Posted by Tina
The President made an announcement on immigration today, calling it an “exercise in prosecutorial discretion. I say that’s a crock…Joe Arpaio was asked about the move:
The President is once again playing King of the Realm rather than fullfilling the duties of the office…apparently buying votes is a higher priority for him than is upholding the Constitution or simply respecting the other branches of government.
Rush just announced that Neil Munroe, a reporter for Atlantic, asked the President if this was the right thing to do for American workers…the President was testy as he brushed off the question.
What do all of you think about this move?
Tina: “Rush just announced that Neil Munroe, a reporter for Atlantic, asked the President if this was the right thing to do for American workers…the President was testy as he brushed off the question.”
Wow. Yet more reason to never believe a thing Rush Limbaugh says.
Neil Munro is not a reporter for the Atlantic, he’s a reporter for the Daily Caller. And the president was “testy” because Munro rudely interrupted him while he was in the middle of his speech.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/video-of-the-day-daily-caller-reporter-interrupts-obama-press-conference/258570/
After years of an unprecedentedly tough stance on illegal immigration, Obama’s new decision is the right one. Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents. Giving them a path to college is a common sense investment–it’s cheaper to pay for their college now then it would be to pay for their welfare later.
I guarantee the socialist POS knows he is heading for a Carter style @$$ kicking come November. That is why he just illegally granted amnesty to millions of illegal alien voters. I know the MSM says it’s 800 k but this number is as fictitious as every other number put out by the regime.
I have already got some feedback from one first generation American citizen with Mexican immigrant parents who busted their butts to achieve citizenship. To say they are not pleased with this would be a HUGE understatement.
Did you hear the little dictator’s speech? He was spewing some sewage about this allowing children who “say the pledge of allegiance” blah, blah, blah. Hearing that @$$ hole talk about the pledge of allegiance actually made my skin crawl.
I again eagerly await input from any and all on this latest affront to the American way of life and our paid for in blood freedoms.
You are either for Law and Justice or you are a democrat!
If Rush Limbaugh really said that then he is a liar and should apologize immediately. Neil Munro is not a reporter for the Atlantic which is a respected publication. He is a “reporter” for Tucker Carlson’s website The Daily Caller and I can’t believe he even has press credentials. He did not “ask” the president a question, he interrupted the President of the United States of America when he was speaking. That is unacceptable. If ANY reporter from ANY publication had done that to Bush we would have been outraged and justifiably so. Whatever we can say about the Obama presidency (and I can say PLENTY about his abuse of executive privilege), we have to demand respect for the office.
I cringe at the idea of the rest of the world watching our Democratically elected leader be interrupted by some hack from a blog. Shame on us.
“Ah Maria, it is perfect! That socialist fool will allow children to stay in America! Now, all we have to do is walk 200 miles across the desert and pay hundreds of dollars to sneak into America. Then we wait 18 years, 9 months, until our little hijo is an hombre! Then HE can make ten dollars an hour and put all them gringoes who want to pick produce out of work! We can retire in luxury!!!
Gracias, Senor Obama!!!!
Doesn’t work that way, but again I think you know it.
Why do you insist on playing these condescending satire games? Please just state your case. Who knows, we might even support you!
Reagan was in support of limited amnesty.
I apologize.
In the future, I will try to make my comments as elementary as possible.
I am listening to the radio and they are saying that Illegals will use this as an excuse to come to America and create more anchor babies. I was merely pointing out how ignorant that argument sounds.
On the radio they were saying that these “Illegals” will steal jobs from Americans. I was merely pointing out how stupid that argument is, for nobody wants the jobs that illegals do! I think what we have here is (another) tempest in a TEA pot.
Princess, you are absolutely right. I’m also surprised that Daily Caller “reporters” are given White House access.
I wonder if Rush purposefully misreported Munro’s affiliation in order to confer a sense of legitimacy to his actions. Of course, if a reporter from the Atlantic had interrupted a president’s speech and then heckled him, he would have been fired immediately. Since Munro works for the Daily Caller, he’ll probably get a raise.
Jack, the satire posted by “American Dreaming” was funny and on target. The fearmongering about illegal immigrants is out of control right now. We’re actually seeing record lows of immigration due to our poor economy right now, but you wouldn’t know that from the media, mainstream or otherwise. Illegal immigrants are portrayed as having some kind of sinister plot to overrun America, when really they’re just trying to do the best they can for their families.
This fearmongering will continue for as long as it is profitable. It’s been very good for Joe Arpaio, who owes his entire career to a single-minded obsession with demonizing illegal immigrants and making people afraid of them, while ignoring more serious threats to the people he’s sworn to protect. Hopefully voters will come to their senses and make sure that this won’t be profitable for him for very much longer.
BO may have gained some votes with his granting 16-30 year old illegal immigrants work permits, but how many votes did he lose from all the high school students, college graduates and their parents that were/are having a hard time finding a job before adding 800k new job seekers?
Did BOs advisors really think this one through? If I was 16-30 or a parent of someone who cant find a job I be really pisssssssssssss..! On the other hand I should be saying thanks again for thinking he was king instead of our current president.
He held a supper majority of Congress from 2008-2010 and didnt push to get our immigration laws changed. He lied (told another untruth to be pc) again today when he said the Dream Act failed in Congress because of the republicans. The truth is it passed the House and fell short in the Senate where the democrats held the majority. The vote was 55-41. It needed 5 votes to pass. The same 5 votes the democrats withheld. Oh yeah, there was one democrat that went to a Christmas party instead of casting his vote.
Try telling the truth Mr. President you may be able to earn some votes instead of trying to buy them with lies.
Unemployment for April 2012 for the 20-24 year olds was 13.2% and high school graduates a whopping 70%. Will these newly unemployed illegal immigrant count be added to the report or will another creative bookkeeping tactic be employed to misrepresent the actual figures?
Unemployment charts 4/12:
http://www.demos.org/data-byte/april-2012-unemployment-rates-age
70% Unemployment for Recent High School Graduates:
http://theintelhub.com/2012/06/09/70-unemployment-for-recent-high-school-graduates/
House Passes DREAM Act for Illegal Immigrants, Senate Poised to Vote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dream-act-immigration-reform-bill-house-senate-votes/story?id=12337341
DREAM Act Vote Fails In Senate:
The Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of bypassing a filibuster of the DREAM Act, but fell five votes short on Saturday, dealing a harsh blow to the bill that would have allowed some undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to gain legal status.
The final vote total was 55-41 — well above what would be needed for the bill to pass in a normal vote. Many previously undecided Democrats voted in support of the bill, as did Republican Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah).
But others voted mostly along party-lines. Five Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jon Tester (D-Mt.), Max Baucus (D-Mt.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who switched her vote to a “no” at the last minute. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) skipped Saturday’s votes for a Christmas party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/dream-act-vote-senate_n_798631.html
Again, Republicans are not keeping themselves informed. People, this is what Obama does. He adopts a Republican plan (like Romneycare) and forces Republicans to come out against what they were once for. He does this to avoid having to do any actual work.
This plan Obama announced today is almost exactly the same thing that Marco Rubio presented. This is a Republican plan and now they will all look like idiots when they attack it just like Romney looks like an idiot when he attacks Obamacare which is the same thing.
Meanwhile, Obama tries whistleblowers for treason and has a secret kill list and attacks our allies with drones. Feeling safer yet?
A.D. that’s okay, we’re just trying to understand your points and they are good points, I’m not disagreeing with a lot you have to say. But we need to just tell it like it is. Straight up so everyone gets hit over the head with the facts.
One of the legit concerns is how do we prove that illegals meet the test as indicated by Obama? Honor system or what? Do you know, because I have no idea?
Princess you really struck a nerve on the whistle blower part. I thought Obama would be all for that? I really did. Apparently not, even when its a liberal with conscience, they’re subjected to a lot of grief for telling on fraud and corrupt programs and many lose their jobs. That black leader in ACORN for example. He informed that almost a 100M was being abused and spent on illegal things and his reward was he got canned.
“ACORN 8: Race, Power & Politics–Memoirs of An ACORN Whistleblower as Told by Marcel Reid
Michael McCray has both his CPA and his law degree, and yet, in the mid 1990’s, those became obsolete when he was met with a decision that changed his life forever. That’s when he became a whistle blower. The plight of the whistle blower is one of the most under reported stories in media. McCray’s story is a variation of millions such stories. At the time, he was working at the United States Department of Agriculture, overseeing a Federal Empowerment Zone in Mississippi for the Clinton White House.
There, McCray says he discovered mismanagement and corruption involving the main bureaucrats working for the zone. When McCray attempted to report this corruption, he says that like most whistle blowers, rather than meeting him with concern and understanding, the system attempted to cover up his revelation and smear him in the process.
Since that day, he’s become an advocate, activist, organizer, and now writer. McCray found himself at a cross roads within an organization that would soon begin to live in infamy for a few months at least, and become the main story everyone was talking about.”
In the following clip, taken from a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admits that its beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because (surprise, surprise) there are laws on the books that hed be breaking by doing that. In other words, the President acknowledges that to do what he did today would be a rank violation of the separation of powers. Watch below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J9isifcg9ik
I was in the waiting room of a dental office when Obama announced his change to the immigration policy. A middle aged black woman in the lobby could not contain herself. She said she and the rest of her family voted for him with the promise of change and hope. She was so emotional when she spoke. Apparently of her family of six, all adults, only three were working. Her son is a school bus driver, her daughter works for the public works dept. and she works for the electric co.
She felt that he was a white mans black(not the word she used).
Everything he does she said was for political gain, i.e. gay marriage, hanging with the Hollywood crowd, and now this new rivalry for entry level jobs. She had tears in her eyes. She told everybody listening that she would not vote for him again.
My name was called before I could hear the rest of her rant. This was one of the few times I didnt mind waiting for my appt. I could not help but wonder if others felt the same.
