Kill The Messenger: Rush Limbaugh Enemies Turn Against NYT Interviewer

The Radio Equalizer ^ | July 9, 2008 | Brian Maloney

[EveningStar]

Changing course after a week of attacking Rush Limbaugh over his new deal, "progressives" have suddenly turned against New York Times interviewer Zev Chafets, who wrote the widely- read piece on the talk titan that ran in Sunday's paper.

Like a pack of rabid dogs, the unhinged left has labeled Chafets "creepy" and a "dittohead", among other insults.

[EveningStar]

ping

[KosmicKitty]

And we’re surprised because.....?

Typical “enlightened” behavior

[GOP_Proud]

Gee, I don’t know what to say except maybe the next time you interview a writer who writes a piece on Michael Moore you can ask, “Why didn’t you challenge his opinions?”

[indcons]

Media Matters has started it liberal jihad against the author and is peddling the fiction mentioned in this article.

[Carley]

Mad Dog Democrats

[jalisco555]

“The Right seeks converts, the Left seeks heretics.”

[jimfree]

It’s the nature of the scorpion to attack.

[Parley Baer]

“profile one of the most controversial media figures in politics today.”

Funny that anyone on the right is controversial. Those on the left such as kieth overbite and the clown on hardball are not.

[oh8eleven]

[rightwingcrazy]

“Dittohead” is an insult?

[TBP]

Typical liberal “tolernace.”

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yep, isn’t it ridiculous how they liberals are not tolerant of Rush, Hannity, etc.? They believe oh so strongly in freedom of speech, so they say. Yet they would love to silence talk radio.

Somebody smarter than me has said that if you truly believe in free speech, you will want free speech for the opinions that you yourself don’t like. You will want that person to speak his opinion so that all voices are heard. You would not want to silence opinion with which you disagree.

Bill Clinton used to complain that Rush Limbaugh could yak for three hours a day and attack whatever Bill was doing. Howard Dean has dismissed those who listen to Rush Limbaugh as uneducated, simplistic people who don’t understand the nuances of the issues.

Maybe some of Rush’s listeners do understand the nuances, and see that on some issues the Democrats / liberals / radicals are very simplistic and black and white in their view of the world.

[driftless2]

The guy who interviewed Chafets, Garfield, really sounds like he has a serious truth problem of his own. Putting aside the lollypop questions that lib figures get from lib media figures, Garfield plays fast and loose with the truth himself. While it might be impossible objectively to arrive at the numbers of Indians around before Columbus, fifteen million on the North American continent is the high end number used by leftist radicals. Some historians put the numbers at around three to seven million. They argue that it would be very difficult for hunter-gathers, like the Indians mostly were, to have huge populations. Except in Mexico there were no Indian cities of size.

So we don't really know there were fifteen million. Most likely the numbers were a lot less. That same number was used by a radical, leftist sociologist prof of mine back in my college days. That guy was a wacko, and Garfield probably is too.

[Pelham]

The journals of European explorers mention many Indian settlements that had disappeared as early as the time of the first British colonial settlements. It’s probable that measles and other ‘new’ diseases the explorers inadvertently exposed the Indians to went through their ranks like the plague.