posted
I'm surprised I didn't see a topic about this already. If I missed it, let me know.
I've always considered Rush Limbaugh a harmless goof. He says some off-the-wall things, but that's how he makes his living, so I've always kind of let it slide.
Today I saw an article that made me radically rethink my position on Rush. I didn't think it could possibly be as bad as the headline made it sound. Stories like this are usually quotes taken out of context or misinterpretations of mostly harmless statements. Then I read what he said.
(comments concerning Michael J. Fox's appearance in Democratic campaign ads)
quote: The bombastic Mr Limbaugh, however, exploded in scornful outrage on air, claiming he had never seen Mr Fox in such a state. "This means either he didn't take his medication or he was acting," said the radio host, who has a weekly audience of more than 10 million. The actor's behaviour was "really shameless," he added.
I'm trying to wrap my head around any possible way those quotes could have been made in a context that makes them any less offensive, and I can't come up with one. Has anyone heard of this? Am I getting an article with some heavy liberal spin? I can't believe that even someone like Rush would stoop to that level, but I can't think of any other way to interpret this.
I mean, it's fine to debate a person on the issues, no matter what they're suffering from. But personal attacks against someone with advanced Parkinson's, especially attacks that display such crass, willful and pernicious ignorance about his situation, make me sick to my stomach.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've seen, this isn't the first time Rush has crossed the line.
Back in the early 90's, follwing the first gulf war. At the time women in the military were fighting both for the chance to serve in combat situation and were fighting against serious sexual harassment within the military. Rush made a bunch of comments about how if women wanted to serve in combat situations where they might get raped by the enemy, they should have no objection to being raped by their fellow service men. Which I found deeply offensive at every level.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's Rush Limbaugh, are you really surprised?
A drug addict calls a Parkinson's sufferer a faker and we're surprised? The man isn't firing on all cylinders, just let him be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: From what I've seen, this isn't the first time Rush has crossed the line.
Very, very seconded. I have found so many actions and/or pronouncements of his reprehensible that I lost count a decade ago -- and the last time I listened to his show was when I had a roommate who loved him (and thus I had little choice). That was in 1991-2.
The man (and I use the term loosely) blithely ignores the line all the time.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just found a clip of part of what Rush said this morning. I found something interesting.
He cites emails his listeners have supposedly sent him saying that they've seen interviews with Fox admitting to stopping his meds before he does appearances like this.
Now, if you have a show that's broadcast nationally and is making this kind of money, aren't you supposed to have a research staff? And if you have such a staff, why are you citing the emails from your listeners talking about these interviews instead of finding the gorram interviews yourself? Even for editorial journalism, how can this be considered responsible? I was on the radio in junior college, and we were held to higher standards than that.
I mean, the fact that he didn't run his ideas past a doctor (which any radio show that size should have on the payroll) before saying that Fox is faking is bad enough. But how can someone make accusations like that based upon easily disprovable heresay and have his job the next morning? I'd expect a 15-year-old working for the high school paper to get fired for less. The fact that Rush isn't making his living in the subway dancing for nickels just astounds me.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not a journalist; he's an entertainer. Who's going to fire him, when he brings in the bucks?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"This means either he didn't take his medication or he was acting,"
Not that it's in any way surprising that Mssr. Limbaugh is running his mouth off bombastically over a subject that he's profoundly ignorant about (re: Pinatubo, etc etc etc etc), but the shaking is -- surprise -- often largely a side effect of the medication itself.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My grandfather has Parkinson's, it mostly effects his hands.
He takes a dozen or so different medications for different problems, but even with the Parkinson's medication, his hands still shake violently enough that his writing looks like it was written by a four year old during an earthquake, and he can't eat any food liable to fall apart.
posted
Yeah his comment about the Fox were just downright idiotic and blatant! He should submit a fomal apology to Fox!
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how can someone make accusations like that based upon easily disprovable heresay and have his job the next morning?
It's political talk radio. Hearsay, accusation, oversimplification, and academic dishonesty are all par for the course.
Rush doesn't have to be right about most things. The vast majority of his listeners are essentially adherents who are listening to radio to agree with him and know what to be outraged about next. There's a lot of critical suspension. As long as he serves up the outrage -- suppositional as it may be -- he's doing right by the talk radio playbook.
Talk Radio remains one of the easiest ways to be reliably misinformed. Well, for politics, anyway. Sports radio is actually helpfully informative.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am surprised that Rush Limbaugh is not fired. Michael J Fox has been suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) for about 15 years. He should be at a very advanced stage of PD and unfortunately the medications that are available today are only good for about 2-3 years and then they stop working. Once medication stoped working patient has to start another medication and they just hope that it works. Patients taking medications regularly might still have the problems that Michael J. Fox was having in the interview. This is a very horrible disease to have and it is not something to laugh about or imitate. Rush Limbaugh is a horrible man and he should be fired. If you don't agree with a certain view that is fine, you can argue and make your point, but to do such personal attacks it is unthinkable, disgusting and low. Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He cites emails his listeners have supposedly sent him saying that they've seen interviews with Fox admitting to stopping his meds before he does appearances like this.
It's not hearsay. Michael J. Fox himself, in his own words on TV, has stated that he's done this on numerous occasions, including when he testified in front of Congress for stem cell research.
Frankly, I admire and respect him beyond belief for doing that, for how he's handled his adversity and for everything else he's done and trying to do for the greater good. Most people would try to cover up their condition and try to live the best life they can; he puts himself through hell in order to make what he's dealing with all the more apparent in the hopes that it can make a diffence.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever I begin to think Rush has gone too far, I switch over to Michael Savage for a few minutes (I can't take more than about four). After that, Rush seems quite levelheaded and kind.
In actual fact, I much prefer listening to Michael Medved.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rush is pitifully sad, and has been since he got a radio show and became famous badmouthing one man. I've tried to think of another example in history where one man became so famous by badmouthing another. No other example fits the bill.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange news: The media has been widely reporting that Limbaugh has apologized, when he hasn't actually done so.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, he didn't. He sort of implied that his previous words may have been harsh and/or incorrect, but then went on to justify everything he said by saying McCaskill and/or Fox were exploiting/being exploited. Basically, Fox may have been honest in his message, but being there at all was wrong.
I don't know where drug addict Limbaugh gets the temerity to accuse a disease victim seeking a cure of exploitation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: Whenever I begin to think Rush has gone too far, I switch over to Michael Savage for a few minutes (I can't take more than about four). After that, Rush seems quite levelheaded and kind.
I used to listen to Savage sometimes biking between classes, a few years ago. Actually it was kind of fun, because it was like listening to an alien talk about life on Earth- the guy is playing from a totally different deck of cards.
For instance, he mentioned once on his show that he has several apartments, rooms, and homes, and that for safety and privacy reasons, he never sleeps in the same place on consecutive nights. Also, he rarely does his show from the same studio twice in a row. He is just a really "off" kind of person.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is worth noting that most of the comments made here, and the way it was covered, is exactly how Rush Limbaugh said things would be covered. Only one small clip being played, no discussion of the bill in question, no discussion of the lies in the ad, just the standard "Rush is mean" lines. Just to show that Fox did indeed say this and since no one here seems to want to do any research, here you go.... Michael J Fox's website "Snippets of my testimony were featured on several of the nightly news broadcasts. One line in particular from my prepared statement got a lot of play: "In my forties, I can expect challenges most people wouldn't face until their seventies and eighties, if ever. But with your help, if we all do everything we can to eradicate this disease, when I'm in my fifties I'll be dancing at my children's weddings." I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling. " That is the statement in a decent context so you can see why he did it. So taken in context, we can see why he did what he did. So let's just take a typical soundbite chop up of it and reduce it to one line "I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. " I could go on to rant about this and twist into something politcal about Democrats and the Media, but I won't mostly because people already know (even though you don't) what I would say. And yes I do know that many people are going to pounce on me for attacking Fox, which I have not done, and that's OK. This is an emotional issue and people don't seem to listen anymore. They go into conversations already having heard what the other person is saying...before they even say it. [edited because I typed 'said' instead of 'did']
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'd like to know is whether Rush helps or hurts conservatives, in terms of getting or scaring away votes...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Would we complain if another actor without parkinson's, portraying someone who DID have the disease, was the one on the air? (I wouldn't, anyway)"
Would you complain if the ad was false and misleading?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please Tresopax, Don't give Rush more credit than he deserves. I think the man believes he has more influence than he actually does. At least, that's what I hope.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you complain if the ad was false and misleading?