Peggy: “BO may have gained some votes with his granting 16-30 year old illegal immigrants work permits, but how many votes did he lose from all the high school students, college graduates and their parents that were/are having a hard time finding a job before adding 800k new job seekers?”
The president probably lost very few votes among college graduates, since they are more educated and informed, and thus are more likely to know that what American Dreaming wrote above is correct: illegal immigrants do not compete in the same job markets as natural born citizens. “They steal our jobs” is, to put it bluntly, a myth designed to scare white people. (Accusations of reverse racism commencing in 3…2…)
Ironically, many people who repeat this myth do so only seconds after repeating the other big myth, which is that illegal immigrants are lazy and shiftless and only here for the welfare. As if there’s no contradiction.
If you’re concerned about people stealing American jobs, look no further than big corporations choosing to do business in countries where they can make more of a profit from child labor and other forms of exploitation. Most of the companies that do this could still make a hefty profit without resorting to such measures, but there are no laws stopping them from doing so. (Apparently, that would be socialism.)
Princess: “Again, Republicans are not keeping themselves informed. People, this is what Obama does. He adopts a Republican plan (like Romneycare) and forces Republicans to come out against what they were once for. He does this to avoid having to do any actual work.”
Nailed it. Yesterday’s Republicans are today’s Socialists.
Chris: “Yet more reason to never believe a thing Rush Limbaugh says.
Neil Munro is not a reporter for the Atlantic, he’s a reporter for the Daily Caller.”
My apologies to all of our friends at Post Scripts and to Rush Limbaugh.
It was I, and not Rush Limbaugh, who reported that Neil Munroe worked for the Atlantic. By way of explanation I can only say I posted too quickly on my way out the door to an appointment. I thought it was a story our readers would enjoy discussing and didn’t want to wait until evening to post it. While looking to see who Munroe worked for I misread some information and drew the wrong conclusion.
Once again my apologies for MY error.
Princess: “…he interrupted the President of the United States of America when he was speaking. That is unacceptable.”
Sam Donaldson regularly badgered Ronald Reagan like a gnat on ripe fruit. The media elites thought of Donaldson as a hero. Questions from reporters to George W. Bush were often snide and disrespectful and the elite reporters who asked them were considered savvy and smart.
The media regularly covers for this president. They failed to vet him the first time around. They ask him soft ball questions and fawn over his answers. Perhaps if they would actually do their jobs, instead of cheer leading for Obama and most Democrats, reporters who behave as Munroe did today would not be necessary and bloggers from both sides of the aisle could go fishing.
“This plan Obama announced today is almost exactly the same thing that Marco Rubio presented.”
There is a difference between a “proposal” like Rubio made, that would go through the legislative process to become the law of the land or not, and Obama making a promise in his official capacity AS PRESIDENT, that he knows cannot be kept, that is strictly political theater, just to buy votes. The two examples are NOT the same. The President is using the power of his office to fool people and that is disgustingly shameful.
If you want to be embarrassed for America you can look to the President as the greatest example of embarrassing behaviors and rhetoric.
Chris: “It’s been very good for Joe Arpaio, who owes his entire career to a single-minded obsession with demonizing illegal immigrants and making people afraid of them…”
You claim to hate lies. This is a big one perpetrated by progressive bloggers and media acting as activists for Democrats.
Arpaio is an officer upholding the laws as written, something that the Obama administration and Eric Holder have not been willing to do. Instead they abuse the law as they see fit to create division for political purposes.
Jack (PS): “Reagan was in support of limited amnesty.”
Yes, he was. Edwin Meese, who served under Reagan, shares his thoughts about Reagan’s thinking on amnesty in an article from 2006 titled, “Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake”. Find it here:
http://www.humanevents.com/2006/12/13/reagan-would-not-repeat-amnesty-mistake/
Our present bad economy has caused this problem to move into the background since many have gone home due to the fact that work has dried up. However, it is a mistake to think that only “jobs that Americans won’t do” is the only or main reason they come here. Ask the builders in this country how illegals impacted their businesses and jobs. Treating these people like they are all migrant workers from the forties and fifties is naive.
America needs a plan to solve this problem. Citizens and law enforcement officers must have and show respect for our laws so that others will also respect them. Political rhetoric that uses the issue to smear opponents is not respecting of the immigration laws now in place. In fact it causes division and unnecessary anxiety and fear.
Free and open borders with plenty of government handouts is bad policy and must stop. Ultimately none of us will be served by this policy.
Controlling our borders is important for our own survival as a free and open society. A means of entering our country with dignity must be devised. Entering our country by any other means must be discouraged and our laws strictly enforced. We need a plan that serves both America’s need and the desires of those who wish to come to our shores…LEGALLY.
PAL, I believe that many, many in the black community have had it with BO. The triumph of having a black man run the country was great, but short lived when he left them behind as he headed left. Black voters are a lot more conservative than most people would believe.
Pal what a very sad outcome for this woman, her children, and the black community. The Democrat Party did them no favor by promoting a man of such limited experience. There are qualified black men and women that would have been a better choice. I think they picked Barack Obama for his smooth talk and, I hate to say it, for his radical views and style. He was not prepared to lead at this level…and it shows.
Chris your accusations about those holding opposing views on immigration are unfounded. You claim to be concerned with truth and yet you repeat the lies of the extremists in your own party like a perfect useful idiot.
Unemployment for teens has been extremely high. Most work they could get if jobs were available are entry level jobs. Competition for these jobs will be higher if illegal immigration is encouraged. Your having concerns about people who come here illegally looking for work but not to have concern for American kids that want or need to work doesn’t make sense.
Imagining that people who are concerned about Illegal immigration are just attempting to “scare white people” is a nasty and largely false remark designed to muddy the waters and smear your political opponents.
You repeat the error with another nasty and thoughtless progressive smear by saying people think “illegal immigrants are lazy and shiftless and only here for the welfare”. I have never heard anyone say they believe illegals are lazy or shiftless. In fact they are often spoken of as capable and hard working (except for the criminal element, but that’s another story).
Just as you take advantage of student grants and other social services many of these people take advantage of our generous welfare and social programs because we have let them. Why wouldn’t they take advantage? And why on earth would anyone blame them? The truth is most people don’t blame them! the truth is they recognize the attendant problems and want solutions. The truth is your party makes these stupid divisive accusation for political reasons. You should be ashamed for spreading such ridiculous lies and you should have more respect for the views of other people who are seriously interested in solving our nations immigration problems.
We are demanding, as is our right, that the law be changed legally and in a manner so as to better serve our nation and the people who work to come here legally. The argument has always been that we want our laws to be enforced and respected. It would be refreshing to have an honest discussion about possible solutions but that will never be possible as long as progressive leaders prefer to demagogue the issue and people like you carry water for them.
Those against the Presidents tactic today are concerned for our country and upset that he would blatantly disrespect our laws, our legislative process, and our Constitution for personal political gain.
Chris, See Pal’s comments.
“illegal immigrants do not compete in the same job markets as natural born citizens.”
Really? Last I heard the 16-30 year olds were high school students wanting retail, fast food, construction, waitressing, bussing tables and on and on.
If I was you I’d be worried about finding a job too. How many college grads are living with mom and dad because they can’t find a job in the “job market” they’d like to have or one in a low entry-level even a high school student can’t get?
“”They steal our jobs” is, to put it bluntly, a myth designed to scare white people. (Accusations of reverse racism commencing in 3…2…)”
Once again, see Pal’s comment. The work permits is NOT a race issue, it’s about JOBS!
If you’re concerned about people stealing American jobs, look no further than big corporations choosing to do business in countries where they can make more of a profit from child labor and other forms of exploitation. Most of the companies that do this could still make a hefty profit without resorting to such measures, but there are no laws stopping them from doing so. (Apparently, that would be socialism.)
Rein it in Chris, the subject is giving work permits to illegal immigrants who are 16-30 years old and whos parents brought them here. Period! Corporations and business profits is a subject for another time.
My heart goes out to the kids and young adults who are here through no fault of their own. My issue is Obama circumventing Congress again and using his executive power for his political gain. These young men and womens futures should be addressed, but it should have been done within our current laws or new ones passed by congress. (See my earlier post showing the democrats are the ones that failed to pass the bill in 2010 that would have made this a law.)
You know as well as everyone else he had every opportunity for the past 3.5 years to address the Dream Act or another similar proposal, but chose not to until just days before Rubio was coming out with a new plan. Obama just had to get out ahead of Rubio and take credit for what Rubio did in an attempt to bury his failures for the past 3.5 years.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/12/rubios-dream-act-gamble-just-in-time-for-the-2012-election
“This idea that he is working on would be narrow in its scope,” says Rubio spokesman Alex Conant. “It is not the comprehensive approach to fixing a broken immigration system. This is very targeted to young people who are in a situation by no fault of their own.”
I guess Im just really surprised that for a bright young man who has worked so hard toward your career goals while also working part-time to support your family this doesnt bother you. Did you have a retail-type entry-level job? Or have you been working for some big corporation as a mid-level manager? What about the hundreds of thousand of your class mates and younger brothers and sisters who dont have a job and probably never will now? What about them? Doesnt this nation owe them something too? How about we just give them all government jobs at $15 an hour? Would that make you happy?
Figure out how much tax youll need to pay out of your salary for all those jobs Chris and let us know if you can live on whats left. 75-80% to the govt and 20-25% for you. What a wonderful life you will have. Are you sure you want to work for so little, and for how long?
Others that see Obamas executive command as I do.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/13/opinion/navarrette-deportation-immigrants/index.html
Obama’s immigration policy a shell game
By Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor
Immigration reform advocates aren’t laughing. Neither are Latinos, many of whom take the immigration issue personally because many of them know people who have been deported and because they feel affected by the racism driving the debate.
