Media

Wait. Maybe Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Like James Earl Ray.

|

As someone who has been consistently critical of Rush Limbaugh's brand of conservatism, I nevertheless agree with former Reason intern (and current editor at the Washington City Paper) Mike Riggs: quite a few media hacks owe the right-wing talker a serious apology. When Limbaugh announced his interest in purchasing the St. Louis Rams, CNN's Rick Sanchez and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (the "perky and "articulate" host who, according to Time magazine, is in possession of  "exhaustively researched opinions on everything from al-Qaeda to AIDS," who is "cheerful, careful and civil!"), attacked the popular radio host as a racist, using the following quote as evidence:

"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

And this one, cited by Maddow:

"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed."

Now, I know it might be surprising to some readers that a hyperpartisan hack with "exhaustively researched opinions" would reference a spurious quote on air—which is self-evidently phony—but Maddow told MSNBC viewers that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomeyer should not despair because "When you get called racist by the guy who says the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr. should get the Medal of Honor, consider yourself honored."

Maddow's colleague David Schuster recited the fake slavery quote on air, as did Sanchez and handful of others.

The Telegraph's Toby Harnden makes a number of good points here:

The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.

Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods – which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there – are brazenly unapologetic. 

Also, check out Nick Gillespie's recent post on Chris Matthews' desire to explode Limbaugh's head with a CO2 cartridge, which includes a stirring (and convincing) defense of the best Bond ever, Sir Roger Moore.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

237 responses to “Wait. Maybe Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Like James Earl Ray.

  1. Wait, you mean to tell me that the Ministry of Truth isn’t entitled to just make shit up to try to motivate a lynch mob?

    -jcr

    1. What’s both sad and hilarious about this is that I posted about the bogus James Earl Ray quote (as used by Maddow) back in June. Others had posted about it earlier.

      And, all of that was off most blogger’s radar – including this site – until just recently. Not only that, but I left a comment about the smear on this site on Sep. 4, suggesting that Reason follows up with NationBooks due to the fact that they didn’t respond to my emails.

      Maybe Reason could work on the lag between when I cover something and they do.

      1. It wasn’t off anyone’s radar, it’s just that nobody cared about it. Most people still don’t.

  2. You mean I have actually defend Rush Limbaugh?

    Anyway, it seems to me that this one clueless twit talking about another clueless twit.

    1. I have actually defend Rush Limbaugh?

      Of course not. You can despise liars whether or not you support whoever they’re lying about it.

      -jcr

      1. That’s the point. It isn’t about Limbaugh or football. It’s about a media lynch mob who set out to ruin the financial transaction of someone whom they disagreed with.

        1. LYNCH mob?

          You fuckin’ racist.

          1. No, no. David Lynch. Not racist.

            1. Yes. David Lynch has an inherently racist name. If he were conservative or libertarian, we would lynch him for it. And yes, I do get a pass to use the word. Racist.

  3. Honestly, shouldn’t people be getting fired for reporting this as fact? No substantiation of a source that’s worse than questionable for this sort of material, and, of course, no application of the laugh test. You read this and know right away that there’s no way Limbaugh said any such thing.

    Journalism for these kinds of people is a profession the way prostitution is, except prostitutes have some ethics.

    And don’t start with the Moore nonsense again. He was a decent Bond, but Sean Connery was iconically good.

    1. And don’t start with the Moore nonsense again. He was a decent Bond

      WTF? Michael Moore couldn’t fit into a tux if you cut the arms and legs off, changed out the buttons for elastic velcro and greased him up with a pallet of Crisco.

    2. Trouble is, there are plenty of people for whom it’s not at all self-evident that Limbaugh would never have said these things. In two decades of broadcasting he never actually has, but people who’ve never listened to him at all and even some who have listened to him a little bit to familiarize themselves with their opposition – lots and lots of them are apparently convinced that there’s NO statement too outrageous for him.

      Poor fools…

  4. Let’s see, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, David Schuster, Rick Sanchez, and Chris Matthews. All in one blog. Quite an achievement. People, please, don’t listen to them.

  5. I’m no Limbaugh fan, but the Limbaugh in the head of some liberals is like Hitler on steroids after sodomizing Nixon.

    1. True. The left has an irrational hatred of a self created image.

    2. I’d think the left would be *happy* with someone who sodomized Nixon…

      1. Are you suggesting that the left hates Nixon more than Hitler?

  6. And don’t start with the Moore nonsense again. He was a decent Bond, but Sean Connery was iconically good.

    I can picture Moore as a bond villain, but not as the hero.

    Oh, you meant Roger Moore. Never mind.

    -jcr

    1. Michael Moore reminds of Mr. Kidd (or was it Mr. Wint?) in Diamonds Are Forever.

      1. Either. They are interchangeable.

  7. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

    Sadly, this surprises me not at all. It’s part of the age of tolerance the selection of the Chosen One has heralded.