Was the ad false and misleading? Fox was stumping for funding for fetal stem-cell research (or for a candidate who supports funding for fetal stem-cell research); did he put forth information that was false or misleading?
Or did he use tools to demonstrate the urgency that he feels about this subject? I see no ethical problem at all with Fox's reasoning.
Really, Rush was complaining because the ad was effective, not because it contained false or misleading information.
I suppose a better argument, if you wanted to argue the points made in the ad, would be to note that there are a number of promising ADULT stem-cell research opportunities, and that fetal stem-cell research isn't needed. But Rush, as an entertainer and GOP-gopher, has to focus on attacking a person instead of discussing issues.
quote: I suppose a better argument, if you wanted to argue the points made in the ad, would be to note that there are a number of promising ADULT stem-cell research opportunities, and that fetal stem-cell research isn't needed. But Rush, as an entertainer and GOP-gopher, has to focus on attacking a person instead of discussing issues.
Rush did not focus on attacking a person. You have only seen the 'clip' so that is what you believe to have happened. Which is reinforcing what I said earlier about how this is being protrayed. He spent at least 45 minutes of his show discussing what was wrong with ad, like how Talent is not against stem cell research, how the admendment is a more of a cloning admendment than a research admendment, he talked at length about what research is working, what kind of stem cells are showing results now. Here's a transcript from his show yesterday: "They could have heard what I said, but they don't listen. They simply get their reports from the AP or whoever, but if they listen to this program, there's no way they could report on it the way they have -- well, take that back. Yes, there is an action line to every story in the media. I am a story to the media, and thus I have an action line. The action line is, I personify -- I'm the poster boy -- for all of the negative stereotypes that they have created about conservatism, and anything they think fits that action line, moves it forward, they are happy to report, but what did you hear me discuss yesterday? You heard the discussion about stem cells versus embryonic stem cells, versus the controversy over federal funding. You heard about the Missouri deception, the Chicago deception, the Minneapolis, Minnesota deception, and the Maryland deception that the Democrats are engaged in here using the actor Michael J. Fox. You heard about promising cures that don't exist in the stem cell research area. You heard about research in other areas to cure Parkinson's or to reduce its effects that is working, involving gene therapy, involving the insertion of a virus in the brain. You heard about that. By the way, that research is being funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. You heard all of that. You heard about which cures the smart money is investing in and not. You heard a number of things." So that is just a list of all the things discussed by him. I know you don't care, I know it won't matter because Rush is Evil. He just has to be! That is all that matters. You heard the clip you wanted to hear so Rush=Mean. He did note all of your points and more but he is Rush Limbaugh and is therefore Wrong and Mean. Why no outrage for Jon Stewart and all the mean things he says? Isn't he the same thing as Rush Limbaugh? No? Is that because you don't hear the constant drum beat of 'Jon Stewart is Mean'? How much would you like to bet that if Jon Stewart was a Conservative he would not be treated the same way as he is now? Again, I know many people won't read posts like this one, or do any research to see what all of what Rush said simply because they have the clip that will reinforce their world views and nothing else matters.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Stewart is a comedian. He never uses his desk as a pulpit. He doesn't champion causes from his job. He makes fun of news. His program is not for or against a school of thought.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope you are OK with any and all Republican ads especially if they are effective...no matter if they are true or not, they only need to be effective. And like I said, you didn't read my post or any of it points, won't think about them, no mention of anything else except your belief that Limbaugh is an idiot. Odd how you are sooo against Limbaugh saying mean things yet you won't hesitate to say mean things about him
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Jon Stewart is a comedian. He never uses his desk as a pulpit. He doesn't champion causes from his job. He makes fun of news. His program is not for or against a school of thought. " Have you seen his show? It's a half hour of mostly cheap shots against Bush and Republicans. I'm not sure how you can say his show in not politcal in it's very nature?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read your posts. I listen to Limbaugh. I was listening when he talked about the Fox ad. I find the majority of what he says to be spiteful crude rhetoric. I am not against him saying mean things, I am against him saying false things. I am one of the foolish ones who listen just to get angry. I know, it's a sickness.