Both groups are upset that the administration’s much-hyped policy of applying “prosecutorial discretion” to hundreds of thousands of deportation cases still in the pipeline has turned out to be little more than smoke and mirrors.
It is no wonder that President Obama has so much trouble telling the truth about his immigration record. He can’t very well acknowledge to immigration reform advocates that it was political expediency that led him to aggressively deport more than 1.2 million illegal immigrants in his first three years in office. And he doesn’t want to admit that he misled supporters by telling them that most of those being deported were criminals as opposed to what he described in a May 2011 speech in El Paso, Texas, as “folks who are looking to scrape together an income.”
Rather than be straight with supporters on the left and risk disillusioning parts of the base in an election year, administration officials chose to deceive them into thinking that the administration had developed a conscience and was focused on going after what Obama called the “worst of the worst.”
So it was Janet Napolitano who took it upon herself to change our laws, and has been doing so for the past 3.5 years. Obama speech yesterday was just his approval for her to continue breaking our laws.
Our government is out of control. JN was not elected by us nor does she have the power (she shouldnt have the power) to decide what laws she will and wont enforce.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/immigration-back-obama-loosens-deporting-rules/story?id=16576677
Obama’s announcement today is likely to curry favor with Hispanics, a key growing voting bloc that could determine the winner in November in important states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. The president beats Romney among Hispanics in polls, but most Latinos say they disapprove of Obama’s deportation policy. Obama also plans to speak to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Florida next week, as will Romney.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano today denied that the plan was crafted at the direction of the White House.
“No, this was developed by the department,” she told ABC News. “It was developed within my office, and it was, as I said, before a logical progression from decisions we have been making over the last three, three-and-a-half years.”
Under the new rules, up to 800,000 immigrants will be affected. Deportation will no longer apply to immigrants who came into the country before they were 16 and are now younger than 30, have lived here for five straight years, have never been convicted of a crime or graduated from high school or got a GED.
Such immigrants will be allowed to apply for a two-year work permit that can be renewed unlimited times.
Since when do we justify bad behavior by saying “they do it too.” Yes, I know Sam Donaldson badgered Reagan (I don’t know if he interrupted him while he was speaking though) but since the right is supposed to despise the liberal media I don’t really think we want to be saying that if Sam Donaldson did it then it is okay when some idiot d-bag who claims to be a conservative but is really just some attention-seeking jerk claims to be “just asking questions.”
I cannot even begin to describe the despair I feel with today’s Republican party. Every single time I see Mitt Romney on TV I want to throw up because he really is the best we can do. Why is that? This country has real problems created by George Bush and made incredibly worse by Barack Obama. And we think a guy who is a venture capitalist who did a great job running the Olympics and who ran dinky state Massachussetts into the ground is going to help us?
Joe Arpaio? He should be in jail. He was elected by claiming his opponent wasted tax money and failed to solve crimes. He has wasted more tax money than can be imagined. He has turned into a pundit not a sheriff.
Even Fox News ripped this Munro idiot for doing this. And whatever White House employee that gave The Daily Caller press credentials should be fired. I enjoyed Tucker Carlson’s show when he was on MSNBC. I looked forward to watching it every night. He was respectful of guests and did an excellent job of balance. Rachel Maddow was a frequent guest on his program and they were great together. Shame on him for supporting his idiotic employee. He should have fired him not defended him.
I keep hearing about Sam Donaldson doing this to Reagan. No way. Anyone saying this is just repeating what Tucker Carlson said. No one in the 80s would have dared interrupt the POTUS.
Chris Wallace from Fox News backs me up on this:
“I covered Ronald Reagan for six years with Sam Donaldson,” Wallace said. “We used to scream our lungs out asking questions, but we always waited until the president, any president, had finished speaking. The idea that you would interrupt the president in the middle of prepared remarks and shout a question, I dont think the guy should be allowed back in the White House on a press pass, and my guess is he wont be.”
In the first place sheriff Apaio is a kiss ass Italian Immigrant who hates anyone of Hispanic descent.He takes advantage of his Sheriff status to harass Mexicans and Mexican Americans. He has forgotten that his own people from Italy were discriminated against in the US. they were called WOPS, which means “without papers” and Dagos, which I do not know what the word means, but I imagine that it doesn’t mean anything nice. Arpaio is a brownnoser who is under indictment and will soon be in jail with his Hispanic “friends”. I hope they kick his ass from here to Kingdom Come. Lino
FishHunt and Princess it was not my intention to “justify” interrupting the President during his remarks. Of course it was rude and disrespectful.
My intent was to point out the way the media treats this President with fawning admiration as opposed to the hard manner in which they question Republican presidents and candidates and suggest that if the media would do their jobs adequately people like Munroe wouldn’t feel the need to jump in front of them with a question they refuse to ask. It has also been pointed out that President Obama rarely takes questions from the press. He should face them instead of hiding behind the office.
Munroe has also said it was wrong for him to interrupt the president.
But its really amusing to see people treat this President with kid gloves. The media has made him a special case and cushioned him from intense scrutiny. Attacks on George Bush, as well as disrespect for the office, rarely saw an objection in eight years. Sarah Palin wasn’t shown even the slightest pretense of respect.
If you, and others like you, can’t see this is a problem in our media there is not much hope for our nation.
Some of our readers might appreciate this walk down memory lane. Then new President of the United States Barack Obama showed arrogant disrespect for his predecessor during his inauguration speech (After GWB and LB had welcomed the new administration and families so graciously). As the outgoing administration entered the area liberals in attendance loudly booed President Bush:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09/presidential-disrespect-went-around-and-now-comes-around/
And let us not forget the disrespect our President displayed for the Supreme Court members in attendance at his SOTU address or the way he refers to his opponents as “clinging to their guns and religion.
President Obama has not always conducted himself with behavior fitting the presidency and it’s time to stop giving him a pass.
Mr Munroe made a mistake. A more impressive president would have handled the situation with grace as Reagan did with Sam Donaldson or at least with restraint as Bush often did in front of a very hostile press…or with humor and grace as Bush did when a shoe was thrown at him.
Good grief the bowing and scraping is enough to make anyone puke!
this in response to TINA
Go get a life .You are not qualified to make remarks on this subject. you are so ignorant and racist that it smells all the way to my computer. Please have a nice day and get a life, Lino
Lino, obviously this is an issue of great concern to you and you’re passionate about it, but that doesn’t excuse your vitriol and insulting comments.
That was a cheap shot and I didn’t care for it. You’re way out of line.
Look Lino, we don’t mind discussing this subject and hearing your points, but lets keep it respectful. And one last thing, she has every right as an American to have an opinion on this subject and any other she chooses. -Jack
Lino, Your own remarks demonstrate hatred that is unseemly. Yours opinion of Arpaio is fine but understand you are attempting to create guilt in the court of public opinion. Our system requires evidence.
Arpaio is under investigation by those who are his political opposite. As an officer of the court he is required to follow the law. It’s not unusual for people to misinterpret the intent of the police and it is certainly not unusual for political opponents to attempt to harm those who pose a threat. The left is particularly adept at this tactic. they even have a manual they follow.
Arpaio treats all of his prisoners the same as he has been trained to do. Mexicans and others here illegally are not exempt from correction when they break the laws of this land and simply not simply because they are Mexican or Latino. without proof your suggestion is an insult to the many mexican Americans that work with and support him.
As for your personal remarks about me, thank you for sharing. You have managed judged me with the same prejudicial stick you used to judge Arpaio.
Just a thought: Resentment and hatred are ugly emotions that can consume if we are not careful.
Valla Con Dios, my friend. Come back any time to share your thoughts. We welcome people from all sides to any issue here at Post Scripts.
“Sam’s premise, sadly, is ignorant, simplistic, clichd, predictable and wrong. The President’s ideas are what I oppose, not his skin color, which I couldn’t care less about. He’s the President of the United States and his race does not inoculate or immunize him from substantive critique.” Rush Limbaugh
HT: NewsBusters
Tina: “It was I, and not Rush Limbaugh, who reported that Neil Munroe worked for the Atlantic.”
What about the rest of the mischaracterization of the incident that you attributed to Rush in the main article? Was that your mistake as well, or did Rush mislead you into believing that Munro merely asked a question and was “brushed off” in a “testy” manner? Did Rush not mention that Munro interrupted the president’s speech? Because that would be a lie by omission. I’ve already paid more attention to Rush this morning then he deserves, so I can’t bring myself to look up his initial comments about the incident at the moment.
Although I will say that Rush’s claim that he “couldn’t care less about” the president’s skin color is a total crock, as demonstrated by the quotes I compiled for you on the other article, the one where you tried to compare Neil Munro’s actions to those of Sam Donaldson and other real journalists. As Rush’s own words show, he constantly brings up the president’s race when talking about totally unrelated issues. This fits into Rush’s pattern of making unnecessary, derogatory and racially charged comments about others as well.
“Perhaps if they would actually do their jobs, instead of cheer leading for Obama and most Democrats, reporters who behave as Munroe did today would not be necessary”
There’s no “if.” Munro is already not necessary. Nor is he a reporter; he’s a political activist. There’s nothing wrong with being a political activist, as long as you’re honest about it, and not claiming to be a real reporter.
Also, the narrative of Barack Obama’s fawning media is in your imagination. As a recent Pew study shows, Obama has been the subject of more negative press than any of the Republican primary candidates over the past year, and has not enjoyed a single week of mostly positive media coverage since last summer.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/study-obama-getting-more-negative-press-than-gop/1#.T9-NoLVrMXs
“You claim to hate lies. This is a big one perpetrated by progressive bloggers and media acting as activists for Democrats.”
Tina, every time I have accused you of lying, I have shown you unassailable evidence proving that what you’ve written is demonstrably false. Whenever you accuse me of lying, you are always unable to do the same. You couldn’t do it in our debate over Mitt Romney’s positions the other day, and you can’t do it now.
