Posted on 03/06/2009 6:56:53 AM PST by Zakeet
Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe started off her column on March 6 with the exact same feeling about the current Obama/Limbaugh feud that I at first had: I wasn't going to talk about it either. But after reading her column of distortions and outright lies about Limbaugh -- as well as the ever present fat jokes and general incivility -- I couldn't resist analyzing her column. It is, as it occurs, the perfect example of the calumny that lefty writers and media figures heap on the radio talker. It also reveals their low born style of discourse and their general state of apoplexy at Limbaugh, if not the general level of insanity he instills in them.
Proving the direction she intended to take right off the top Goodman starts with a fat joke. She says she caught Limbaugh's CPAC speech as she was on a flight. Goodman quips that he "filled -- and I do mean filled -- the screen" before her. Yes, one can sense the high caliber of analysis about to assault the eye when reading this first paragraph. Goodman is obviously an intellectual giant.
After the high class fat joke, we get Goodman's first lie:
Dressed in a style David Letterman later labeled as "Eastern European Gangster," Rush Limbaugh delivered a rousing 85-minute sermon to conservative true believers that included an unapologetic hope that Obama will fail. Ah yes, a talk-radio host who'd rather be (far) right than have his country rescued. Charming.
This "he'd rather be right than have his country rescued" claim is a straight out lie. Goodman probably knows she is lying, but wants to stick with her spittle specked rant, anyway. Limbaugh has said over and over that he does not accept the Obama claim that his policies will "rescue" the country and that it is these same policies that he wants to fail. Limbaugh has repeated ad nauseam that it isn't the country he wants to fail, it's the policies he deems bad for the country he wants to see fail. The difference between the two is clear and important.
The third paragraph starts with another mischaracterization:
Limbaugh was not only a counterpoint to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who delivered the hapless Republican response to the president.
Does Goodman know how the word "counterpoint" is defined? A counterpoint is a contrast or an opposition. Limbaugh did not oppose Bobby Jindal's points. He essentially agreed with them and added to them. (By the way, I'd like to also point out that this is an incomplete sentence by Goodman here. Sort of a counterpoint to good grammar, if you will)
Next Goodman warmed to her central theme.
Despite watching Limbaugh's rant at 30,000 feet, I read glowing reviews saying that "it will be talked about for years and even decades." And so I am forced to return to the subject our man Rush implied just days earlier: "Why don't women like me?"
What "forced her" to say that is not clear. One can only wonder what Limbaugh's female audience has to do with the current Limbaugh news? In fact, it has nothing at all to do with the current news but does serve as a way for Goodman to indulge in some more bashing because after this the Boston Globe columnist begins to rehash Limbaugh's past "feminazi" cracks.
Goodman says that Limbaugh's feminist jokes explain why women don't listen to him. But then she promptly contradicts herself with this:
Now a touch of reality here. Women don't tune in to talk radio as much as men. Talk radio has been the forum of the "angry white man" since the 1990s. Women have had quite enough men yell at them, thank you, and Rush is more than vaguely reminiscent of the boss from hell.
So what is it Mz Goodman? Is it Rush's supposed attacks on women or is it that his venue naturally attracts fewer female audience members just as it does for all talk radio?
But, here is her point, such as it is, for the piece. Goodman is trying to develop the theme that Rush is no Oprah (as her piece is headlined). She goes on to imagine that Rush would never listen to a woman and that is why he can't attract female listeners.
And, then she warms to her final point. Limbaugh, you see, won't change for women. And, since he is the "voice of the GOP" that means the Republicans won't change, either. And, the GOP can't win unless they "change."
You see, it's all about the "change." But, like her compatriots on the extreme left, she has no notion of what "change" even means. The word is but some panacea, some shadowy happy talk. Change what? None of them know. Like good little lemmings, they only know how to chant "Obma, change, Obama change" but have no clue what it means.
Goodman ends with one last little misrepresentation to her readers.
Yes, our pinup boy has a following of about 20 million listeners. But last time I looked, Obama won with nearly 70 million voters. At this rate, The Party That Won't Change is going to have to rename itself the Grand Old Ditto Heads.
Sorry, Mz Goodman, but Obama did not win by 70 million votes as your rhetoric tries to cajole the reader into imagining. The popular vote was 69,456,897 for Obama (52.9%) and 59,934,814 for McCain (45.7%). The simple fact of the matter is, that if Rush Limbaugh truly could wield the power of the votes from his 20 million listeners, he would be a power to be reckoned with and not someone easy to discount as you attempt to do here.
This column shows the intellectual laziness and uncivil comportment that Rush Limbaugh inspires in the extreme left in this country and Ellen Goodman serves as the poster child of that unhinged left.
Rush has been driving the media Libtards crazy. For example, in only the last two days ...