If the ad is untrue, and you can prove this with a link and facts to back it up, I'd like to read it. I am OK with an ad as long as it's truthful.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say his show wasn't political. It doesn't sign off with "Vote Democrat", or "Vote Republican". It makes fun of the days news, paying particular attention to politics. The republicans are in the news? The republicans will be the butt of the jokes. Democrats in the news? Democrats will be the butt of the jokes.
His show doesn't have a political agenda.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK: Are you really surprised that, after all Rush spent his time on, the media is only focusing on the personal attack? Do you really think it's unjust?
What if I got a radio show when Condie Rice made a run for president? Say I spent an entire show making well reasoned and documented critiques of her history and qualifications, then at the very end I slipped in something about how electing Ms Rice would turn the White House into a second-rate minstrel show. What would you expect the media to report on? Would anything I had said before or after that have made that any less offensive?
There's something to be said about context, but 100 reasonable and fair statements can't make up for one vicious, unjust personal attack.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baron: I'm not surprised at all. That is exactly what I knew would happen. This is what typically happens to right-wing talking heads.
If you had a left-wing radio show and made scathing personal attacks against Condi Rice there would be nothing reported about the personal attacks, only the substance of what you were saying in your well reasoned and documented critiques of her history.
If you had a right-wing radio show and made scathing personal attacks against Condi Rice there would be nothing reported except short clips containing the scathing personal attacks and how mean you are. Then probably a short rebuttal from a Democrat saying that you are a typical, mean, evil Conservative and should be taken off the air....and Ms Rice would turn the White house into a second-rate minstrel show because she is a Republican too. Don't believe me? Think I'm wrong? How much prime time news was devoted to some one like Al Franken and the personal attacks he has launched against Bush, Cheney, Condi, or any Republican? Or is that completely different because he is an entertainer hosting a talk radio show?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, that's actually another good point. I never said liberal conspiracy nor do I believe there is a liberal conspiracy. If that is your effort to disprove my point, I'm not sure how it fits? Do you think that I was wrong? Is Al Franken treated the same way in the press as Rush Limbaugh? I do believe that the majority of the media is made up of Democrats or left leaning people (much like I believe many business leaders are right leaning people). Why? Simply because people who are left leaning are typically drawn to that field of work, just as right leaning people are drawn to different areas. Educators tend to be more liberal than conservative as well. So there is no vast left or right wing conspiracy at work. There is a left bias because most reporters tend to be left leaning and see things through that prism.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dark Knight. If it is about the issues and not a personal attack on Fox, where is the ad false? Please explain the bigger picture regarding this issue.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
By trenches, I mean someone who has been innundated by the whole Stem Cell Amendment debate that Mr. Fox and Mr. Limbaugh took differents sides on.
The medical industry, and all of the support and health groups in the State of Missouri have been asking for Missourians to support an amendment to our state constitution that would insure that:
1) Cloning, especially as a form of conception, would not be legal in the state, but nucleic cell transfer (which may or may not be defined as cloning) can be used for research purposes.
2) Fees can be paid for the procurement of fetal tissues for such research.
3) Any treatments or cures derived from fetal stem cel research will be available to the citizens of Missouri.
