The Drive-By Media Campaign Against Rush

by Sal on October 15, 2009

in Blogs,Law,Media,Media Bias,Politics

Rush Limbaugh is a threat to liberals.  He has always been a threat to liberals.  Now, the state-run media is engaged in a drive-by smear campaign against Rush to prevent him from realizing a lifelong dream, becoming an owner of an NFL franchise.  And it looks like their campaign of lies has succeeded.

Limbaugh single-handily began the process of dismantling the state-run media monopoly.  When he started his nationally-syndicated show in 1988, there was no Conservative talk radio, there was no Internet, there was no Fox News.  Limbaugh came on the air and popularized a coherent philosophy around what millions of Americans instinctively knew and believed.  He also did it in a fun, humorous way, making listening to a political show enjoyable.  I remember growing up with his radio show on the way home from school back in the early Clinton years, and his commentary had a profound influence on my own development as a Conservative.  He quickly rose to the top of talk radio, and hasn’t looked back.  Although many have tried, none have come close to surpassing him in ratings and in overall influence. It is this influence that drives the liberals crazy, and it seems they will do anything to try to discredit him.

Last week, it was announced that Rush was part of a group that was going to make a bid for the St. Louis Rams.  The reaction was fierce from all corners of the state-run media.  They could not let this happen!  So, charges of raaaaacism (yes, there are five a’s in raaaaacism) began to be thrown about.  As anyone who listens to Rush knows, he is anything but a racist.  Most of the quotes that people have used to show what they perceive as racist leanings usually were plays on what the state-run media itself said (for instance, the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody was actually a play on a column in the LA Times by the same name; Rush was actually ridiculing the state-run media for its own racist tendencies).

The left has sunk to a new low, however.  Now, they are making up horrific quotes and attributing them to Rush, quotes that he never uttered.  First, they invented a quote to try to show that Rush supported slavery:

I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Then, they tried to say he supported the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King:

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

Anyone who has ever listened to Rush for any period of time knows that he would not say these things.  They are completely out of character.  In fact, they cannot be sourced.  The only source found is a Wikipedia / Wikiquotes entry that someone made up (as we all know, Wikipedia is an infallible source of information).  Yet the state-run media (whose members often accuses blogs  as being unfiltered, un-fact-checked medium that cannot be trusted for information) ran the quotes without questioning them.  The quotes ran on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and several other media outlets.  To date, not one state-run media outlet has issued a retraction or apology.  Even the UK Guardian gets that this is a smear campaign, yet no one in the State-run media has had the guts to report on this fabrication.  Only Fox News, the blogs, and Rush himself have pointed this out. Apparently, the state-run media feels the need to fact-check an SNL skit that pokes fun at Obama, but it can’t be bothered to fact-check charged quotes that have the potential to seriously damage someone’s reputation.

Now, because of all the controversy, Rush has been dropped from the group making a bid on the St. Louis Rams.  It’s a damn shame.  The state-run media ran with this fabricated hit-piece on Rush, and it succeeded.  Rush should get a good lawyer and sue every media outlet that repeated this story as fact for libel, and sue them for the potential revenue lost as being an owner of an NFL team.  The state-run media should be ashamed of themselves.  Unfortunately, they are probably congratulating themselves for their successful drive-by shooting of Rush.

{ 1 trackback }

Rush’s Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal | Axis of Right
October 17, 2009 at 11:29 am

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Ryan October 15, 2009 at 4:29 pm

I completely agree that Rush should stick it to them in court. If these”journalists” can get away with this unfounded, unsourced smear without consequences, then they can do anything to anyone. If nothing else, Rush should issue an ultimatum to sue and watch them sweat for a while.

I also heard that Dave Checketts approached Rush about this whole thing in the first place! Was he in on this public smearing? It all looks rather orchestrated and, like ACORN, should be exposed for all to see if there is anything to see.


