonbat Left resents Limbaugh as much as they resent the freedom of information exchange the internet has provided since Al Gore generously "invented" it. Long before Fat Albert was jet-setting his way from mansion to mansion while telling the peons to be miserly with energy and natural resources!

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 12:30 PM

viking, Well put, shipmate!

Are you a "Hoover" driver? (S-3B)

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 2:11 PM

I think my overall point flew over most of your heads. This is the point, summed up, simplified so that hopefully this time you will understand.

Attacking the "MSM", and then in the same sentence, defending Rush Limbaugh IS hypocrisy. As I showed you, and as you well know, Limbaugh HATES the left and has been shown to repeat falsehoods over and over again. He is biased to the extreme. It makes no sense to whine and complain about liberal bias, and proceed to claim that Rush Limbaugh of all people exposes this bias without spinning the overall facts for his own benefit to strengthen his argument and get all of you righties' blood boiling. That's it.

Rush is a sham and you all know it. He's a big talker with no brains. Everyone in the media distorts the facts or misrepresents them now and then. Limbaugh does it frequently with no apologizies and no corrections.... ever.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 2:21 PM


Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 2:28 PM

Where's the other half of the story on Limbaugh, Keemo? Even if a pundit is shown to lie 1% of the time without correcting himself, what's the point in trusting anything he or she says? If they don't correct a lie, how are you ever suppose to know what's a lie and what isn't?

Jeff Cohen worked for many different news outlets, including Fox News. Which is something that you conveniently left out of your comment.

Here are the sources FAIR got it's info from in order to discredit Limbaugh's statements: oh, so liberal......

Census Bureau
CIA's 1993 World Fact Book
Congressional Budget Office
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Encyclopedia Britannica
USDA Handbook

In fact, FAIR is soooo liberal and sooo biased that they put two links at the bottom of the page that direct you to Rush Limbaugh's personal response to the article. Damn those spin doctors...

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 3:53 PM


You have proven yourself to be nothing other than a political hack. Your argument is weak & is an argument we have heard many times before your arrival here to CQ. You have NO answer for Mr. Limbaugh; his intellect is so far above that of yours, you must resort to meaningless name calling. Same with Hannity, Hewitt, Elder, Ingraham, & so many others that are busting your balls on a daily basis with good old fashioned "facts"... Viking01 nailed it perfectly; Rush busts your balls with actual sound bites and quotes from the Liberal media and Democrat politicians and talking heads. Fair is nothing but a propaganda rag, plain and simple; a dime a dozen, these rags are out there simply because people like yourself feed off them.

This is a class site Matt, learn from it. I toured your blog Matt; you have much to learn if you are going to get any traffic and actually engage with people of a like ideology.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 4:07 PM

My concern isn't to get traffic, and it certainly isn't to "engage with people of a like ideology". If I was attempting to do that, why in God's name would I be commenting on this blog right now?

I presented more facts in one comment than I've seen in this entire thread. I presented facts, you did not. I "busted your balls" by presenting quotes from Rush Limbaugh, and then proved how incredibly wrong they were. I have NO answer to Limbaugh? Can you read?

I, unlike you, try hard to expose myself to more than one type of opinion. You listen to Hannity, Ingraham and Limbaugh. You seem to believe that they are the be-all-end-all of unbiased, hard hitting journalism. I tried to show you otherwise, but I knew from the beginning that it was useless because people like you have their heads so deep in the mud that you're impossible to reason with.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 4:18 PM

Seasoned veterans; we are... We've covered this subject at least a dozen times before Matt. Did you actually think you were going to come to a Conservative site and convince us that your words are somehow more powerful and meaningful than those of Mr. Limbaugh? Are you a legend in your own mind? Are you a garden variety elitist? Do you have any idea how full of yourself you come off here?

I didn't think so...

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 4:42 PM

I enjoy intellectually battling it out just as much as you and Rush. That's the only reason I'm here. I don't know everything, I'm not an elitist, but I don't come on here and talk about things that I have no knowledge of. I'm sorry if I come off as a snob, but when you accuse me of providing no evidence for my arguments, even though I included an array of examples to back up my claims, it becomes a little frustrating. This should be an avenue of debate, not mere reinforcement for narrow opinions.

I have nothing but respect for everyone on this blog. I love reading Ed's posts, and most of the time I agree with him. But sometimes I strongly disagree, and I can't help but play the role of the voice of dissent, that's just what I like to do. You're more than welcome to come on my site and try to discredit every argument that I make.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 5:25 PM

Fair enough Matt...

If you frequent this site Matt, you will notice that the debate here is often full of substance; we have several commenters here, that are at the top of their fields. Things do get heated from time to time; however, the substance is usually of a very high quality. Join in and have some fun; however, you must keep in mind that this is a Conservative site. The attraction for many of us surrounds the opinions and views of our host. If you're coming here to try and change minds and hearts; well all I can say is "expect to be roasted". Personally, I do have respect for some of our left leaning members of the CQ community; most certainly ck, monkei, and a few others have taken their share of abuse here and survived quite well. Every now and again, these guys actually get my attention, and I'm pretty sure these guys are good and decent humans; confused big time; but good humans none the less.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 5:32 PM

Thanks Keemo, and trust me I know. I've been an avid visitor and a commenter off and on here for almost a year now. This is my favorite conservative site because the people who comment here are, as you said, seasoned veterans. I love being burned and attempting to burn. It strengthens my opinions.

Posted by Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 8:50 AM


The only one being a hypocrite here is you.