My claims against Mr. Arpaio are based on decades of incidents and hundreds of people who have claimed to have been victimized by him at some point. They are based on the many prisoners who we know have died due to lack of proper health care on his watch. They are based on his obsession with illegal immigration to the detriment of more serious crimes. They are based on his overly aggressive and often brutal enforcement of immigration laws. And they are based on a long series of investigations, many of which concluded that his department had committed acts of corruption, excessive force, discrimination, and civil rights violations.
“Arpaio is an officer upholding the laws as written”
He is not upholding sex crime laws, apparently:
“Both cases were among more than 400 sex-crimes reported to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office during a three-year period ending in 2007 including dozens of alleged child molestations that were inadequately investigated and in some instances were not worked at all, according to current and former police officers familiar with the cases.
In El Mirage alone, where Arpaio’s office was providing contract police services, officials discovered at least 32 reported child molestations with victims as young as 2 years old where the sheriff’s office failed to follow through, even though suspects were known in all but six cases.
Many of the victims, said a retired El Mirage police official who reviewed the files, were children of illegal immigrants.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/04/joe-arpaio-arizona-sex-crime-cases_n_1128680.html
For you to claim that the investigations into Arpaio, which are a result of an outcry from hundreds of people who claim to have been victimized, are simply “politically motivated,” while simultaneously cheerleading for Arpaio’s nonsensical investigation into Obama’s birth certificate, is the height of idiocy. As if Arpaio’s birther investigation isn’t political? There is plenty of evidence against Joe Arpaio, and there is zero evidence that Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii. And yet you believe that the birther investigation is more credible than any of the investigations into Arpaio? That’s. Not. Rational.
“Free and open borders with plenty of government handouts is bad policy and must stop.”
How can you stop what isn’t happening?
“Your having concerns about people who come here illegally looking for work but not to have concern for American kids that want or need to work doesn’t make sense.”
Why do you think I don’t have concern for American kids that want or need work? I can be concerned with both, you know.
“Imagining that people who are concerned about Illegal immigration are just attempting to “scare white people” is a nasty and largely false remark designed to muddy the waters and smear your political opponents.”
Again, you’re misrepresenting me. I have not said that people who are concerned about illegal immigration are attempting to scare white people. If I did I would be insulting myself, since I personally am concerned about illegal immigration. I said that the specific claim that illegal immigrants steal our jobs is a myth designed to scare white people. It would save time if you would debate my actual positions, instead of strawmen.
“I have never heard anyone say they believe illegals are lazy or shiftless.”
You don’t expect me to actually believe this sentence, do you?
More later.
Chris I know it must be a terrible disappointment to you that your smug little countdown on reasons why YOU don’t trust Rush crashed and burned this time but you will just have to live with it.
Your side looks more desperate and ridiculous with every passing day. EVERY opinion and comment about Obama is now deemed racist…as if the President were not a human being capable of error but some sort of god. What is wrong with you people? Could it be that all of you were suckered in by the community organizer based MOSTLY on his race rather than his qualifictions and now you all look like fools?
I watched Sam Donaldson so don’t preach to me about rudeness and disrespect of the “real” media. And by the way, press passes are handed out by the White House and Munroe has (had) one. If they have taken it from him it certainly won’t be the first time this administration has attempted to silence voices they fear will ask them questions they don’t want to answer. I recall the president attempting to block FOX News WH reporters from attending a certain event and the rest of the media, to their credit, came out against the President. Then there’s the snivelling attempts to control the radio.
The “real” media laughed and poked fun when a shoe was thrown at Bush. Need I bring up (again) the obsceneties of “real media host and Speaker of the House Tip O’Niell ex-staffer Chris Mathews or the obnoxious way that Governor and VP contender Sarah Palin were treated by the “real” media?
Munroe acknowledged his error…get over it!
I will not bother to read any more crap from you about truth and honesty. You support the party that made both of these words meaningless long ago and continue to make them meaningless every day.
“the narrative of Barack Obama’s fawning media is in your imagination”
Oh please. The media has begun to realise that their fawning is harming their credibility, not to mention the country, and begun to give the President some negative press…HOWEVER…the general kid glove way they approach him…AS OPPOSED TO THE WAY THEY TREATED BUSH…is grand in scale and not at all in my imagination.
“My claims against Mr. Arpaio are based on decades of incidents and hundreds of people who have claimed to have been victimized by him at some point.”
And this information is documented by whom and for what purpose? If this has been such a huge problem for “decades” with “hundreds of people” making complaints why has Arpaio not been removed from his position? He IS required to uphold the law. If he has failed to do that and it is a documented fact he should be fired. He hasn’t been…not in decades!
Arpaio deserves at least a modicum of respect and the benefit of the doubt unless and until some authority determines guilt, otherwise this is nothing but a political witch hunt.
I’m pretty sure that evidence could be accumulated quite easily that would show people who have engaged in criminal activity often resist questioning or take an aggressive approach when confronted by a police officer or sherrif. I would suggest that some innocent people also do this rather than just politiely answering questions. These could make up some of the complainants; people with attitudes against authority figures. Others could be people who have a negative hard core hatred of the US but don’t mind taking the freebies that our government hands out so freely. In reality you and I have no idea who the complainants are or what their motives might be and your only answer is that Arpaio is guilty and the others “victims”.
“As if Arpaio’s birther investigation isn’t political?”
Arpaio has become a Saul Alinski style target. If his actions are political I don’t blame him a bit.
I say again. Your opinions about such things are meaningless to me because you continue to align with and support the party that uses the lowest possible tactics to personal destroy anyone that poses a threat. Your party picks a target to use as a punching bag to win…they don’t care about what works best for the nation. Your party doesn’t discuss positions based on merit or workability. Your party uses victimhood, special rights, and the politics of division to appeal to emotions. Ugh!
“How can you stop what isn’t happening?”
It is happening more than it isn’t happening. It has slowed now only because the the economy is so bad.
“I said that the specific claim that illegal immigrants steal our jobs is a myth designed to scare white people.”
And I said, tell the people who work in construction that it’s a myth.” It isn’t a myth and it wasn’t designed. It was expressed by people who actually lost jobs to illegals.
Believe what you want. I…that means I’m speaking for myself…have never heard anyone say this. Perhaps I hang out with nicer, more inclusive people than you do.
Tina: “Chris I know it must be a terrible disappointment to you that your smug little countdown on reasons why YOU don’t trust Rush crashed and burned this time but you will just have to live with it.”
I’m sorry, what? Did I miss something? I didn’t make a list of reasons why I don’t trust Rush. I made a list of racially charged statements from Rush. Did you have a rebuttal? I don’t see one here, so I don’t understand why you think my argument is the one that has “crashed and burned.”
You criticized Sam Donaldson for “inserting race” into a discussion “from out of the blue” after he implied that Rush Limbaugh opposed the president on racial grounds. That led me to believe that you don’t like it when people insert race into a discussion from out of the blue. I then responded with a list of eleven different times that Rush Limbaugh himself injected race out of the blue, and argued that this is what Donaldson was talking about when he suggested that Limbaugh uses racist rhetoric in his opposition to the president. And you seem to have no problem with any of these eleven statements.
This would indicate that you were merely pretending when you let on that you don’t like it when people insert race from out of the blue. It would indicate that you only have a problem with this tactic when it is used by those you see as your opposition. When it’s someone on your side doing it, you think it’s perfectly fine.
Now you may say that this line of argument has “crashed and burned,” but you haven’t demonstrated that. Unless you explain what you mean here, then I have no reason to conclude you are anything but a partisan hypocrite.
Do you have a problem with people inserting race into a discussion from out of the blue? If so, you need to address the comments from Limbaugh I pointed out to you. Either explain how it is that those statements don’t fit that description, or admit that they do, and say that Rush was wrong to make them. Any other response (or lack thereof) would be cowardly and dishonest.
“Your side looks more desperate and ridiculous with every passing day. EVERY opinion and comment about Obama is now deemed racist…”
Again, I’ll ask you to please debate me, and not strawmen. There may be people who believe that every criticism of Obama is racist; as someone who has criticized Obama myself on THIS VERY SITE, you know damn well I’m not one of them. I only think comments that disparage Obama based on his race, or that show an irrational focus on Obama’s race, are racist. I have just shown you several comments from Limbaugh that demonstrate his irrational focus on the president’s race. The lie that the health care bill is a form of “reparations,” for one. As you know, blacks get no special privileges from the health care bill, so even you have to admit that to call it “reparations” makes no logical sense. The only way someone could make such an argument is if they are irrationally focused on the president’s race, and want to tie everything he does to his race. I have also shown you that this comment fits into a pattern of Rush Limbaugh needlessly inserting race into a discussion from out of the blue.
For you to respond to this by throwing your hands up in the air and essentially saying, “Gee, I guess everything must be racist to you,” is to play dumb on an epic scale. It is not a substantive reply to anything I’ve written here, it is a deflection, and it is a waste of my time.
“I watched Sam Donaldson so don’t preach to me about rudeness and disrespect of the “real” media.”
OK, so I guess that means you don’t need to respond with a real argument or any evidence at all. You “watched” Donaldson, so I shouldn’t question your argument, nor should I expect you to defend your position using logic.
“And by the way, press passes are handed out by the White House and Munroe has (had) one. If they have taken it from him it certainly won’t be the first time this administration has attempted to silence voices they fear will ask them questions they don’t want to answer.”
It wouldn’t be an example of that at all. It would be an example of a rude and disrespectful jackass being kicked out on the grounds that he has no journalistic integrity.
“The “real” media laughed and poked fun when a shoe was thrown at Bush.”
Who are you talking about? Examples, please?
