Even former President George W. Bush did not agree with radio demogogue, R. Limbaugh, who said that President Obama was ingratiating himself with the African-American voters when he responded to the Haitian disaster.
Ingratiating himself? Mr. Obama had 98% of the African-American vote in the last election! Why would he need to "burnish" his credibility with a voting bloc already on his side?
Limbaugh is a filthy racist. He brought race into the Haitian catastrophe and into America's response to the suffering and death of the Haitian people. No one else used the race card, but Limbaugh did. His defenders keep repeating that he is not a racist. They're wrong. Once again, Limbaugh brought race into a discussion where it did not belong. He introduced race into a discussion on rescuing the Haitian people from disaster. And he actually urged people NOT to contribute to efforts for relief. He is a pig. Wait. I'm wrong to besmirch all the pigs of the earth with that comparison. Mea culpa.
Former President George W. Bush pushed back Sunday against criticism -- levied most prominently by talk radio host Rush Limbaugh -- that his successor, President Barack Obama, was somehow politicizing the disastrous earthquake in Haiti.
"I don't know if -- what they're talking about," Bush declared during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I've been briefed by the President about the response. And as I said in my opening comment, I appreciate the president's quick response to this disaster.
This past week, Limbaugh insisted that the Obama White House would use the catastrophe in Haiti to "burnish" the president's standing and credibility "with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country."
"It's made-to-order for 'em," Limbaugh said. "That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there."
h/t huffpost
80 comments:
yeah. Obama's standing in the polls among African-Americans is threatening to plummet as low as 97.999%. So yes, it is obvious that he must do something to shore up this rapidly crumbling part of his political base.
dmarks is correct. Limbaugh was merely trying to point this slippage out in order to help the president.
There's nothing like Oxycontin to bring out the humanity in the largest of men.I for one applaud Limbaugh's expansiveness.
The other message is that Rush thinks trying to appeal for African American support of the republican party is useless. So he may as well go out of his way to piss African Americans off. Plus that seals up the bigot vote for the republicans.
From a political standpoint this seems to have worked well for the republicans over the years. It also shows there are more bigots than Blacks. That's very troubling.
This is as desperate as posters of rape victims. Baracka Doc, is trying to recruit Martha to his cadre of Tonton Macoute's. Looks like, unless Ed Schultz is right about this election that Democrats should cheat by voting early and often (something ACORN never thought of, that and registering dead people and amusement park characters), he'll have to push for that internal security force he touted on the campaign trail, with machetes.
CB, since when is sending emergency relief to earthquake victims akin to sending in the Tonton Macoute? Would you rather have these people starve or die for lack of medical attention? What a bizarre comment. There is a misplaced anger in your comment that defies the facts of the situation.
Octo: CB bringing up the Tonton Macoute was perhaps a hint at the idea of the Pat Robertson idea that Haiti is a nation of evil voodoo devil-worshippers and they deserve whatever happens.
If true, would any of this undo the accomplishments and focus of the civil rights era?
CB,
Today we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, and among the comments on this post I see that you compare President Obama with the murderous dictatorial regime that terrorized the Haitian people for years.
What a tribute to Dr. King's dream.
You've suggested by your use of the mocking "Baracka doc" and inserting the Tonton Macoute's (a bloody, criminal organization in the service of dictator Papa Doc Duvalier and his son)that President Obama kidnaps American citizens, throws them in jail without cause and then tortures and murders them.
(The irony is that this is what the Bush administration did to people they suspected of being terrorists, but I'm guessing CB was really comfortable with that.)
Your deranged hatred for President Obama has become pathalogical.
When you have something of value to say and when you can criticize President Obama without comparing him to a bloody, murdering dictator, you can come back.
Otherwise, stay on your own blog and continue to vent your obvious out of control rage over having Mr. Obama as our Commander in Chief.
You've made a fool of yourself here.
Good comment, except for the Bush bashing. Bush was no Papa-doc either. And of course Pres. Obama is not one of any kind.
dmarks, how can you can call it "bashing" when someone brings up things that actually happened?
I agree Limbaugh is a racist. GWB, on the other hand, doesn't hate black people, he hates POOR people.
How anyone can watch the anguish, the pain and the death in Haiti and then try to politicize humanitarian aid being sent there is seriously missing something from their gene pool -
I won't respond to the debatable Bush-bashing statement further here, as Shaw probably does not want to further divert the subject.
The "Bush hates poor people" thing is quite beckish. Just like "Obama hates white people".
rockync,
I'm just about ready to give up on this country.
Americans continue to listen to a depraved personality like Rush and not see him for what he is.