Dee October 21, 2009 at 6:59 am

Limbaugh’s own WSJ article admits that he knew, and indeed warned Checketts there would be a firestorm of protest long before his involvement became public.
The NFL commisioner cited Limbaugh’s very well documented remarks about Eagles QB Donovan McNabb as the main reason for NFL reluctance at admitting Limbaugh.
Checketts opted to dropped Limbaugh and his relatively small financial participation (thought to be between 10% and 20%) rather than see the whole enterprise go down in flames.
IMHO, this is a tempest in a teapot, and the 2 unquestionably false quotes that were attributed to Limbaugh appear to have had little to do with his exclusion.


Dee October 26, 2009 at 1:22 am

Just as a post script to my comment of 10/21…The New York Post is reporting that Limbaugh was himself the victim of an unattributed, and ultimatly false story about Obama. After using the story as a reason to comment at some length about the Presidents made up opinions about the US Constitution, Limbaugh had to admit later in his show that the quotes that he had attributed to Obama had been taken from an internet hoax and were totally false. The Post also noted Limbaugh would not apologize because even though the quotes were false, he believed that they accurately reflected Obama’s beliefs. The irony (as well as the hypocrisy) abounds!


Sal October 26, 2009 at 10:32 am

Actually Dee, he did get the post wrong and admitted it. He then used the incident to point out the absurdity of his own NFL situation. He corrected the hoax immediatly as he found it, and then said the following:

So we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate. However, I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, “It doesn’t matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.” Sort of like Dan Rather said, “I don’t care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don’t care if the documents are forged.” I don’t care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, “I don’t care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I’ve heard him say it.” Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois.

Get your story straight, his “non-apology” was a comment on how Conservatives are treated by the state-run media.


Dee October 27, 2009 at 12:32 am

Sal, if you would re-read the portion where he says “I’ve heard him say it.” Not about the Constitution…”, and then explain to me how this makes any sense at all. He contradicts himself in the span of less than a dozen words. The man just speaks nonsense! I will never underestand how any reasonable person can defend such intellectual dishonesty. I suppose I’ve just grown weary of his new “victim” status. Given the gravity of the issues that confront all Americans, it seems to me that the time for much of this foolishness has passed. Dee


Sal October 27, 2009 at 8:07 am

Apparently you do not understand the concept of satire, which is the use of irony, ridicule, or sarcasm to expose a truth. In this case, he was mocking the media. Once the media was made aware that the supposed slavery quotes attributed to him were false, several people in the media said “well those quotes are false, but I know he is a racist anyways because I’ve heard him say it, just not in those words” or other such things. He was mocking them Dee, and he explained that in the same soundbyte. He also compared it to the Bush DocumentGate story that I referenced above, “I don’t care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don’t care if the documents are forged.”

He was not being serious, he was mocking the media. Sorry you don’t get that idea.


Dee October 28, 2009 at 12:02 am

I am well acquainted with the use of irony and satire, thank you. Perhaps a cogent, linear idea, from beginning to end would help make the satire clearer and more sharply defined…as opposed to the tortured language and tangled logic one is forced to wade through in the statement you set forth as an example of Mr. Limbaugh’s “clever” commentary on contemporary media. If you would allow me an observation, it appears that you are more inclined to give Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt, and forgive his clumsy and ultimately failed attempt at satire…where I am more inclined to believe he is, and has been for some time, a whiny malcontent who’s inability to gain acceptance by the very establishment he claims to abhor … have left him a bitter and ultimately irrelevant buffoon. Dee


Sal October 29, 2009 at 6:46 am

Apparently, you don’t. I heard Rush’s show that day, and it was crystal clear to me what he was saying. It wasn’t at all clumsy, and I understood exactly what he was getting at right away (which, by the way, he explained in a later show). Additionally, for someone who is, as you say, irrelevant, he sure has quite an impact on our politics. He had 20 million listeners a week before Obama started attacking him, and his ratings have only gone up since then. He’s hardly a malcontent. If you listened to his show (which I doubt you do), the bulk of it is spent on political philosophical thought, not partisan attacks. It is only the satire moments that are picked up by the state-run media, and then taken out of context to try to portray him as something he is not.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: