Chris Matthews of MSNBC fantasizes about Rush Limbaugh being murdered.  But Rush is the mean guy, of course.

Other media outlets smear Rush with lies from Wikiquote and elsewhere.  Great fact-checking, guys.  But they are the real journalists, eh?

Great point by Red State:

You know, it says something pathetic about the left that Rush Limbaugh has been on the air 3 hours a day, 49 weeks a year, for over 20 years and they have to resort to made up quotes to hurt him and his business endeavors.

Oh, and here’s some real racist quotes by Democrats.  If the MSM grandstanded on them the same way they did on fake quotes for Limbaugh that would be an improvement.

We’ve got CNN fact-checking Saturday Night Live skits but not transparently false quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh.  It is a self-parody.

P.S. No, I don’t listen to Rush’s show.  Never have, despite the assumptions of most Liberals I come across.  But I know media bias when I see it.  Rush is obviously part entertainer, but from everything I’ve read he is more of a journalist than anyone in the CNN / MSNBC / etc. crowd.  For example, Rush knew about the ACORN scandal and publicized it before Charles Gibson and the rest of the MSM.

Richard Dawkins and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in giraffes — Dawkins “knows” that no intelligent designer would have ever done that.  I imagine that Dawkins already has a list of excuses to use when it is determined that there are good reasons for the nerve to be designed as it is. Just as the evolutionists did when it turned out that Junk DNA was not so junky, they’ll spin it to support evolution regardless of what their theory allegedly predicted or supported.  And it is so predictable and almost cute when Dawkins’ acolytes run around sharing their new “proof” of evolution and “rebuttal” of ID. 

Ann Coulter nails the Afghanistan situation and Obama’s duplicity.  A few snippets:

What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity” while the war in Iraq was a “war of choice.” (Oh, and as long as you’re back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay “school safety” czar.)

But Democrats couldn’t care less about military strategy — at least any “strategy” that doesn’t involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.

Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq … to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq — and then they stopped because of Obama’s indifference. Sadly for them, America’s foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. I’ll own up to being a Dittohead. My grandmother got me hooked on Rush when I was just a kid, and when his show first went national in 1988. I’ve since called in and talked to Rush twice, once about a difficult, liberal teacher, and once to ask the former DJ why pop music is now so abyssmal.

    (His spot-on analysis? R&B is dead: no one has taken the place of Jon Secada and Boyz II Men, and former R&B stars like Mariah Carey have morphed into hip-hop lite.)

    Rush is probably no longer my favorite pundit, if only because I don’t have time to listen to show at length; I now much prefer to read essays than listen to radio commentary, even reading excerpts of transcripts at his official site more frequently than I catch the program live; and I crave a more high-level view of contemporary events, one that places today’s news more fully in its historical context.

    My favorite pundits are now Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, and Thomas Sowell. I’m beginning to explore earlier writing from WFB and Allan Bloom, and I may even investigate Leo Strauss and Edmund Burke in more detail.

    But — just as Batman paved the way for my current, growing affection for noir movies and crime fiction — Rush provided the gateway to these other writers, for me and who-knows-how-many millions of others. And the connection between them is substantial: Rush has talked with Sowell on his program quite a few times, he was a good friend of Bill Buckley’s, and he has Mark Steyn guest-host the show pretty frequently.

    (If you EVER have the chance to catch Steyn on Rush, do so. It’s a hoot, even more so than Walter E. Williams.)

    Naturally, I loathe the attempted character assassination against Rush, and I agree it’s based almost entirely on lies and quotes ripped out of context.

    But, really, none of this is new: the Left has been trying to bury Rush for years.

    Character assassination occurs on both sides, but it’s particularly prevalent on the Left, and has been for literally decades: Gore Vidal called WFB a crypto-Nazi, Goldwater was declared to be an unhinged warmonger, and Reagan was declared to be a know-nothing warmonger. Bork was, well, borked with the smear of segregation levelled by that “lion of the Senate” Ted Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas was likewise viciously slandered.

    Most recently, it’s apparent that the voting public knew more damaging lies about the Republican VP nominee, than they knew inconvenient truths about the Democratic presidential nominee. And this nominee was less scrutinized by the media than was a private citizen — a plumber — who asked the nominee a good question and got a revealing answer.

    Obama’s provoked the most extreme behavior on the part of the Left and the “legacy media” (but I repeat myself), where they even carried his water against politicians they otherwise like, namely Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

    We frankly will need someone with Rush’s resiliance to go against that in 2012.

    Really, there’s always an adversarial dynamic between those in the “mainstream” of a political movement and those who aren’t: one group looks at the other group as kooks, while they return fire with the accusation of selling out.

    I think WFB was right to drum out the Birchers and the Randians, the former for their belief that even Eisenhower was controlled by the Communists, the latter for their shrill contempt for religious faith. I don’t think David Frum is right to try the same thing on Rush, especially when conservatism has done so poorly with the GOP doing precisely what the moderate conservatives want, first with the big-government inclinations of Bush’s so-called “compassionate conservatism”, then with McCain running as the 2008 nominee.

    (Even David Frum, I like — or liked — to some degree. His book on the 70’s is a great read, and though I disagree with the extent he went with his NRO article on “unpatriotic conservatives”, I do believe that there are libertarians and socially conservative “paleocons” who aren’t strong advocates for a vigorous national defense. The former follows Murray Rothbard’s opposition to the use of arms in principle, and the latter follows Buchanan’s lead in being increasingly unable to find an American war they would actually support — going so far as to criticize the U.S. in those two wars that are the most obviously necessary, the Civil War and World War II.)

    I worry about 2012, in part because, if Obama is Carter 2.0, I don’t see the Reagan analogue. By Cater’s first year in office, Reagan had already been a major figure for literally 13 years, with “The Speech” in 1964 — the “time for choosing” speech for Goldwater — numerous syndicated columns, and two terms as the governor of California. I don’t see anyone who has what Reagan had:

    – a comparably high profile

    – a comparably trustworthy record of having all three major principles of modern Buckleyite conservatism: namely, fiscal libertarian, social traditionalism, and strong national defense

    – a comparably keen mind to produce (or find) new policies that apply those principles to modern problems

    – and a comparably strong ability to communicate those principles and policies to the American people — past the opposition who now occupy the “commanding heights” of many traditional institutions

    But if someone can be found to meet these criteria in order to champion American conservatism, the other concern is that they will go through a gauntlet that is, in many ways (not all, since Reagan didn’t have Rush), far tougher than anyone before.

    That gauntlet will include the moderate conservatives like Frum and Bill Buckley’s son Christopher, who will probably provide intellectual cover for the Left’s most vicious attacks.

    It’s probably a good thing that opposition to Obama doesn’t have an individual spokesman, but that can’t and shouldn’t last, and when a leader emerges I’m certain we’ll see an unprecedented effort to destroy him.

    Hopefully that leader will be able to endure, and hopefully he’ll be worth supporting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s