How many times have I heard and read people excusing his racism, actually defending it? How many times have I read his own words where he brought race into anything connected to Mr. Obama.
When will his defenders see him for what he is?
A cynical racist demogogue who contributes divisiveness and distemper to our country in service to his bank account.
Bush may or may not hate poor people, I don't know.
He certainly does not like them, or know any of them, for that matter.
Bush was born rich, so was his Dad.
He has no real concept of struggling to live and support a family.
Bush once said, "To support Human Rights (i.e. housing, health care, employment, education, food, etc.) as a legally binding 'right' would be against our Constitution."
Some have forgotten the Bush response to American suffering in New Orleans.
They have forgotten the lies he has told which cost countless lives.
He is Rush Limbaugh without the excessive subcutaneous tissue and the addictions.
He deserves to be bashed.
good point, Rocky. In the "here and now, people should put politics aside. Like the two guys in the link.... neither of whom hates the poor.
"They have forgotten the lies he has told which cost countless lives."
The dubious statements of the Kerry campaign have come back to haunt us. Come on now, it's 2010!
To say Rush is a racist, is undeniable.
To know millions support his evil oratory (including many elected leaders) is scary, but not surprising.
History is riddled with Americans electing racists to high office. That continues to today.
Racism is alive and well in 2010.
It takes a different form, but that also, is the History of racism.
Rush at times has been able to go on hours eloquently on free markets and other freedoms. It's this that have made myself and others listen to him with favorable interest, despite the few and far between but glaring gaffes such as Shaw has listed in her blog.
But he's gotten a lot worse lately; it's much more than mere gaffes. When Obama dealt with the Somali pirates nearly a year ago, Rush went on for hours about a lame and racist point that had something to do with Obama's skin color and the skin color of the pirates. Then there was his repeating of the "magic negro" joke. As if repeating a racist joke makes it OK. And now there's the racist Haiti stuff.
I think the wheels have come off Rush. Never mind that liberals think the wheels came off a long long time ago.
"I think the wheels have come off Rush. Never mind that liberals think the wheels came off a long long time ago."
Are you saying only liberals could identify Rush's racist oratory over the decades, as racist?
Quite an insult to clear thinking conservatives, or quite an insight, that conservatives have agreed with Rush's racist oratory over the decades.
I think what Dmarks is trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong Dmarks, is that Rush has said thinly veiled remarks in the past which were “sloughed off” or “excused” as “taken out of context” etc. I used to listen to Rush, after 9/11, now I hear him occasionally, while at work and he’s the only station I can get, and I’ve noticed a HUGE difference in his rhetoric. He has become so much more sarcastic that I don’t like listening to him anymore.
There are a lot of “perspectives” out there about what is and isn’t racist. But when Rush’s entire 3 hours is about “skin-color”, I begin to wonder at his objective. Rush has every right to dislike whomever he chooses, however, he does NOT have to interject race into every issue that pertains to Obama. And on another related issue, I did NOT like the comment he made about Sotomayer and the vacuum cleaner.
I know there are hard-core Rush fans who will defend him with their dying breath, but, to me, it boils down to one of two things: he’s doing this to see how much he can get away with i.e. ego, or he’s a racist. NEITHER excuses his behavior.
Tom said: "Are you saying only liberals could identify Rush's racist oratory over the decades, as racist?"
No, I was referring to how the left disagrees with just about everything he says.
"Quite an insult to clear thinking conservatives, or quite an insight, that conservatives have agreed with Rush's racist oratory over the decades."
Not sure about the other conservatives, but I have been one in strong disapproval of the gaffes. I have gone on record on this blog about how bad they are. Some people have different tolerance for gaffes on both sides (look at Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" on the left, and also Obama's joke bashing Special Olympians...The left tends to shrug these bigoted gaffes off.
------------
Pamela said: "correct me if I'm wrong Dmarks".
What you are saying is pretty close to what I am saying, and you brought up some stuff I had not thought of before.
Patrick M comes here some times, and last time I knew he was a pretty strong Limbaugh fan. I wonder what his take is on this?
Limbaugh is not a racist.
Rush has not changed. He has been spewing the same hate filled oratory for years.
What has changed, is that we do now have a black President. We do now have a Latina Supreme Court Justice.
Rush spoke for Trent Lott when he was forced to resign, because he said the United States would be a better country if Strom Thurmond had been elected President.
Sen. Thurmond was a presidential candidate for the segregationist, racist Dixiecrat party. Sen. Thurmond was also a member of the KKK.
Really Rush? we would be a better country if we had a racist, segregationist as President?