“Need I bring up (again) the obsceneties of “real media host and Speaker of the House Tip O’Niell ex-staffer Chris Mathews”
LOL! You think Chris Matthews is a good example of what liberals think a “real” journalist is? He runs an opinion show! Do you have any idea what a real journalist does, Tina? Can you give me any examples that are not overtly biased editorialists, or is that the only kind of news you’re familiar with?
“or the obnoxious way that Governor and VP contender Sarah Palin were treated by the “real” media?”
Again, examples. Of journalists, not editorialists, please.
“I will not bother to read any more crap from you about truth and honesty. You support the party”
So your justification for not taking my opinions seriously is because I’m a Democrat. Wow. So every Democrat out there, their opinions are meaningless to you, just because they’re Democrats? That’s amazing.
I have criticized you for your support of certain reprehensible ACTIONS and STATEMENTS made by individuals in your party. The pretzels you twist yourself into in order to defend lies and racist statements are legendary. I still can’t believe the way you downplayed Limbaugh’s smearing of our TROOPS when he claimed that they were helping Muslims “wipe out Christians” in Uganda–that was probably the lowest you’ve ever sunk, and yet you still stand by your defense today. But I have never criticized you simply for being a Republican or supporting the Republican party at large. I have never argued that anything you write is not worth reading simply because you are a member of the Republican party. That would be stupid, hateful and divisive. I have many Republican friends who are not pathologically incapable of ever admitting when Rush Limbaugh or others in their party cross the line of decency.
“Oh please. The media has begun to realise that their fawning is harming their credibility, not to mention the country, and begun to give the President some negative press…HOWEVER…the general kid glove way they approach him…AS OPPOSED TO THE WAY THEY TREATED BUSH…is grand in scale and not at all in my imagination.”
Then provide evidence, like I did. The truth is that the media was too easy on Bush. If the media had not been afraid to question the administration following 9/11, we probably never would have gone into Iraq.
“And this information is documented by whom and for what purpose?”
By victims and their family members, for the purpose of seeking justice. Do some research on Marty Atencio. He was an Army vet who died of cardiac arrest due to treatment at the hands of Arpaio’s department. According to the medical examiner, Atencio died of cardiac arrest, and one of the contributing factors was “law enforcement subdual.” In the following link you will see a video of one of Arpaio’s officers using a taser on Atencio just a few minutes before he became completely unresponsive. At this point, Atencio was unarmed, in a police station, with his arms folded, and the police had taken off his handcuffs. He was surrounded by at least ten officers. And yet, one of Arpaio’s men thought it was necessary to use a potentially lethal device on him? That is excessive force. It is police brutality, and it led to Atencio needlessly dying.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/video_shows_joe_arpaios_officers_used_taser_on_lat.php
And this is not the only time something like this has happened because of Arpaio. There are other instances of abuse and needless death. You owe it to yourself to find out about them. I won’t give you more links; you will either find this information on your own, or you won’t. I can’t make you accept any of it. The choice is yours. I still have hope you will make the right one some day.
“If his actions are political I don’t blame him a bit.”
Or maybe Princess was exactly right above. “They do it, so it’s OK if we do it too” is your modus operandi. It’s a childish mentality and very unbecoming of someone your age.
Peggy: “Really? Last I heard the 16-30 year olds were high school students wanting retail, fast food, construction, waitressing, bussing tables and on and on.”
True, but when was the last time you saw a legal citizen picking grapes out in the fields? For the most part illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans won’t do, and they are payed far less and often exploited. I am all for punishing businesses which exploit illegal immigrants. I am also in support of making legal immigration more feasible, so that the incentive to break the law isn’t as strong, and we will be able to keep better track of who exactly is coming in. Those seem to be the only fair, reasonable ways of addressing this problem.
“If I was you I’d be worried about finding a job too. How many college grads are living with mom and dad because they can’t find a job in the “job market” they’d like to have or one in a low entry-level even a high school student can’t get?”
I’m living at home right now and working an entry-level job. My family gets food stamps. I can guarantee you that most of the Republican policies floating around right now would not help families like mine, they would only harm them. Under the Ryan plan, families like mine could be kicked off of food stamp programs and other forms of welfare. The plan would also cut funding to the Pell Grant. This would delight many conservatives who say they are tired of having their tax money go to help poor kids go to college–seriously, one commenter on this blog once told me that this was a form of “theft”–but it would be bad news for those kids and for the economy as a whole, since it would mean less skilled workers and poorer, less educated citizens. The plan would increase income inequality. I am more concerned with these issues than with kids losing jobs and college admissions to illegal immigrants, which just isn’t something I see as likely to happen.
“Once again, see Pal’s comment.”
Pal’s comment proves nothing except that he watched one woman overreact and misunderstand an issue. Her anger over Obama supporting gay marriage also indicates an inability to understand that her people’s struggle for equal rights is not the only one that matters.
“Rein it in Chris, the subject is giving work permits to illegal immigrants who are 16-30 years old and whos parents brought them here. Period! Corporations and business profits is a subject for another time.”
It all matters to the issue of American jobs, doesn’t it? The point is that it is often easier to blame those who have little power over those who have a lot. It’s an unflattering part of our human psychology. The other, even bigger point is that big business has caused FAR more American jobs to be given to non-citizens than illegal immigration has. If you’re worried about American citizens losing jobs that are fairly theirs, then you should know that corporate exploitation in foreign countries is a bigger part of the problem.
“My heart goes out to the kids and young adults who are here through no fault of their own. My issue is Obama circumventing Congress again and using his executive power for his political gain.”
I must say that I am not sure I am in favor of Obama accomplishing this through executive order. I do think that is an issue of concern and I am not entirely clear on the legality of the method he used, even though I support the end goal. But the ends don’t justify the means in my book and if I come to the conclusion that Obama acted wrongly I will make my opinion known.
“These young men and womens futures should be addressed, but it should have been done within our current laws or new ones passed by congress.”
I sympathize with this idea and I think that definitely would have been preferable. Again, I am not sure if what Obama did was legal. Jack says that executive orders are legal as long as they don’t violate existing laws; I am not sure if Obama’s decision necessarily does that, as it is more about enforcement of the law. It seems like a nuanced subject but I will look more into it.
“(See my earlier post showing the democrats are the ones that failed to pass the bill in 2010 that would have made this a law.)”
I am not sure I agree with you on that one. It seems like it would make sense to blame the party that overwhelmingly voted against the law for its defeat, not the party that had only five holdouts, even if those five votes made a difference. More Republicans voted against it than Democrats, therefore it seems logical to me to say that Republicans failed to pass the bill.
“You know as well as everyone else he had every opportunity for the past 3.5 years to address the Dream Act or another similar proposal, but chose not to until just days before Rubio was coming out with a new plan.”
I have been a vocal critic of Obama’s foot-dragging on the immigration issue. He has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president. That doesn’t exactly win him many points in my book. And from what little I have read about Rubio’s plan, it sounds sensible. I don’t have a hard time believing Obama timed this for political reasons; he is a politician, and he is far from immune from being just as devious as the rest of them. So on this point you’re probably right.
“I guess Im just really surprised that for a bright young man who has worked so hard toward your career goals while also working part-time to support your family this doesnt bother you. Did you have a retail-type entry-level job?”
Yes, I do. I work as a cashier for Wal-Mart. But I am not concerned about that corporation replacing me with an illegal immigrant. Nor am I worried about illegal immigrants displacing similarly situated workers in general. I am more concerned with my company’s practice of exploitative labor overseas. That costs more American jobs than illegal immigration does, and there are a whole host of other moral issues associated with this business practice as well. I also don’t care for the company’s strict anti-union stance, but don’t tell anyone I said so, as the company has had people followed and recorded for voicing pro-union sentiments.
That said, I personally have always been treated well by the company, and I am grateful for the job.
“What about the hundreds of thousand of your class mates and younger brothers and sisters who dont have a job and probably never will now?”
Again, I think you’re overreacting. I don’t think there’s a danger of many of them losing out jobs to illegal immigrants. There’s a book on the subject, written by Aviva Chomsky, titled, “They Take Our Jobs! And 20 Other Myths About Immigration.” You might be interested. Amazon has the introduction and some of the first chapter available to read for free, and they might have it at your local library.
http://www.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs-Immigration/dp/0807041564
“Doesnt this nation owe them something too?”
Tina would disagree with you on that point; she has frequently mocked the idea that our nation “owes” us anything, especially employment. But I have often argued on this blog that our nation owes the working classes more than we are seeing today, and I’ve offered many suggestions on what the government should do to help. I’m often met with accusations of class warfare and socialism.
“How about we just give them all government jobs at $15 an hour? Would that make you happy?”
I’ve never advocated anything of the sort, so no. There are a lot of things the government can do to help fight the unemployment crisis. More financial aid for college would help. Higher minimum wage laws. Stricter regulations on businesses that operate overseas.
“Figure out how much tax youll need to pay out of your salary for all those jobs Chris and let us know if you can live on whats left. 75-80% to the govt and 20-25% for you. What a wonderful life you will have. Are you sure you want to work for so little, and for how long?”
Peggy, those tax rates are nowhere near becoming a reality (even though the very rich did pay these rates and more during WWII.) Right now we can’t even get one party to consider raising taxes on the top 2% by only a few percentage points, even though their taxes are historically low. All because Grover Norquist had an idea when he was twelve-years old, and as an adult managed to get almost all Republicans to pledge that they would never support a tax increase no matter what the circumstances. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes to higher rates than they are now, and all of a sudden it’s heresy among conservatives to even think of such a thing.
“Others that see Obamas executive command as I do.”
Wait, I’m confused. You agree with Navarrett that Obama has deported too many illegal immigrants, and that racism is driving the debate? Or just the part about Obama doing this because of political expediency?
Chris: “Did you have a rebuttal?”
