Posted on 10/16/2009 8:19:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is telling that Rush Limbaugh’s enemies — and they are enemies, not critics — always avail themselves of the same three weapons: fat jokes, addiction jokes, and lies. There was a predictable surfeit of the first two in the Democratic media’s recent campaign to prevent Rush from becoming part-owner of a professional football team, but the lies reached a level that is remarkable even by the standards of the corrupt and incompetent American media.
Specifically, a rash of manufactured quotes attributed to Limbaugh was forwarded to the usual media suspects — CNN, MSNBC — which then incorporated these falsehoods into their reporting without substantiation. Which is to say, they have done collectively what Dan Rather did individually: allow themselves to be duped by phony documents. These quotes included such absurdities as Rush’s praising slavery and the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr. These are not quotes taken out of context; they are quotes manufactured out of whole cloth. To attribute them to Rush is to lie — viciously. With the notable exception of CNN’s Anderson Cooper, almost none of the major media figures who relied upon these fictions in their reporting have acknowledged that they are false. Confronted with evidence that the quotes are false, and challenged to produce audio or other documentation of them, media figures insisted that it was up to Rush to prove he had never said these things. There is a good reason Rush has built one of the largest audiences in broadcast by mocking the “drive-by media.”
The partisanship and dishonesty of the American media is a familiar story and a slightly pathetic one. What makes the ongoing assault on Rush disturbing is that the White House is a participant in it. As Time magazine and others have reported, a small group of Democratic operatives and media figures — Stanley Greenberg, Paul Begala, and James Carville — have colluded with members of the Obama administration — Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs — in a campaign to demonize Limbaugh, using him as a proxy target for congressional Republicans. There may be some precedent for a modern White House’s attempting to use the machinery of the presidency to destroy a critic in this fashion, but Barack Obama did not run as the Second Coming of Richard Nixon.
In the arena of football, Rush has been burned by such false accusations of racism before. His stint as an NFL commentator was abbreviated when he noted that there exists in professional football a racial stereotype holding that blacks make poor quarterbacks, and that certain sports writers wished to see the Philadelphia Eagles’ black quarterback, Donovan McNabb, succeed, for reasons racial and political. Rush was punished for speaking a truth so unexceptional and obvious that even the liberal web magazine Slate was forced to acknowledge: “Rush Limbaugh Was Right: Donovan McNabb isn’t a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black.”
Baseless accusations of racism are modern Democrats’ McCarthyism. And one cannot help but notice that other critics of the Obama administration, such as those who rallied against its health-care power grab over the summer, are being denounced by the same slavish media as racists. Rachel Maddow, who has been trafficking in false Limbaugh quotes for some time, is a particularly gross offender on that score. Rush is a rich and powerful man and quite able to take care of himself, but the dishonest attacks on him are the template for equally dishonest attacks on private citizens in less exalted positions, from Tea Party organizers to town-hall critics. If Rush can be ruthlessly libeled by the Democrats and the media, so can they.
Rush’s audience is full of fans who first tuned in expecting to be offended by the hateful, arrogant, screaming oaf of media caricature, only to discover that Rush, for all his puckishness, is in fact a serious man, funny and self-deprecating. He is also a man who spends 15 hours a week making the case for liberty and American exceptionalism — and the case against overweening liberalism — in one of America’s most important public forums. For that he will never be forgiven.
"Obama, admitted cocaine abuser and dealer, ...".
Nixon was a saint compared to Obama and the communists orchestrating the Zero Solution. It’s not just an attack on conservatives, but an all out assault on America, and this is just the first wave. We are dealing with people who will go to any stretch of despotism to eliminate their political enemies, and destroy the America they hate. Count on it. What happened to Rush is nothing compared to what these deluded visionaries have in store for us. All the hate and envy nurtured by the left is about to come streaming out. They can’t refrain much longer.
Trying to accomplish this flies against the laws of science--YOU CAN NOT PROVE A "NEGATIVE," and of course, that is why the phony, always-prevaricating, neophyte, DEAR LEADER continues to trot out that create or "SAVE" jobs, mantra as he (and his handlers/puppet masters) know that, that is impossible to do!
All corrupt, far-left, lib-loons are cut from the same cloth!!
“’Trying to accomplish this flies against the laws of science—YOU CAN NOT PROVE A ‘NEGATIVE,’”
You absolutely can prove a negative. People do it all the time. In the criminal justice system, they have what is called an “alibi,” which suspects use to demonstrate they were not present to commit a crime.
I have no idea why the “can’t prove a negative” myth has persisted, except that in some cases it’s true. This case, for instance. It would, indeed, be impossible for Rush to prove he never said something. Even if he publicized everything he had ever written—book, article, and school essay—and every recording of everything he ever said, they still wouldn’t believe him.
Excellent post.
That's not proving a negative, it's proving a positive - you were elsewhere at the time in question.
“That’s not proving a negative, it’s proving a positive - you were elsewhere at the time in question.”
Yes, it is proving a positive, which is in turn used to prove a negative. According to the laws of physics and common sense, I cannot be in two places at one time. Thus, if I was in the laundromat at midnight, I couldn’t have been across town killing John Smith at 12:05, Mr. Officer, sir. By proving I was in the laundromat, I also prove I was not in the alleyway. That’s called proving a negative.
Earlier, "they" worked behind the scenes, like termites, undermining the foundations. Now, "they" are confident and bold, believing they hold the reins of power, and that citizens will not perceive the dangers to their own liberty when combinations of the power of media and government are entertwined and used to silence dissent.
That's proving a positive, not a negative. You're proving positively that you were in another location, presumably with evidence.
You need to take Logic 101 again. In the case of a quote by Limbaugh, what would Rush need to do? Go back through over 20 years of radio shows, TV shows, speeches and other commentary, compile a complete transcript set of all that, just to show he never made that quote? But critics could always just say "you missed a show."
That is why it used to be standard policy that journalists must prove what they were reporting - and papers and TV networks had fact-checking departments to back that up.
Above all, and despite his too-often recounted transgressions, Nixon loved the America the Obamanites despise.
That's downright Napoleonic!
“You need to take Logic 101 again. In the case of a quote by Limbaugh, what would Rush need to do? Go back through over 20 years of radio shows, TV shows, speeches and other commentary, compile a complete transcript set of all that, just to show he never made that quote? But critics could always just say ‘you missed a show.’”
You need to take post-reading 101 again. I said the same thing as you, with different words. Even if he was somehow able to gather everything he ever said in one pile (let’s say God had been tape-recording him his whole life), his critics wouldn’t believe it was actually all he said.
“That’s not proving a negative, it’s proving a positive - you were elsewhere at the time in question.”
If you prove you were elswhere at the time, it automatically proves you didn’t commit the crime. Why is it you think you can’t prove a negative by proving a positive? It requires only a bit of logical extension.
Sorry, I meant to respond to you Rutles4Ever with the previous post.
“That’s proving a positive, not a negative. You’re proving positively that you were in another location, presumably with evidence.”
If I have proved I was in one location, I simultaneously prove I was NOT in another. Proof positive of being in the laundromat demonstates the negative that I was not in the alleyway (in my hypothetical case). I really don’t know why this isn’t obvious to more people.
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.