I would call Rush's support of a segregationist, racist for President, as racist.
Demarks,
You said "I" meaning you think his wheels have come off. Apparently, you only think that lately, and did not think that before.
It's the occasional shots in the past, that you should have perceived, Rush was and is a racist.
It's your critical thinking skills that were lacking, not the amount of Rush's racist, hated filled oratory over the years.
"Sen. Thurmond was also a member of the KKK."
Sure am glad we don't have any senators any more who had anything to do ever with the KKK.
We do, but I guess I would not expect you to know that.
Tom,
dmarks was being sarcastic. Sen. Byrd as we all know was a member of the KKK. I believe most conservative southerners--yes, Democrats in the south were by and large conservatives--were proud to be part of the Klan.
I think what we should concentrate on is what those men have done about admitting to their heinous judgment in their association with that terrorist organization.
I think even Strom Thurmond, late in his life, said he regretted being part of it, as did Byrd.
Joe,
There is no doubt in reasonable people's minds that Limbaugh is a racist. It is HE who continues to bring Mr. Obama's race into all his criticism of the president. That is by definition a racist--one who cannot get beyond a person's skin color.
There are plenty of reasonable conservatives who disagree with Mr. Obama but do not resort to the reckless rhetoric used by Limbaugh.
That certainly keep people listening to him, but it pollutes this country and demeans those who contine to defend the racist.
You don't need a creep like him to register your dissatisfaction with the president. By continually defending him, you devalue your legitimate concerns.
Nice people don't admire racists, IMHO.
Critics of Limbaugh never listen to his program, they get clips taken out of context from Kos or Huffington. The left pretends to be compassionate by reaching into the pocket of others. Christians, in fact southern white Christians are the most philanthropic people in America by far - challenge me if you're foolish enough! So much for liberal compassion, you like to put my money where your mouth is!
By the way, I'll compare what I gave to Haitian earthquake relief with any of you! My heart, my prayers and my money go out to them. I support the mission of the US military, the only organization in the world capable of delivering needed relief, especially the Navy where I proudly served.
You all need a common sense and compassion check. I was not always a classical liberal, I grew up a modern liberal, black nationalist and dabbled for a while with Marxism. What those theories never explained is the persistence of a black underclass that has been the beneficiary of trillions since LBJ's "War on Poverty," more appropriately entitled the War on the Black family. What most of you advocate is condescending and debilitating.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965 in his report to Congress on the "Negro Family" concluded that welfare marginalized black men and created chaos in the black community making it a matriarchal society. 1965! It has gotten so bad among black families that fully 80% of black children are born out of wedlock into fatherless homes. This is a direct result of welfare programs which were consolidated in 1960 under the banner of AFDC. Father's are critical to the success of families and communities. Lionel Tiger, author of The Decline of Males wrote that the nuclear family in the black community of father, mother and child has been replaced with the non nuclear family of woman, child and government bureaucrat. How many black girls have never attended a wedding?
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist who is a former Goldman Sachs banker, Harvard Master's graduate with a Ph.D. from Oxford, is the author of the best seller Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa. She and other African economists like James Shikwati have written extensively on why aid doesn't work, it impoverishes! It's logical, it's consistent throughout history and isn't limited to black people.
Alexis de Tocqueville was commissioned by the Royal Academic Society of Cherbourg in 1835 to study the question of why there was such a pauperism (welfare) problem in England, the wealthiest country in the world. He concluded that it was the availability of public assistance that created demand for it. He contrasted it with the lower incidence of pauperism in Portugal a country far less wealthy than England.
In short, you guys don't know what the hell you're talking about and would consign Haiti more of the same poverty and despair based on your warped, backward ideas of compassion!
By the way, I'll compare what I gave to Haitian earthquake relief with any of you!
CB: FYI, A good deed is no longer any good if you have to brag about it.
I ignored it because it was insincere. It was insincere because your treatment of me did not change even after your apology. You did deny it in a comment on this blog. Check the archives.
When someone I've never spoken to before, calls me stupid and insults, they deservedly are categorized as mean and a jerk. Others may think differently, but then maybe they have not been the victim of your hate.
It didn't change because you ignored the apology and continued the snarky tone.
I never denied the apology. If I recall correctly, there might have been an issue where at one time you had a setting checked to send blog comments to you as emails, and you confused these blog comments with actual sent emails.
Beyond the two in November (the spelling change request and apology) and one a few minutes ago (a request for you to forward me one of the problem emails), I have not sent anything to you.
CB: Critics of Limbaugh never listen to his program, they get clips taken out of context from Kos or Huffington.