Newsweek’s Alter on MSNBC: GOP ‘Party of Jell-O’ For Not Standing Up to Limbaugh
Rachel Maddow on Leno: Limbaugh Should Back Socialism Once It's Enacted
MSNBC: GOP ‘Sinking Fast’ Because of Rush Limbaugh
Former NYT Reporter Calls 'Clown' Limbaugh a 'Sweaty, Swollen Man'
David Shuster: GOP Members Who Don't Slam Rush 'Appear Unpatriotic'
Lib Talker: 'Maybe Limbaugh Should Be Executed For Treason'
Envious Ed Schultz Likens Limbaugh to Hitler
Matthews: Obama v. Limbaugh Like 'Walrus Wrestle,' 'Peeing' with 'Skunk,' 'Snoopy' & 'Red Baron'
Politico Exposes White House and Media's Anti-Limbaugh Strategy
MSNBC's David Shuster Badgers Ron Paul: 'Even You' Won't Slam Rush
'Today' Blames Limbaugh for GOP 'All-Time Low'
WaPo Animation: Line of Effeminate Republicans Kiss Limbaugh's Butt -- Literally
The guy is obviously striking a nerve by exposing the truth about the leftist agenda.
The boss’s wife asked me yesterday if I knew who the sponors of Rush’s show were because she wanted to complain about the controversial things he says. Whe I said that that’s the purpose of Talk Radio, she responded “that’s why I don’t listen to it”.
This appears to be the MO of this administration. To make “news” all those who oppose this administration
It’s amusing to me how these liberal columnists see Rush and all they see is a fat guy. Yet, when these same columnists see Michael Moore they see a hero. The difference in appearance between these two is striking. Michael Moore is a rich man, yet he dresses as if he just came back from the welfare office. I’ve seen pictures of him with a tuxedo on, and still wearing that stupid crusty Michighan State hat. Geeze, you’d think with a tux he could at least get a new Michighan State hat!!
BREITBART: Rush to judgment: A media hopelessly divided
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/02/rush-to-judgment-a-media-hopelessly-divided/
[...]
“With newspapers long ago judged as far gone on the left and television networks turned off for good by enraged customers, the media has good reason to hate Mr. Limbaugh.
Mr. Limbaugh is the man who is most to blame for their demise. No wonder they bad-mouth him every chance they get.”
[...]
<>
More:
“When I say that the Obamanauts are about to enter a world of pain, I mean that they will eventually know the dark side of the wave of fantasy upon which they are riding. ..”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2193055/posts?page=19#19
I no longer wonder why people like Ellen Goodman simply cannot face the facts and have a dispassionate discourse on the pros and cons of Limbaugh's position. Would it not be something if she were capable of identifying the substance of Limbaugh's remarks, and then presenting her compelling case?
I can only conclude that Mike Savage is correct in asserting that Liberals have disordered minds.
Years ago at about the same time that I had the misfortune to become aware of of Feminist/Propagandist Ellen, I came across a news article about one of her cohorts who wished to legally change her name from “Cooperman” to “Cooperperson”.
Since that time Ellen has and always will be, to me, Ms. Goodperson.
Is this really accurate or is she just making a supposition?
Women have had quite enough men yell at them, thank you, and Rush is more than vaguely reminiscent of the boss from hell.
I thought I heard a study recently that most women would rather work for a man.
liberal columnists see Rush and all they see is a fat guy. Yet, when these same columnists see Michael Moore they see a hero.
...Same with ‘All But Dead’ Ted.
Ellen Goodman = air head
and Rush is not the voice of Republicans, he is the voice of Conservatism, quite different
Thats the difference. Those stories won’t work on liberals. They have no empathy, they use it against other people for political purposes.
Read "Rules for Radicals".
In the first Chapter Alinsky explains the "Ideology of Change" as a left wing tactic.
Basically... First you have to get people angry and disaffected, you tell everyone how bad things are, and how they have been abused.
Then you demand that things "change" but you don't say how.
You let everyone define "change" in their own terms that are meaningful to each individual
You then rally them to the cause of "change" without ever promising anything.
That's "Community Organizing" in a nutshell.
Does this sound familiar? Do you remember the stupid woman who thought she was never going to have buy gas again or pay her mortgage? That's the perfect execution of the technique
Whether or not you agree with her, Ellen Goodman is very sloppy as a writer. I’ve been amazed and stunned at her bad grammar for years. Doesn’t she have an editor?
For many, many years, I read the Boston Blob each and every day. While I disagreed with almost all of their viewpoints, it was, in the old tradition, a paper worth reading. As the Blob moved further and further left, I read it less and less.
Then one magic day a column written by Ellen Goodman became the very END.
Many columnists take pride in the new readers their columns attract, but Ellen, how do you like being the very reason that your paper loses one of the thousands of readers that have gone elsewhere SPECIFICALLY because of your nonsense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