1 800 282-2882
“I then responded with a list of eleven different times that Rush Limbaugh himself injected race out of the blue…”
WRONG! You responded with a liberal left interpretation of what Rush does that has absolutely NOTHING to do with whatever point he is making or his actual character. Your examples stink because they are as bogus as the false charges of racism leveled at him, including by Sam Donaldson…a “real” reporter of old.
1 800 282-2882
Now and in the past you have characterized Rush as a racist holding him up as an “important” figure on the right with “a lot of influence”. You were quite insistent on this point.
Now you issue a demand that I find examples of “real journalists” and for good measure make a snarky condescending remark to question my intelligence.
I suppose unless I can find some PHD in journalism who works for PBS that has made rude comments about George Bush or Sarah Palin you will deem any examples I cite as unacceptable.
I notice however that Media Matters and Huffington Post have been regular sources for your information. In fact the information you cite above on Arpaio comes from: pmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo
Is this an example of “real” journalism? Would Chris Mathews, a person hired because of his experience in American Politics, be considered higher or lower on a list of journalists both “real” and “unreal” than pmmuckraker?
Maybe we can save some time here. Why don’t you make a list of “real” journalists so that I can avoid being castigated by the list maker?
I repeat, you support the party that follows a manual about how to target and destroy people for political gain. Why should I be concerned that you think I should hold to a higher standard?
Chris, you have become tedious rather than interesting. Your modus operandi is fast becoming that of a bully.
Tina: “WRONG! You responded with a liberal left interpretation of what Rush does that has absolutely NOTHING to do with whatever point he is making or his actual character. Your examples stink because they are as bogus as the false charges of racism leveled at him, including by Sam Donaldson…a “real” reporter of old.”
Tina, I posted Rush Limbaugh’s OWN WORDS.
I think it’s clear that those words are racist on their face.
You apparently disagree, but you give no reason for your disagreement, other than appeals to Rush’s “character” and whatever “point” you think he’s making. (Of course, no matter the point, nothing justifies racist language.)
I would like to know why, exactly, you don’t think those specific quotes are evidence of racism. If you want to call Donaldson’s accusations “bogus,” then should be able to explain why. You are not using logic to defend your position right now, you are using purely emotional appeals.
This isn’t really about Rush. You made a specific accusation, claiming that Sam Donaldson was being “desperate” by “inserting race from out of the blue.” I felt the need to show that his accusation was not out of the blue, but rather had a lot of merit. I presented a lot of evidence that he was right to accuse Rush of using racist rhetoric. I showed that Rush often brings up race out of the blue, which makes him “desperate” by your own logic. If you are so convinced of the rightness of your position, you should be able to counter that evidence in a rational manner.
And somehow expecting you to do so makes me a “bully?” It is an irrational expectation for me to ask you to remain logically consistent, and to back up your arguments with reason? That’s nonsense.
I will have to respond more later.
Tina: “Now you issue a demand that I find examples of “real journalists””
It’s not an unreasonable demand to ask you to back up the claims you are making. Chris Matthews is not an example of a real journalist. He is an editorialist. If you are arguing that real journalists savaged Sarah Palin, then you need to back up that argument.
Katie Couric is someone whom I would consider a real journalist. She runs a news show. She reports the news and interviews people without a whole lot of editorialization on her part. She also had a famous interview with Sarah Palin. Do you have a problem with her treatment of Palin? A lot of conservatives seem to, but frankly I don’t see how “What newspapers do you read” is an unfair question, or even a challenging one. It seems that conservatives don’t like how Palin came off in that interview and are trying to blame Couric for Palin’s poor performance, even though Couric did nothing wrong. Is that the kind of treatment you’re talking about?
Admittedly many others in the media treated Palin badly. Andrew Sullivan’s birtherism regarding Trig Palin is pretty horrifying, though no worse than the much larger and more well-known cult of birtherism on the conservative side. Many sexist and foul comments have been made toward Palin among liberal comedians. But none of these were made by reporters, so your specific claims about reporters treating conservatives badly just don’t hold water.
“I suppose unless I can find some PHD in journalism who works for PBS that has made rude comments about George Bush or Sarah Palin you will deem any examples I cite as unacceptable.”
Tina, don’t be ridiculous. The only examples you cited were editorialists. Those are clearly not good examples. That doesn’t mean that any examples you cite will be unacceptable.
It’s really embarrassing when you act like my expectations for what constitute a rational argument are so incredibly strict. All I ask is that you back up your argument with logical evidence and that you don’t contradict yourself. That should not be so hard.
“I notice however that Media Matters and Huffington Post have been regular sources for your information. In fact the information you cite above on Arpaio comes from: pmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo
Is this an example of “real” journalism?”
I wouldn’t hold up either of these sites as bastions of journalistic integrity. I wouldn’t use them as an example of the mainstream media, and when it comes to press passes for a White House conference, there are plenty of people who should be ahead of the line. However, the facts documented in the specific TPM article I linked to are accurate and can be verified by many other sources. The journalism in that specific article seems to be sound. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the substance of the article. If you have a problem with the source I can give you links to more neutral web sites that contain the exact same information.
The video in question showing the act of police brutality is from a local news channel, not a liberal blog. Will you watch it if I link straight to the news channel instead of to TPM?
“Maybe we can save some time here. Why don’t you make a list of “real” journalists so that I can avoid being castigated by the list maker?”
This is ridiculous, Tina. Do you really not understand what I am asking for, or are you just playing dumb? I’m obviously asking for reporters, not editorialists. I’ve already named Katie Couric. Most national newspaper reporters would also fall under the category of “real journalists.”
“I repeat, you support the party that follows a manual about how to target and destroy people for political gain. Why should I be concerned that you think I should hold to a higher standard?”
Tina, can you not see that the methods you call “Saul Alinsky tactics” are the very same methods used by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et. al? Do you really not think that they target specific individuals and groups in order to smear them? Do you honestly believe this is something only Democrats do?
Chris I have attempted to explain to you on many occasions how Rush uses absurdity to expose the absurd. You are not interested in what actually happens on Rush’s show, what his words mean in terms of context, or what Rush (and other conservatives) would like to see happen in the black community. You are only interested in the lefts opinion, talking points and lies that are useful as a means to keeping blacks voting Democrat…and possibly exposing me as unprincipled.
The Magic Negro parody, one of your former examples, was an absurd bit of humor that exposed the absurdity of the term used in an article in the LA Times by a liberal black writer, David Ehrenstein. There was no outrage or concern from the left about this inappropriate language when he used it or to the bigoted conclusions about white people spread liberally throughout his article. Rush found all of this absurd, particularly given the race baiting tactics used by Rev. Sharpton and others. The Magic Negro article was sited in discussion and the parody was born…followed by the usual outrage that Rush would say such a thing and the distortions about what happened and about him personally.
Larry Elder, a black conservative, offers his take on the whole controversy here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2009/01/01/obama_the_magic_negro-gate/page/full/
Chris, I am extremely offended by the lies that are perpetrated about conservatives regarding race but I am even angrier at the fear, resentment, and hatred that is ginned up in the black community toward Republicans and conservatives by these lies and the failure in Congress of Republican proposed policies that would benefit Blacks (all of the poor in fact) and help to lift them out of poverty (See last paragraphs of Larry Elder piece).
I have determined that it is not worth my time to “debate” you on this because in my estimation you do not have a mind open to the issues and perspective of the right. Instead you have become a soldier in the Saul Alinsky smear monger division of the left.
Sam Donaldson made a statement that is absurd “on its face”. There is absolutely zero evidence that “many on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, oppose President Obama because he is black” and Donaldson’s “out of the blue” racial accusation in the context of this episode is just simply out of the blue nutty.
O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg share my opinion:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/19/bernie-goldberg-debunks-sam-donaldson-right-wing-would-love-conservat
You aren’t a bully because you asked me about Rush this time, Chris, you are a bully because you have not accepted as possible the notion that Rush is a decent man that is being targeted for destruction by the left: RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) You continue to demand justification from me for what I believe and have stated are erroneous examples. You do this even after I have asked you to take your questions to the one person who might be able to adequately enlighten you, Rush. You take every opportunity to bring Rush into the conversation or if I post something he has said you use that as an opportunity to once again demand explanations from me about other things you believe he has said with the meaning you have chosen to believe is true. You are a bully because you will, apparently, not stop unless/until I agree that you are right about Rush and I have been unprincipled to defend or try to explain what is the truth about Rush from my 24+ years of experience listening to the man…bend to your will! I have become your own personal “target”.
Congratulations, Chris, you made the “Radicals” team.
At this point some of our readers might be curious about the Alinsky rules. Here are the rest of them (1-11) from the book, “Rules for Radicals”, that the extreme left and the community organized rabble will be employing and unleashing as we move toward November:
* RULE 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources money and people. Have-Nots must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people.
* RULE 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
* RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
* RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon.
* RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
* RULE 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
* RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
* RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
* RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
* RULE 11: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Citing Lenin, Saul Alinsky wrote about ethics in organizing efforts: They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet. He used the words enemy in his writings which suits his followers fine. No problem with violent language when directed toward the progressive liberal’s “enemy”.
The left does not compete in the arena of ideas. They act as personal destroyers and manipulators of the opposition by any and all underhanded means…the end JUSTIFIES the means.
This off point conversation is a petty Alinsky style distraction. I have no interest in discussing this matter further. Our country is experiencing desperate times. The leaders we choose and the solutions we embrace or reject will work to determine the future, for better or worse, of all of America’s young…that is what is important to me.
My position on this post is that the President is using this and other acts of presidential authority and command to buy votes. It doesn’t garner respect from me and if the people were better educated and informed it wouldn’t buy their votes or respect either.
America needs to return to it’s principles, rather than the principles and ideals of this socialist, community organizer. Hopefully we will in November.
Tina: “Chris I have attempted to explain to you on many occasions how Rush uses absurdity to expose the absurd.”