SHAW: Really? What exactly is “out of context” in this?
"I do believe that everything is political to this president," Limbaugh said on his radio show yesterday. "Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion."
So Limbaugh thinks President Obama, who had 98% of the African-American vote in the last election, will use the disaster in Haiti to “burnish” his credentials with minorities in this country? Not only is that assumption stupid on the face of it, but it is also an insight into his sick and racist mind. He’s an unapologetic racist, and you admire him. Well, good for you. Keep listening to his radio show, and you’ll win all sorts of medals in your race to the bottom of the pit of intellectual dishonesty.
CB: By the way, I'll compare what I gave to Haitian earthquake relief with any of you! My heart, my prayers and my money go out to them. I support the mission of the US military, the only organization in the world capable of delivering needed relief, especially the Navy where I proudly served.
SHAW: Spare me your bragging about your “Christian charity.” Please. You came to my blog and compared the duly elected president of the United State of America with a murderous dictatorial criminal. You did that. Why should I believe ANYTHING you say, let alone give you any of my precious time to read it? Anyone who would compare Mr. Obama to a monstrous killer, as you did, has absolutely NO credibility on anything. Do you understand that? I think you’re deranged. I don’t listen to deranged people.
You are an angry, unhappy person. And you’re deluded if you fancy yourself a compassionate person just because you sent a few dollars to the unfortunate people of Haiti, while defending a pig like Limbaugh, who, BTW, counseled you not to do so, for fear that it would enhance Mr. Obama’s standing with the minorities in this country.
I care not a fig about your citations of authorities on the causes of poverty and what keeps people there. The GOP had 6 long years of complete control of the United States government, and did nothing to change it. Or are you not aware of this fact? Why didn’t Bush and his administration throw everyone off government assistance programs and send them to all the charities in the south? Why wasn’t that done? Answer please. Why didn’t the GOP do this when it had the power to do so? The GOP has been in power for 28 out of the last 40 years. Plenty of time to change the system you rail against here. They didn’t. It was President Clinton who signed into law welfare reform, BTW.
(cont.)
As for your reference to your military career. Thank you. You and so many other conservatives have a desperate need to tell everyone this information, as though no one else in the country has made the same sacrifice as you have. Every single male in my family has served this country: Marines, Army, Navy. World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War One, and one of our youngest volunteered just two years ago and is ready to be deployed to Afghanistan. Liberals love their country and serve it with pride just as much as you do, maybe more--we don’t feel the need to ram the fact that we serve down everyone’s throat. The definition of a real patriot is one who loves his country with quiet pride. You and a lot of other conservatives need to shout the fact that you served every chance you get. It is, IMHO, unbecoming.
CB: In short, you guys don't know what the hell you're talking about and would consign Haiti more of the same poverty and despair based on your warped, backward ideas of compassion!
Your own conservative Christian ex-president, George W. Bush, has given his support and approval to what Mr. Obama is doing to help the desperate people of Haiti. It is you, CB, not us, who doesn’t know what the hell he's talking about.
Pamela,
I'm not trying to brag, if I had been I'd tell you how much. Besides, talking about doing something doesn't negate the doing thereof, unless your goal is some misguided do gooderism. I said it to illustrate a point. We who are disparaged for being cold-hearted aren't reaching into someone else's pocket to help, we're reaching into our own, unlike liberals who want to compel everyone else to do something they don't support with their own time, talents or treasure!
Shaw,
You've said what you quoted shows that Limbaugh is racist. I think I might know something about that charge. I listen to Limbaugh regularly, sometimes listening for hours at a time. I've not ever heard him utter a racist sentiment. I was listening when he made the statement you cite correctly. You have not explained how this is racist at all.
CB, I read your rather lengthy comment (shall we say “rant”) with rapt attention half expecting the kind of scripted narrative that pours forth from neo-conservative think tanks of the “Shock Doctrine” School. You did not disappoint. I should point out, however, that your comment is self-contradictory and riddled with internal inconsistencies. In your second paragraph, you say:
“I support the mission of the US military, the only organization in the world capable of delivering needed relief …”
In the third to the last paragraph, you say:
“ why aid doesn't work, it impoverishes! It's logical, it's consistent throughout history and isn't limited to black people …”
Thus, you praise the U.S. Military aid mission on the one hand, while condemning the concept of aid and public assistance on the other.
About James Shikwati, he is a libertarian economists of the laissez faire school. Here is what Jeffrey D. Sachs of Columbia University says of Mr. Shikwati: “shockingly misguided” and “amazingly wrong.”
About Dambisa Moyo, here is what the same Jeffrey Sachs said: "The big opponents of aid today are people like Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and Oxford but sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net."
My point: Africa has a fair share of neo-conservatives ... even more rabid than their American counterparts … such as “The Family” adherents in the Ugandan government who want to execute their gay citizens.
With degrees in economics and clinical psychology (Princeton, London School of Economics, and Rutgers) piled higher and deeper than I care to admit, I am no stranger to these disciplines. Another observation about CB’s comment, he includes a rather odd mix of biographical anecdotes about himself:
“I was not always a classical liberal, I grew up a modern liberal, black nationalist and dabbled for a while with Marxism.”
Thus, we have a curious admixture of liberal, black-nationalist, Marxist, and now neo-conservative affiliations at various points in his life. More self-contradictions. These internal inconsistencies remind me of cult followers, people who embrace religious sects or political ideologies, not necessarily from a deep abiding sense of conviction, but to full an empty emotional space inside, to fill a hole in the soul. Noting the angry tone of CB’s comment ... and the need to congratulate his self-acknowledged deeds of military service and charity, while dismissing acts of charity as misguided in the same statement ... leads me to think of CB as more of a cult follower than a true believer.
Shaw,
I am proud of our Navy. My service is done and I'm not participating in the good work our sailors are doing right now. I am just proud of them and the vitally important role they play in our security and these efforts that no other organization on earth can match!
CB, I do not doubt that you are a good man ... strong, protective of family, self-reliant ... but your need for self-validation spoken through the lines of your comment, also speaks of vulnerability. This too is worthy of acknowledgment.
CB to Shaw: "You've said what you quoted shows that Limbaugh is racist. I think I might know something about that charge. I listen to Limbaugh regularly, sometimes listening for hours at a time. I've not ever heard him utter a racist sentiment. I was listening when he made the statement you cite correctly. You have not explained how this is racist at all."
CB, if it comforts you to listen "for hours at a time" to a racist jackass, there's nothing I can say to dissuade you from your admiration of the jerk.
We all need heroes.
Congratualtions on choosing this particular toxic demogogue and fool as someone to esteem.
He is a hero to a very small percentage of this nation's population, thank Darwin. The rest of your fellow Americans see him as a greasy stain on its reputation as a rational and forward thinking country.
poll: Rush Limbaugh Is Less Popular Than Jeremiah Wright or .Dec 20, 2009
poll: Rush Limbaugh Is Less Popular Than Jeremiah Wright or Willian Ayers.--Google
Enjoy your "special" hero.
I'm glad you're proud of the Navy. Two very important men in my family served in the Navy. And they are both avid supporters of President Obama. The Marine in our family died recently, but he also a voted for Mr. Obama, and the young man who volunteered for the Army voted for Obama as well (his father served in Operation Desert Storm I, but I have to say I don't know who he voted for.)
Most of my liberal friends have father who served their country and children who volunteered.
Military service is not owned by conservatives, nor is love of one's country.
It just seems that way to you.
Pamela,
I'm not trying to brag, if I had been I'd tell you how much. Besides, talking about doing something doesn't negate the doing thereof, unless your goal is some misguided do gooderism.
CB: EXACTLY! And with your, and I quote:
By the way, I'll compare what I gave to Haitian earthquake relief with any of you!
Talk about misguided! I would never dream of LORDING my donations over anyone’s head as if I’m superior because I gave more. THAT, sir, is NOT talking about it, THAT is bragging and it’s NOT a good deed because you dishonored it.
You say that “Liberals” reach into other people’s pockets to help. I beg to differ. I know countless Liberals who donate monetarily. Maybe you have experienced SOME Liberals who are “stingy”, but I can assure you, I know some "stingy" Conservatives. It’s not wise to paint everyone with one broad brush.
(And just for the record, Mr. CB, I'm a Conservative)
Maybe it's a female thing!
Pamela,
I can't help it if you can't read plain English.
Shaw,
When did I say military service was a conservative virtue?
Octo,
Sorry I missed your comments. There is a difference between disaster relief and the kind of debilitating persistent aid that Haiti receives. If my neighbor's house is on fire, I'm going to help him put the fire out. That's not the same as feeding he, his wife and children every day, paying their mortgage and cable bill.
Further, my maturation is entirely logical. When faced with evidence of failure, reevaluate. When you find a better path, follow. Aid/pauperism/welfare are abject failures, private property rights are an astounding success. You would do well to follow the findings of the Index of Economic Freedom and to study the linkages between the criteria they've established for evaluation and overall prosperity. Aid impoverishes plain and simple.
