Posted on 10/04/2007 11:27:15 AM PDT by jazusamo
Thursday, October 04, 2007
What is it about Rush Limbaugh? Whatever influence he has on conservatives, it's nothing next to his influence on liberals. The man behind the golden microphone makes them do the stupidest things. In fact, it's clear that Rush gets them to do the stupidest things without their even listening to his show.
Consider the current "phony soldiers" story. Rush uttered these words last week and soon left-wing outfits, TV networks, lawmakers, presidential candidates and others make fools of themselves.
Media Matters kicks things off by charging that Limbaugh has said that troops who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers." Next MSNBC and CNN push the story, Sen. John Kerry and other Democratic lawmakers demand apologies, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid heads to the floor to ask members of the world's greatest deliberative body to sign a letter of condemnation to Limbaugh's boss at Clear Channel (only 41 Democrats signed on). Gen. Wesley Clark wants Limbaugh taken off armed forces radio.
Even your scribe here felt the impact of the smear. "Why don't you condemn Limbaugh while you're at it," the snarky challenges poured in after my Sunday column rebuked Democrats who would not censure MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad. I had made the point that Congress was right to denounce this assault on the active-duty officer. Had Rush questioned the bonafides of soldiers opposed to the war? Did lefties have a fair-is-fair point?
Nothing would have pleased me more. It would give me a chance to polish my own consistency credentials and Republicans and Democrats in Congress the chance for a healing moment. Condemn MoveOn one month and Rush the next and show that we're not engaged in selective indignation.
Alas, a full reading of the transcripts will not allow it. He did use the term "phony soldiers" in talking with a caller. But Media Matters rips his words out of context to concoct a smear.
Here's what Media Matters and crew highlight:
Caller: "What's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue . . ."
Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
Caller: "The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country."
If Rush is guilty of anything, it's using the phrase while listening to this caller. That he was not buying into the caller's point is clear in his unprompted remarks after the call: "I gotta -- here is a morning update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities. One . . . was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth." He read his "phony soldier" commentary from the day before.
Macbeth, you see, had claimed he was a Ranger in Iraq and earned a Purple Heart. He also claimed he and other Rangers had slaughtered innocent Iraqis in a mosque. As such, he became the toast of the anti-war set. But it turns out he hadn't served in Iraq. He was discharged after six weeks of boot camp.
"Last week in federal court in Seattle, Macbeth offered an apology for defaming the real American heroes as he admitted to lying about his service record and his supposed atrocities." That's not Rush speaking. That's ABC News reporter Brian Ross reporting on "World News with Charles Gibson." It was a segment on "Phony War Vets." It ran one night before Limbaugh's Tuesday commentary on Macbeth and two days before Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" retort to his caller.
Let's see, Limbaugh makes a specific, uncontroversial mention of "phony soldiers" the day before the conversation with the caller and repeats this riff less than two minutes after uttering the two-word phrase that Media Matter cherry picked from that chat. Neither the before or after remarks refer to soldiers who oppose the war. And we're supposed to conclude that this longtime champion of U.S. troops, as Reid said, "took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us"?
Granted, Reid and the left feel the need to respond to the resolutions condemning MoveOn's ad. But, really, how stupid do they think we are? As stupid as Rush seems to make some liberals?
‘Whatever influence he has on conservatives, it’s nothing next to his influence on liberals.’
The best single observation I’ve seen on this topic to date.
This is one reason I am so glad we have the Electoral College. People of this country don’t know much at all about the candidates. Just what they hear from time to time. The Electoral College can go through all kinds of information in short order. If they feel a person is a true danger to the country but the people don’t know about it, they have the last vote. If it is proven that Hillary Clinton knowingly accepted money from the Chinese, as her husband did, but the people aren’t told about it, the Electoral College can stop her from becoming President.
If the dem that asks for a condemnation of Rush that means they support the ‘service’ of Jesse McBeth and Scott Beauchamp....
The problem with that is that most members of the electoral college are party loyalists who aren’t going to think for themselves (and in some states may be legally required to vote as pledged). Some lawyer who is a member of the ACLU and on the board of the local Planned Parenthood outfit, who actively worked for Hillary’s election, gets picked as a Democrat elector and the Democrats carry that state—he or she is not going to think twice about voting for Hillary.
Dave Rhinehard is great!
California is looking to change some of that. All 55 of California’s votes may not necessarily have to go to one party or another. This could change the whole game.
I think he answered for us. The libs are stupid.
“that means they support the ‘service’ of Jesse McBeth and Scott Beauchamp....”
I’ve never heard Reid or Harkin condemn the actions of these two men. They must have an affinity for phonies.
I believe all conservatives should be sick and tired of being attacked by lying liberals.
Good article. Concise and to the point.
Thanks for posting the link to Stand with Rush, the signatures are coming in fast.
"..because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth." - Rush Limbaugh
Rush said that during the same 'controversial' exchange under fire now. He was almost prophetic there. It's as if Harry Reid et al could hardly wait to prove that right. LOL
Of course there are exceptions...one of Gore's electors didn't vote to protest the District of Columbia's not having senators and congressmen (or something like that), and I think one of Nixon's electors in 1960 voted for Harry F. Byrd.
That is comical, I never can get over the fact that Reid is the dim bulb that he is. lol
I can’t believe anybody would put that mush brained milktoast up to represent them but there he is; Nevada’s Senator and the Dem’s Senate leader. I guess you put up the best you’ve got. ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.