Tina, I am open to accepting this possibility. I think it explains some of Rush’s act. But the problem is that I don’t understand how it explains any of the specific quotes I pointed out. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
I’ll just ask for a few examples. What absurdity was Rush attempting to point out when he said that “In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering?” Why draw a connection to Obama at all, as if the president were somehow responsible for this act of school bullying? That made no sense, and it was an instance of Rush inserting Obama’s race into a discussion that had nothing to do with him. In fact, it was later determined that the school bus fight wasn’t even racially motivated.
How does your theory explain Rush’s claim that the health care bill, along with Obama’s “entire economic program,” amounted to “reparations?” Are you saying that Limbaugh did not mean that literally, and did not intend for his audience to take it literally? Because I don’t see evidence of that. I think that Rush genuinely believes that the health care bill was a form of reparations; or, if he does not genuinely believe it himself, he at least wants his audience to believe it. I would say the same thing about his implication that the first lady’s vacations are seen by the media as a form of reparations for “our slave past.” Do you not think he’s being genuine here?
Even if you think he’s exaggerating or joking in order to make a point in these instances…don’t you find these remarks the least bit inappropriate? Isn’t it uncivil for Rush to make comments saying that our first black president is driven by the goal of “reparations,” when there is no evidence for that whatsoever? Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to blame the president for an act of bullying by black students against a white student? Even as a joke? Don’t you think it’s inappropriate for him to make unnecessary comments about the president’s race when discussing issues that don’t have anything to do with race? You said it yourself before: it is desperate to insert race into a discussion from out of the blue. How is Rush not doing exactly that? No, really: How? Are reparations really relevant to the PPACA, which gives blacks zero special advantages?
And what about his inserting the president’s race into a totally unrelated discussion of Oreos? What possible point is he making there, and why is it necessary and justified for him to use Obama’s mixed heritage as the butt of a lame joke in order for him to make that point? What about calling the president and Halle Berry “Halfrican-Americans?” How is that not inserting race from out of the blue? And why say these things when he knows that many biracial people find such words hurtful?
These are legitimate questions, Tina. They are rational questions. And they deserve to be answered. They are not based out of unreasonable hatred or prejudice for Rush as an individual. They are not based on the editorialization of others. They are based on his own actions. I don’t know what’s in his heart. I am basing my impression of the man on the evidence I have available.
I am willing to accept your theory that Rush is merely “using absurdity to expose the absurd,” but before I accept that theory I need to see how it explains his actions and statements. I can’t see how it explains any of the eleven statements I compiled. And even if it did, surely there would be ways for Rush to make the same points without using racially charged language? So please…explain to me why you think this theory works to explain at least some of the quotes I have asked you about here. I’m not trying to be demanding or forceful when I ask you to do this; I genuinely want to understand, and I want to see if you are able to provide a convincing argument for how these quotes are explained under your theory. Unless you do so, how can I possibly be convinced of the rightness of your position?
“The Magic Negro parody, one of your former examples, was an absurd bit of humor that exposed the absurdity of the term used in an article in the LA Times by a liberal black writer, David Ehrenstein. There was no outrage or concern from the left about this inappropriate language when he used it or to the bigoted conclusions about white people spread liberally throughout his article. Rush found all of this absurd, particularly given the race baiting tactics used by Rev. Sharpton and others. The Magic Negro article was sited in discussion and the parody was born…followed by the usual outrage that Rush would say such a thing and the distortions about what happened and about him personally.”
Tina, on this one I have to concede that you have a point. I was outraged when I first heard about Rush’s use of this song. I was aware of the history of the “Magical Negro” stereotype, and although I had not read the David Ehrenstein piece, I had heard similar critiques of Obama’s popularity in the anti-racist community. But for Rush to use that term and make it into a song, I felt, was a different matter, because Rush is not an anti-racist and I felt that he was just using this as an excuse to use the word “Negro.” I still think that this was probably his motivation–in fact, he even said it was a “media tweak,” a tactic of his that I find quite juvenile, in that it’s all about seeing what he can get away with–but looking at the song itself, the lyrics are actually not that offensive, and line up pretty well with the points made in Ehrenstein’s article.
I still have a bit of a problem with Rush adopting this term, because it feels like appropriation from the anti-racist community. He is not a very racially sensitive person, and I don’t think he has the slightest understanding of why the Magical Negro stereotype is viewed as a problem. In the context of Rush’s entire career, the song is problematic. But by itself, the song should not really be considered racist, and I think many liberals overreacted. I was one of them, and for that, I am sorry.
As for the original article, what “bigoted conclusions about white people” are you referring to? I don’t think it’s bigoted to assert that the Magical Negro stereotype exists, and that many white people find it comforting. I can honestly say that, after I started learning about this stereotype, I recognized some of my own previously unexamined biases reflected in it. It’s a form of what is often considered “benevolent racism.” I think most people have certain stereotypes ingrained into us that we don’t even think about until they are pointed out to us. It’s not bigoted to point that out; it’s honest, and it’s important.
If there’s one issue I have with Ehrenstein’s piece, it’s that I think he attributes way too much of Obama’s success to the Magic Negro stereotype. I think it may have played a role in Obama’s quick ascendance to popularity, but it certainly wasn’t the only factor. And it was certainly counter-balanced by other, more obviously negative stereotypes that were leveled against Obama, such as the notion that he was a foreign usurper and a scary Muslim.
“Sam Donaldson made a statement that is absurd “on its face”. There is absolutely zero evidence that “many on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, oppose President Obama because he is black” and Donaldson’s “out of the blue” racial accusation in the context of this episode is just simply out of the blue nutty.”
I disagree. The evidence that Rush and others oppose Obama because he is black can be seen in statements where they needlessly bring up Obama’s race out of the blue. Why would someone do this unless they are preoccupied with the president’s race? I believe Dondalson was basing his conclusion on such statements. The evidence is there, I have presented it to you, and you have not addressed the content of this evidence.
The arguments from O’Reilly and Goldberg are invalid, because they both start out by misrepresenting Donaldson’s argument. O’Reilly says that “Donaldson has made an accusation, a general accusation that if you criticize Barack Obama for immigration or whatever you criticize him for, it’s because is he black.” Goldberg repeats this claim, saying “Listen, weve heard this approximately 22 million times from liberals inside and outside of the media: if you disagree with Barack Obama it must be because you are a racist.”
But Donaldson never said that. Here are his words:
“Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American! These people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president.”
He does not say that ANYONE who disagrees with Obama is a racist. He says that “many on the right” oppose Obama for racist reasons. There is a significant difference between those two arguments. And he is basing it on specific, racially charged statements that people like Limbaugh have made.
“You aren’t a bully because you asked me about Rush this time, Chris, you are a bully because you have not accepted as possible the notion that Rush is a decent man that is being targeted for destruction by the left:”
I accept anything as possible. But I can’t accept a theory as true unless I see that it has the ability to explain things. Your theory does not explain Rush’s racially charged comments, in my view. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise, but you’d have to address the content of the quotes I provided. If you don’t, you can’t expect me to simply accept your theory as truth.
“RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Tina, how does this tactic differ from, say, Rush’s treatment of Sandra Fluke?
“You take every opportunity to bring Rush into the conversation”
To be fair, Rush was already part of the conversation, because Quentin posted comments from Sam Donaldson that mentioned him by name. You then accused Donaldson of inserting race into the discussion out of the blue, and I countered by showing that it was actually Rush Limbaugh who did that.
“You are a bully because you will, apparently, not stop unless/until I agree that you are right about Rush”
No, I don’t require that you agree with me. All I ask is that you make a valid argument, one that actually addresses the points I raise. Your defense of Rush so far does not address any of the the actual statements I brought up.
“I have become your own personal “target”.”
I prefer the term “lively debating opponent,” but maybe you see it differently. I am sorry if I have made you feel targeted; it was not my intention. I try to be rigorous when I discuss politics, leaving no stone unturned and no logical gap unexplored. Sometimes that comes across as arrogance or snobbery, but, to quote Liz Lemon, “What, would you rather sit around and be wrong?” 😉
“You do this even after I have asked you to take your questions to the one person who might be able to adequately enlighten you, Rush.”
As I’ve said before, I have tried his show before and couldn’t get through. I also don’t care for the way he treats his callers who don’t agree with him. More importantly, I care more about what Rush’s listeners think than what Rush himself thinks. He is one man, with a very specific job. I don’t expect him to be anything but what he is. I am more interested in the influence he has and the beliefs of his fans than in the man himself.
Chris I have been up late too many nights in a row and so will have to get back to you tomorrow.
Chris you are asking the impossible. You are asking me to BE Rush, recall what he was thinking and doing in the moment, and explain to you how the quote makes sense. There is no way for me to answer your questions absolutely because I am not willing, nor could I ever, attempt to speak for Rush to explain remarks attributed to him even if I had the transcripts.
You seem to be sincere, but I don’t know if the quotes represent what Rush thinks or even what he was attempting to relay. My own experience of the man is that he is a man of honor and integrity, not a god, but a man with high personal standards. He is also a man, in my estimation, who is countering elements that have no problem whatsoever in using any means necessary to destroy those (him) they see as a threat. They are not free speech proponents. They would silence Rush and the entire conservative opinion in a heartbeat if they could. Rush is adamant. He breaks the rules. He does what he does because he believes these elements are a real threat to our republic, our Constitution, and our freedoms. His show is not like others. He does not report or inform so much as he demonstrates his position through the creative use of the language. He is engaged in a conversation (in which he dominates the floor) and he may at any given time be facetious, snide, enthusiastic, questioning, guessing, certain, unsure, angry, frustrated, etc. The words he utters must be placed withing the context of the current theme, his attitude in that moment, and his ultimate conclusion.