As for Jeff Sachs, name one country his tired meme has moved to prosperity.
CD, right now, my obligations and deadlines constrain me from engaging you in further dialogue. I do, however, take exception to this:
"You would do well to follow ..."
How arrogant and presumptuous of you. It seems your anger runs so deep, there is no mutually civil and respectful conversation possible under the circumstances.
CB said: "That's not the same as feeding he, his wife and children every day, paying their mortgage and cable bill."
Is your analogy really intended to be that close? Sure, charities feed Haitians. But do you know of any that provide cable TV, mortgages, or other luxuries?
If anyone is "burnishing" his image, it is GWB. As I recall he had to be asked to participate, he didn't volunteer. I stand by my earlier comments about this war criminal hating poor people. Despite the fact that his economic policies made so many more of them during his presidency -- and after too, thanks to this recession he's responsible for.
As for CB's rant... sounds like more blame the victim conservative BS to me. I've heard the world bank is ready to step in with MORE loans to Haiti with neoliberal strings attached. What's debilitating to Haiti is the persistent extortion and loan sharking the country's been a victim of it's entire existence. CB would do well to look up Haiti's history before making nonsensical claims like "aid impoverishes".
"I stand by my earlier comments about this war criminal hating poor people"
A change of subject, since earlier we were talking about George W. Bush, not a war criminal.
LOL,
To be bloggers, some of you are remarkably thin skinned!
I'll put up the Index of Economic Freedom against the results of Jeff Sachs 24/7 365!
Shaw,
I'm just here to drive up your thread count! LOL!
Thanks, CB,
I owe you.
The pre-emptive defensive tactics of some bloggers is interesting.
Served in the military? Crow about your service and claim to be an "expert" on all things military.
Make a donation, claim it is more than anyone else's and then insinuate this gives you the intimate knowledge to educate everyone else on foreign policy and charity.
Claim to have participated in a march and then claim to have the inside line on the heart and mind of Dr King.
How about cutting all the bullshit and just backing up your claims with verifiable research, studies or other documents?
THAT is what intelligent debate and civil discourse is made of.
Ahhh, SK, could you have possibly found another more denigrating image of Rush? He don't look like that these days, but that ain't your point, now is it.
When liberals hate they hate all the way. Never mind that the hate is illogical. Never mind the facts that dispute the hatred. Therefore there is no reason to try to dissuade the nonsense spewed upon Rush in this blog or in the media.
That said, from the member side of RushLimbaugh.com: I'm gonna respond to this absolute BS that I said don't donate. But, you know, I do not make this program about me. I try very hard not to make this program about me. So if I have time to deal with that, I will. I'm confident everybody in this audience knows what I said and what I didn't say. Even the Washington Post says without the context, "What Limbaugh said is horrible." All I said was, if you paid your income taxes, that's how you donate to government for aid, and sure enough, here comes Obama announcing $100 million from the government for aid to Haiti, fine and dandy. But, you paid for it, it's your taxes. All I said was if you're going to donate do it outside the government, pure and simple. I was attacked, folks, because I am the leading voice of mainstream conservative views, not for any other reason. And this outrage is totally feigned, just as Tony Blankley said, all this outrage at me is totally faked up. They know exactly what I said, and they know for a fact that I would never tell people not to donate to any charitable cause like this, so it is what it is.
I have never served in the miliary, to my utter shame. But I have family members who have, and some who are currently active. I have the utmost respect for ANYONE who has served or who are currently serving.
I donate to charities every year. There are certain ones that are near and dear to my heart for reasons I will not get into here. I don't have to explain my reasons nor will I. Suffice to say I know what's in my heart and I can look in the mirror every day and not cringe.
As far as being thin-skinned. I must admit I may have come across a bit "strong" yesterday and for that I apologize, CB. Not for my position, but for how I responded to it.
I broke one of my rules, not to blog while experiencing a migraine. I shall not do THAT again.
Again, from RushLimbaugh.com:
When I started this radio program in 1988, I had never been called a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a homophobe. People who knew me never thought that. It was ridiculous. But then I got on the radio as a conservative and all of a sudden I started being attacked as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
Now I know this thread is about Rush but is there any outrage over what Sen. Reid said about Mr. Obama?
Jim asked: "Now I know this thread is about Rush but is there any outrage over what Sen. Reid said about Mr. Obama?"
There's not much comparison. The N word that Reid used is antiquated, but is not so offensive that it has been removed from the name of that college fund, or the speech of Dr. King which Shaw has quoted.
