Liberal Journalists Can Be Objective But Conservative Judges Can't? (El Rushbo Classic!)

RUSH: This guy from Livermore really had a good point, and I had to go through this pretty quickly, because we're running out of time in the previous hour. His point was this -- and this is all about the arrogance and the superiorist attitude of the people on the left, including many people in the media. His point was: "You know, 90% of the Washington press corps admits to being liberal but they then say that has no effect on how they do their jobs. 'Why, we are objective journalists. It has no impact on the way we do our jobs.' Of course we know that's bogus, but that's what they say. Yet here comes Judge Roberts, who is a conservative. We know more about John Roberts than we know about every journalist in this country combined. We know more about John Roberts and his personal life; we know more about his professional life than we will ever know about any journalist -- and yet the same journalists, who claim to be objective, then stand up and question Roberts' ability to be lawful and abide by the law." Now, I'm going to tell you something else to be on the lookout for. Mr. Snerdley is right to have pointed this out. I myself have noticed this. You may have, too. Have you noticed all of the recent reporting on Roberts has references to Justice Scalia, that he is in the Scalia mold, that he is a blood brother to Scalia, that he and Scalia cut from the same cloth? You've heard these references. You say, "Why are they doing this? Scalia is already on the court." There are two reasons why they're doing this. Number one, if Roberts makes it through, they are setting down a marker:

"Okay, this guy, but nobody more conservative or more out of the mainstream than this guy. No more Scalias. We're not going to put up any more Scalias. We're not going to put up with common sense and intelligence on this court. We want liberalism on this court, and we're not going to tolerate any Scalias," and another reason they're doing it, reason they're setting up this marker, setting it out, is to lay the groundwork for opposing Scalia should Bush name him to be chief justice down the road. Make no mistake about this, folks. These people, they may appear disorganized when they get out these anti-war movements, they may appear disorganized and other things, but on this, this is where they circle the wagons and do the best that they can -- and that's because this matters as much to them as the White House does. I had all these groups. I mentioned to you all of these groups. Let me go through this groups much the there's a massive PR Newswire dump today. All of these liberal groups have come out of the woodwork en masse on the same day announcing their opposition. The Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights -- and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- put out a united statement. Why do they have to unite? Because they don't represent very many people!

They unite because they don't represent very many people. The other group that came out today was the New Democrat Majority. "New Democrat Majority joins growing list of progressives opposing Roberts' nomination." It's liberals. It's not "progressives," and then you've got People for the American Way and all this. The big dirty little secret is who do these groups represent as a practical matter? Nobody! They have no authority to speak for you and me. These groups individually or combined couldn't come close to the membership, say, of the National Rifle Association. They couldn't touch it, or Concerned Women for America, or any of these other groups on the right. What gives them the illusion of representing mainstream America is the amplification they get from their cohorts and willing accomplices in the mainstream press, but who do they really represent and why are they having to combine forces? Because individually they are insignificant. They represent minorities of people. Which is okay, but they're made to look like they are the mainstream! They are made to look like they are the mainstream and John Roberts and Antonin Scalia and Ronald Reagan and George Bush are the oddballs, when in fact it is just the opposite.

Liberals aren't in the mainstream. They're just made to look it. The MSM would have you believe conservatives are on the fringe. The opposite is the truth. So next time you hear a liberal journalist unload on a conservative judge, remember who's objectivity is a complete sham. These media people can't even be honest about THEIR agenda in front of the American people. Conservative judges are the ones who don't hide their beliefs.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

One other thing... The media keeps puting out the story that a majority of Americans are opposed to the way the war in Iraq is being waged. They say it is like Vietnam. That may be true.

What they don't tell you is how this nation actually voted during the Vietnam war and what that meant for liberals.

Click here for the 'tator take on Iraq Vs Nam

Fortunately the majority of people are aware that the media is out of touch with mainstream America - the press slant in the last Presidential election should have destroyed President Bush, but it didn't. The majority of Americans are, for the most part, better educated than the press and can no longer be manipulated.

Journalists do not decide legal issues that impact on every resident in the U.S. as well as commerce and the economy; judges at every level do. Journalists report and editorialize as they seek to either persuade or inform. Judges do neither.

The Limbaugh charade' is typical of his non sequitur methodology of convincing his mindless horde that separate, distinct ideas or things that have no relation to each other can be compared to prove an non-extant point. It is a meaningless comparisons that typifies his popular and financially successful, but nonetheless moronic, nature and his belief that he can saying anything, however nonsensical, and have his salivating tribe believe it.

Today's snake oil comes in different packaging from the 19th Century type but its relative success for the huckster remains.

"Journalists do not decide legal issues that impact on every resident in the U.S. as well as commerce and the economy"

For this we are thankful. By mindless horde, you mean DU'ers?

"What they don't tell you is how this nation actually voted during the Vietnam war and what that meant for liberals."

Exactly! I've always found it amazing how liberals bask in the glory of 'Nam when they were handily defeated from an electoral perspective. And even the battle they parade as a supposed victory (the withdrawal from Vietnam) led to a resounding humanitarian defeat for all those left behind. Their victory created more of what they were fighting against. Liberals have a warped perspective of their own significance.

Competing thoughts in the marketplace of ideas is the most valuable aspect of free speech. As ideas compete for acceptance they are laid open for meaning, intent and rationality. We don't need a doctrine of free speech for the ideas and thoughts we love. The doctrine maintains its value by protecting ideas and thoughts most of us hate.

Is anyone here advocating the suppression of conceptual garbage because unpopular may be a catalyst for change? If so, who determines and distinguishes the valuable thoughts from those unpopular with even an overwhelming majority? The First Amendment did not obtain its place in the crown of the Constitution by accident; it's first because it's the most important among equals.

As many justices and cases have echoed, the answer to speech that is offensive, speech that calls for drastic social change, speech that is hated by alomost everyone or speech that challenges the popular polices of incumbent government is not suppression,but more speech that is persuasive and acceptable by the greater number.

You are either intentionally misstating the point of Mr. Limbaugh, or you are trying to hide it. Of course journalists and judge's play different roles...the issue is that the journalists claim to be objective when they are not in fact objective. He is pointing out that they are hypocrites. IMHO.

This is in fact the important point. What judges and journalists have in common is that they are both supposed to be objective, and in fact the extent of their objectivity is critical to the nature of our republic.

Journalists these days are more often biased than objective. It’s worse than that. News stories in the mainstream media are often gross distortions of reality, and many current events are intentionally concealed from the public.

You might want to check Middie's "About" page. He is one of those "always used to be Republican's who hate the current administration and feel that the country is going in the wrong direction." Don't take too much of what he has to say to heart.

I think it's quite the reverse. Conservatives just want someone who will apply the law fairly without injecting their own beliefs, because conservatives can win at the polls. So if anything, it's conservatives who can be objective, while liberals can't, and can't afford to, be.

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.