But there is more involved here. I don’t know that every quote actually represents something he has actually said. Rush has indicated that he has been accused of saying things he has not said. Whether that means actual words or interpretation based on cherry picking the sentence I don’t know. His HATERS, and I don’t use that term lightly, would do anything to get him off the air and keep people from tuning in to his show so it wouldn’t be unusual for them to lie or misrepresent him purposely.
And as for how he treats callers who disagree, 1. He puts them at the head of the line, and 2. He treats them with respect when they treat him with respect (This includes their being honest with him). Some callers tell the screener, Bo Snerdly, they want to talk about one thing and then when they get on the air they start talking about something else. Rush doesn’t appreciate that and I don’t blame him. Others start off being belligerent and aggressive at the start and Rush won’t put up with that either. But I have heard him have wonderful exchanges with people on the left who honestly believe what they do and do conduct themselves respectfully.
I understand you would like to have answers but I don’t think you ever will without spending considerable time yourself listening. I was offended when I first started listening to Rush. Some of his positions seemed extreme and outrageous to me but after several weeks I had to admit that his positions were not extreme and they were not wrong they were just different than what other people were saying. Most media sounds like they are reading from the same script. It goes in one ear and out the other. Always, whether I agreed completely with Rush or not, I found that, unlike anything else in media, Rush’s show engaged me and pressed me to give important matters more thought. In probing and discussing the events of the day I learned and expanded my awareness about politics, social issues, the law, insurance, how money works, tax structures, differing scientific positions, etc. I literally could not wait for his show every day (unheard of!!!) and that is how most people who tuned in felt about it once hooked. If teachers were that engaging kids would rush to school every day and not want to leave.
I respect Rush too because although he has a lot of confidence about his positions I never have the sense that he wants to impose his ideas on anyone. He wants to persuade but that involves the other person coming to choice…determining for themselves that they agree.
A black man named Marcus was just on Rush’s show. He was an Obama supporter and told Rush that no one had ever persuaded him to change his mind before but after listening to Rush for six weeks every day he had changed his mind about Obama and he had lost a bet for $500.00 in the process. He expressed gratitude and spoke of young kids that were also listeners and would vote based on what they had learned listening to Rush.
Chris you are a person that would not easily change his mind but I would bet that after six weeks (I know how hard it would be) you would see your opinion of Rush shift if not changed completely.
I will comment on one thing. You said there is no evidence that the President is engaging in reparations. I disagree based on Obama’s own words and deeds and things he has said about the limits of the Constitution. Examples:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readarticle.aspx?artid=32892
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534643,00.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-reparations-black-farmers/2010/02/21/id/350458
An aside: How did that work out?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/08/500-of-us-black-farmers-sign-up-for-obamas-usda-reparations-video/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/obamas_reparations_and_redistribution_policy.html
The only person that can be a formidable debating partner for you about the things Rush has said is Rush…and that is why this intrigues me:
“I care more about what Rush’s listeners think than what Rush himself thinks. He is one man, with a very specific job. I don’t expect him to be anything but what he is. I am more interested in the influence he has and the beliefs of his fans than in the man himself.”
If you care more about what Rush’s listener’s think I suggest you have conversations with them instead of trying to have one with Rush through them.
It almost sounds like you believe the “mind-numbed robot” meme that was one of the first salvos of the left to discredit Rush (and insult and marginalize his audience). That you think I have been brainwashed and this is why I can’t explain what Rush meant in those quotes.
One of the problems of a one sided conversation, which is what America had for a very long time due to the left’s takeover and dominance of education and media, is that it begins to see itself as the TRUTH and the people who follow and TRUTH HOLDERS. We’re popular because we’re right because we’re popular because we’re right….
Interjection of difference into that mindset is shocking to the system. That is what Rush provides…there is no way to give that experience to you; you have to find out about it for yourself.
I know you will be disappointed in this response but it is the only one you will get.
Tina: “Chris you are asking the impossible. You are asking me to BE Rush, recall what he was thinking and doing in the moment, and explain to you how the quote makes sense. There is no way for me to answer your questions absolutely because I am not willing, nor could I ever, attempt to speak for Rush to explain remarks attributed to him even if I had the transcripts.”
Tina, I’m not asking you to evaluate Rush’s inner self. I’m asking you to evaluate his public statements. That’s not impossible; you do it all the time here, only you do it with the public statements of left-leaning people. Yet when I ask you to use the same critical faculties to analyze the statements of right-leaning people, you say it’s impossible.
You had no problem making a judgment about Sam Donaldson’s words about Rush, claiming that Donaldson was “inserting race from out of the blue.” And you didn’t just stop at judging his words; you drew an inference about his emotional state based on those words, implying that he must be “desperate” in order to say them. So why can’t you draw the same exact conclusion from the statements of Rush I have shown, where he clearly inserts race into a discussion from out of the blue? In fact, by looking at Rush’s statements, you’d have reason to take back your prior judgment of Donaldson. Because Donaldson wasn’t inserting race from out the blue. He had reason to speculate that Rush might have racist motives in criticizing the president, and that reason is that Rush has often used racist language to criticize the president, and while talking about other subjects as well.
“He is engaged in a conversation (in which he dominates the floor) and he may at any given time be facetious, snide, enthusiastic, questioning, guessing, certain, unsure, angry, frustrated, etc. The words he utters must be placed withing the context of the current theme, his attitude in that moment, and his ultimate conclusion.”
But under what context is racist language appropriate? I personally don’t think it’s ever OK for a prominent white radio host to use the word “Halfrican-American” out of the blue to describe biracial people, many of whom obviously find that offensive. Nor do I think any of the other statements would be acceptable under almost any context.
“But there is more involved here. I don’t know that every quote actually represents something he has actually said. Rush has indicated that he has been accused of saying things he has not said. Whether that means actual words or interpretation based on cherry picking the sentence I don’t know.”
I understand it’s good to be skeptical. I was skeptical about many of the quotes attributed to Margaret Sanger a few weeks ago. That’s why I provided links to back each one of those statements up. Many of them are from Snopes, which examines a list of quotes that was attributed to Rush. As Snopes points out, some of the quotes on the list are unverified and possibly made up, but I only excerpted the quotes that Snopes confirms are accurate. Some of the other links include audio of Rush speaking these exact words. And for most of them, you could Google them and find them documented in the transcripts on Rush’s website. But I assure you that each one is accurate.
I do listen to Rush more often than you think, Tina. I find it interesting that even you were offended by Rush when you first heard him. The first time I remember taking notice of him was when he accused Michael J. Fox of exaggerating his Parkinson’s disorder. Maybe you’re a more forgiving person than I am, but after that I instinctively knew that he wasn’t a person worth listening to. And since he has never apologized, I feel like that incident alone would be enough for me to never give him another chance. But since then I have only heard more and more offensive statements from him, toward nearly every group of people. Whatever his larger point, whatever his good qualities, however much he gives to charity…I don’t think there is reason for me to change my opinion of him at this point. I understand that you have had a different experience with Rush, and I am not asking you to change your overall opinion. You think he’s right more often than he’s wrong. That’s cool with me.
My problem is that I feel like you can’t EVER admit when he’s wrong, no matter the circumstance. I don’t believe you are a “mind-numbed robot,” but I do believe you have an emotional investment in defending everything he does. And I think this has led you to make some clearly illogical arguments in his defense. That’s when I get frustrated, and that’s why I have a hard time stopping myself from trying to press you further on this issue.
As for Obama’s position on “reparations…” I find it interesting that you expressed skepticism over my quotes from Rush Limbaugh, speculating that some of them may be taken out of context, and then linked to sites which attribute positions to President Obama without even quoting a full sentence of his.
For instance, “Front Page Mag” says:
“While he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama told a Chicago radio show host that he sought “major redistributive change” for the benefit of fellow blacks.”
Why is “major distributive change” in quotation marks, but “for the benefit of fellow blacks” is not? Did Obama not say that this was for the benefit of fellow blacks, and Front Page Mags is just assuming that’s what he meant?
The article continues:
“He was speaking in the context of the civil rights movement, and how it had fallen short of “economic justice.” Although John McCain and other Republicans are afraid to say it, his remarks can only be interpreted to mean one thing: economic reparations for slavery.”
That’s hardly the only way Obama’s remarks can be interpreted (but again, this shows that trying to determine the intentions behind a man’s statements is not the impossible feat you make it out to be). “Economic justice” and “redistributive change” are not synonyms for “reparations.” Reparations are one tool that can be used to achieve those goals, but it is hardly the only one. And just because someone believes in those goals does not mean they favor reparations. Neither are any of the other cases referenced in those links evidence of reparations. It is extremely irresponsible for NewsMax and the Gateway Pundit to claim that the USDA lawsuit amounts to “reparations.” I expect that from the Gateway Pundit, because Jim Hoft runs perhaps the most consistently inaccurate blog out there, but I’m almost surprised NewsMax would stoop that low.
But after all this, I have to say you are right that this discussion of Rush is somewhat of a distraction from the larger issue here. What is not a distraction is the discussion of Arpaio, which I’d like to get back to. Have you watched the video I linked to, showing an unarmed prisoner being tazered by one of Arpaio’s officers and tackled by about ten others, after making no threatening motions? I think this incident is evidence of Arpaio’s department’s harsh and even deadly tactics, and when taken along with similar instances, seriously calls into question his ability to properly uphold the law regarding immigration and every other issue. If you haven’t watched it yet, I sincerely hope you will. It is a matter that should concern all of us.
Chris, a minor point, but re Halfafrican American, it amuses me to hear that reference since our DNA confirms the mother race of all races is black and we trace this back to the Southern portion of Africa. So, everybody is a little black! The evidence is very compelling. Those changes in pigmentation and minor facial features were simply a matter of adaptation to diet and environment occurring over hundreds of thousands of years. Looking at the big picture, its obvious we were all blacks once.