Michael Steele, who has called for Reid's resignation over the use word, has actually recently used a racist term for another group (Native Americans) that always was racist, no matter what the era.
JIM asked: "Now I know this thread is about Rush but is there any outrage over what Sen. Reid said about Mr. Obama?"
There is a difference between what Limbaugh, Lott, and Reid said, and I’ll try to explain:
Conservative columnist George Will recently defended Reid against charges of racism and provoked this spirited exchange with fellow conservative Liz Cheney:
WILL: I don't think there's a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.
CHENEY: George, give me a break. I mean, talking about the color of the president's skin...
WILL: Did he get it wrong?
CHENEY: ... and the candidate's...
WILL: Did he say anything false?
CHENEY: ... it's -- these are clearly racist comments, George.
WILL: Oh, my, no.
Trent Lott got in trouble when he said that the country would have been better off had Strom Thurmond, an unapologetic segregationist, was running for president on the Dixiecrat ticket. Lott also said that had Thumond been elected it would have saved this country a lot of trouble. What Lott said was FALSE. This country would NOT have been better off continuing its racist denial of civil rights to its African-American citizens. By saying what he did, he implied that this country should have kept African-Americans as second-class citizens. That is racist. And what on earth did he mean when he said having Thurmond as president would have saved this country a lot of trouble? Do you see the racism implied in his words? I do.
Limbaugh brought skin coloration (light and dark) into his harangue about Mr. Obama sending aid to Haiti. He asserted that Mr. Obama would “burnish” his standing with light and dark skinned African-Americans by sending aid to the earthquake victims. Why did Limbaugh bring skin color into the discussion at all when it is a fact that Mr. Obama received almost 100% of the African-American vote in the last election? What Limbaugh said was FALSE. President Obama was most assuredly not sending aid to Haiti to pander for more votes from a community that already overwhelmingly supports him. His comment brought race into a discussion where it didn’t belong. Limbaugh does that all the time. All one has to do is google “Limbaugh” and “racist remarks” and you can see for yourself.
Sen. Harry Reid made a statement that is TRUE when he said that America would be comfortable with electing a light-skinned Negro and one who does not use a Negro dialect. We Americans unfortunately have not fully realized Dr. King’s dream of judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. What Reid said was not FALSE.
That's how I see it. If you have a different take on it, tell me.
There is little 'outrage' over what Harry Reid said. And rightly so. Beyond the usual suspects attempting to build an equivalency between Reid's remarks and s Newt Gingrich bemoaning the failure of the avowed segregationist Strom Thurmond to win the presidency in 1948 there is no real story here.
Clumsily worded but by no stretch 'racist'.
On the other hand I am no end amused 'conservatives' have decided the color of one's skin doesn't matter and that MLK was a great hero.
They certainly sang a different tune when the great man was alive.
Oh well.
Welcome back, Aruthurstone.
We missed you.
"They certainly sang a different tune when the great man was alive."
Arthur: Easy to say for those who weren't alive then.
Rush used the term light skinned after Harry used the term. Funny it is not racist for Harry but it is for Rush. Explain.
I already explained it to you, Jim. If you don't get it, no amount of further explanation will open your eyes to it.
Either you see it or you don't.
I can't help you there, friend.
Well I certainly was alive then and I cringe each every time someone like New Gingrich or the odious Dick Cheney, top Conservatives by any measure, even mentions Kings name.
While considering MLK's words on race, the Vietnam war, poverty etc., take a look at RR's remarks concerning King and race relations in general over the years and explain to me how one human mind could conceivably hold those two as co-equals. today's American Conservatives hold RR dear to their hearts and his red-baiting bigotry is part and parcel of just who that deceptively soft-spoken menace really was.
Sorry. Just because Ronnie decided 'white males' have 'suffered' too much doesn't make it remotely true. And just because his acolytes, followers and co-delusionists want it to be true likewise doesn't make it so.
Cheers.
Nothing wrong or bigoted with RR and "reds" as long as he was denigrating the real extremists: the communists. Even though liberals/progressives are on the left side of the center, I don't find them to have much in common.
"Ronald Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” While he made political points with white southerners on this issue, he was sensitive to any suggestion that his stands on civil rights issues were politically or racially motivated, and he typically reacted to such criticisms as attacks on his personal integrity."
Source
What exactly did he mean by that other than supporting bigotry?
Reagan also sided with South Africa's apartheid government against Nelson Mandela, as did Dick Cheney.
Nothing one can do for the poor misbegotten sods who admire RR but to suggest this McCarthyite, red-baiting, union-busing authoritarian and his Conservative demon spawn somehow have embraced and enlarged upon the work of MLK is perverse.