Those for the amendment produce calm placid commercials saying that this ammendment will offer hope for future citizens.
Those opposed to the ammendment claim the following:
1) Nucleic Cell Transfer is Cloning, so we are permanately putting into law that Missouri clones people.
2) Since people are paying for this fetal tissue, this is equivelant for selling human beings--slavery.
3) Such payments will insure warehouses, company farms, of poor repeatedly impregnated women who are forced to deliver thier unborn children--via converyor belts and robotic precision--to the ravenous monsterous baal-esque medical industry.
4) Since no limits are placed on the number of embryotic stem cells available, the medical industry will hungrilly devour millions of our unborn children.
Those who are pro-ammendment are calm and respectful.
Those who are anti-ammendment are loud and fear mongering.
Micheal J. Foxes' ad is another that is calm, reflective, and offers hope.
Rush Limbaugh's response is loud, fear-mongering, and then it gets personal.
I have yet to find a mis-fact in the pro-ammendment arguments. I find many in the anti. Rush Limbaugh's has one major one that seems to be missed.
He claims that since Fox was off his medication, his illness is faked for the commercial. The truth is that his illness is real. The medication is the mask that he wears to cover it. If he were to just sit there and be perfectly normal looking, that would be fake.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben I have already pointed some out but here is some items lifted from the anti-Rush media news stories. USA Today HEADLINE: Limbaugh says actor Fox exaggerating his disease as stem cell issue churns From the article: "In the McCaskill spot (claireonline.com), which aired during Game 1 of baseball's World Series on Saturday, Fox says McCaskill, the state auditor, "shares my hope for cures" while her opponent, Republican Sen. Jim Talent, wants to "criminalize" expanded research. Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer called the ad "false" and says Talent supports "stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo." Cloning? Hmmm, that might something worth furthur investigation. What is that bill really about? Does Talent really want to criminalize expanded research? Doesn't matter, we all know that Rush is Mean.
CBS News HEADLINE: Fox Responds To Limbaugh Accusation Actor Responds To Claim He Was Off His Meds In Political Ad: 'My Pills Are Working Really Well' (I did show earlier with a link showing the Fox himself stated that he did go off his meds for the Senate hearing, scroll up in this thread to find it) From the article: "Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." ""Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo," said Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer. Earlier this year, Talent withdrew his support for a Senate bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and jail sentence on violators. But he opposes the Missouri ballot initiative, claiming it would "make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right." Supporters of the state referendum deny that assertion, noting the language of the proposed constitutional amendment explicitly bans human cloning." I even put in the paragraph rebutting Talent's claim of the cloning part of the proposed constitutional amendment. Did any reporter actually investigate this proposed constitutional amendment and see what it is really all about? Or did they just stick with Rush is Mean with some filler material containing She(D) Said - He(R) Said - They(D) Said Against What He(R) Said?
Don't you think it is even slightly odd that no one seems to be really looking into the proposed state constitutional amendment? Does it really ban human cloning? What does "somatic cell nuclear transfer" mean? How much have you heard about the ad that is the counter to the Fox ad? [edited because I wanted to move the second link down and make it look slightly better]
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said liberal conspiracy nor do I believe there is a liberal conspiracy.
No, you're right. You never did mention the words 'liberal conspiracy.' I guess you couldn't've been talking about that.
By the way, I'm thinking of a fruit. It's long and skinny, greenish-yellow, and it grows on trees. I don't have to say what it is -- I just described it perfectly. Course, I could be talking about a plantain, but that's just picking a nit.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, you're right. You never did mention the words 'liberal conspiracy.' I guess you couldn't've been talking about that.
You took a small clip of my post and made it represent something that I specifically stated it was not? You didn't read the rest of it, just jumped ahead with the answer because you already know what the rest of the post was about so no sense in reading or thinking about it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You misrepresented your own post, then attempted to redefine the phrase 'liberal conspiracy' to not include what you were calling it, which was a left-leaning bias.
It's the same thing. I can tell you learned much from your master, Rush.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