Not surprising though.
With so little in the way of actual accomplishment over the past 30-odd years (beyond destroying the economy of the United States and locking us into a perpetual state of war) Conservatives have to take credit where they can invent it.
Cheers.
Arthur, you are in fine form again. And no, I do not mean that pejoratively.
Happy New Year!
And remember.
Things can always be worse.
Cheers!
And also remember.
Haiti has a weak central government, low tax rates, lots of weapons in the hands of its citizens and few social programs to encourage to become dependent on the state.
Kind of like the future Grover Norquist and his ilk envision for us.
Julianne Malveaux has a point of view that is more to the truth, though she is being God-like in declaring she and others know what is the heart of Reid and Clinton.
Frost Illustrated
And this from Alveda King, MLK's niece:
"If Michael Steele or any other conservative had said anything like it, the remarks would be labeled racist and plastered over every available news outlet," Alveda King said in a statement released Tuesday.
"What would my uncle and my father think, to hear such things from one of the most powerful leaders in the country? Their 'beloved community' is sorely threatened when racism rears its ugly head once again."
Nice try, Jim.
Alved King is a conservative who, in her younger days, had 2 abortions, but now is anti-abortion for women who find themselves in the predicament she was in and was able to correct. She is also against civil rights for gay and lesbian citizens.
She's hardly a disinterested person giving an opinion.
Dr. King would have been able to tell the difference between a racist remark and an intemperate one.
His niece? Not so much.
Arthur, in Haiti, the top income tax rate is 30 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 35 percent. Is that super low? But I'm really not going to be the one to try to score political points off Haiti. There's been too much of that lately.
---------------
Jim quoted: "If Michael Steele or any other conservative had said anything like it, the remarks would be labeled racist and plastered over every available news outlet," Alveda King said in a statement released Tuesday."
I've brought this up before: Steele has recently used the "Injun" word, which has always been racist against Native Americans, no matter how you slice it. It's not like the "mild N word" which Reid used, which is still perfectly acceptible in some forms (i.e. college fund, and quoting Dr. King's speeches). Steele clearly used a worse word.
Shaw: Just because I don't argue about abortion here doesn't mean I agree with your statements on it. I've just not chosen the Beth route.
dmarks,
The only thing I have to say about abortion is this: It is a legal medical procedure.
Nominal tax rates are meaningless in a failed state and it is perfectly reasonable to point out what can happen if we were to 'drown government in the bathtub'.
One should always be careful what one wishes for.
Arthur, we're no where needing that. And the number of millionaire federal employees has been soaring for the last 18 months. Don't worry, the golden rule is still in play (those who are making the rules are getting lots of gold).
Right you are dmarks. Now by 'millionaire federal employes' do you mean political appointees from Wall Street and industry brought on board to oversee their own narrow interests or are you suggesting postal clerks, State Department and graded civil service employees, military types (mercenaries notwithstanding) are becoming millionaires off government salaries?
Somehow I don't think that's true.
But take your argument to the next step.
The gap between the haves and the have nots is increasing by any measure.
The golden rule in this instance is the rich always get more.
And the rest of us pick up the tab.
It's the American way.
Postal clerks, civil service employees, diplomats and military types putting away millions from government paychecks?
Really?
I'd be surprised.
If on the other hand you're talking about the revolving door business/lobbyists/political appointees use to enter the money factory which is Washington DC then you may be onto something.
rwnobles said...
Who are the shameless ones here. tell me Savage, Limbaugh, Robertson, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, O'reily, etc.. Take your pick..
As Haiti reeled and staggered and the rest of the world rushed to the aid of a humble, beleaguered people, two icons of American conservatism reared up last week and offered analysis of the earthquake that has devastated the impoverished island nation. The Rev. Pat Robertson opined on his program, "The 700 Club," that Haiti's woes stem from the fact that it made a deal with the devil two centuries ago and now is "cursed." Rush Limbaugh suggested the relief effort would "play right into" President Obama's hands, allowing him to appear "humanitarian, compassionate" and thus, "burnish" his standing within the African-American community.
It left me wondering, just for the briefest of seconds, whether conservatism has a conscience, whether conservatism has a soul.
But the Limbaughs and Robertsons of the world say some variation of, God hates you. Or, You had it coming. They call that conservative.Pathetic? Pathetic indeed!A fine representation of conservatism .. I'm sure you're quite proud of yourselves.
But the Limbaugh's and Robertson's of the world say some variation of, God hates you. Or, You had it coming. They call that conservative.
I call it obscene.
Post a Comment