  8. No, they are not going to apologize. That is how they roll. It is interesting how the NFL is supposed to be so concerned about its image and that is why they wouldn’t sell to Limbaugh. Yet, Kieth Olberman is the face of Sunday Night NFL and no one seems to have a problem with that.

    1. You can certainly skip the pregame shows and still enjoy the game.

      And most NFL games are announcer-free if you use the separate audio program – usually its just the crowd noise.

      1. You can certainly skip the pregame shows and still enjoy the game.

        Hardly the point, Russ 2000.
        Are you a retard?

    2. Forget about Olbermann. This is a league that has no problem giving multiple chances to reprobates like Ray Lewis, Leonard Little, Michael Vick, “Pacman” Jones, Donte Stallworth, and the list goes on and on and on, but Rush Limbaugh is too controversial to be affiliated with the league in even a minor and insignificant manner. It’s fucking ridiculous.

      1. I find it hard to believe that Limbaugh could be a worse owner than George Halas.

    3. Fuck the NFL. Fuck every single little bitch NFL athlete and fuck every little bitch that works for them.

      Until Olberman is fired, they can bend over like the little bitches they are.

    4. MSNBC will eventually post a quiet correct, methinks. But who knows.

      http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2…..90147.aspx

    5. I have a problem with Olberman on Sunday Night NFL. I can’t stnad to watch that glad handing sack of sh*t spew on the game I love so I either mute his b*tt munching voice or turn the channel.

      He is among he worst pieces of b*tt crust on television and I refuse to listen to his sh*t.

      Keith ‘f*ckface’ Olberman is a scrot*um munching f*ckard without a brain cell to spare.

      He can l*ck my b*lls and NBC can too as long as they employ the do*chebag!

  9. The villain? Nah. A henchman? Absolutely.

  10. Hell, if they’ll call Matt Welch a racist, of course they’re going to call Rush a racist.

  11. If liberals can libal Limbaugh with made up quotes, who can’t they libal? You shouldn’t be able to make up shit about someone and interfer with thier business and livelyhood. I think Limbaugh, rather than a libal suit, should file a tortous interference with contract suit against everyone of those assholes. They lied and the NFL and because of that Checketts kicked him out of the group making the bid.

    1. I think hate speech lawsuit is the way to go.

    2. Good point. Rush should sue for libel or slander or whatever.

      Falsely attributing racist statements to someone and getting away with it is seriously wrong.

    3. What the fuck is a libal?

      I think we’re talking slander here, btw, not libel.

      1. li?bal
        ??/?la?b?l/ noun, verb, -baled, -bal?ing -balled, -bal?ling.

        The art or act of posting on Reason and making yourself look like an asshole.

  12. I really wish Rachel Maddow would fall into a wood chipper. Fair punishment for character assassination like this.

    1. You’d have to wash that chipper with alcohol or holy water or somesuch.

    2. Nah, too quick. When the time comes, I hope it is much slower.

    3. Your daily “Fargo” reference.

  13. He’s a public figure, and they’re the Holy Media. So, the standard is actual malice. If he can show that they knew the statements were false or doubted their veracity, he might have a shot at securing a defamation cause of action.

    Of course, proving damages is always the tricky part, but even to win without much in the way of cash would be a huge victory for Limbaugh, I’m sure.

    Plenty of people will accept these statements as true, so there’s an interesting question about how bad this is, damage-wise.

    1. If I were Limbaugh, I’d love to have my lawyer cross-examine these idiots on the stand about how they’re so stupid they didn’t have any doubts about the veracity of the statements.

    2. Limbaugh should respond by saying that he heard Maddow likes to find the bodies of dead little girls and fist them.

      He can pay a homeless guy to tell him that and say he heard it from a ‘source’; no malice on his part.

  14. “Barack the magic negro” isn’t racist enough for you guys?

    1. Apparently it wasn’t enough so for the media, who felt the need to make stuff up.

      1. I should type faster.

    2. Apparently it wasn’t racist enough for them, because they thought the fabricated quotes were better. They could have used real quotes, but didn’t bother for some odd reason.

      Does it even matter in this context if Rush is actually racist or not? You’re cool with slander–and not by anyone, but by freaking journalists–as long as it’s about someone bad?

      1. I don’t care if Rush is a racist or not. That’s none of my business. I don’t listen to him and I don’t care for his entertainment–and that’s exactly what his show is, by his own admission.

        But slander by MSM, while trying to elevate themselves above ‘unprofessional’ bloggery, is just too insulting.

        I look at it this way: If they can slander Rush with that false statement (someone who has almost every word he says recorded or printed somewhere in some medium), they can certainly defame your character with a label of racism. Or by calling you anti-government wacko. Or a baby fucker. Or whatever it takes for them to remove you from hindering whatever progress their ownership and editorial policy deem necessary.

    3. Tell that to the LA Times. They were the ones who originally coined it.

      1. Tony thinks everyone is a racist except him, but funny he is the one who just typed “Barack the magic negro”.

        Tony, you racist cunt, STFU.

    4. Magic negro is a commonly used term in film criticism etc. Nice knee-jerk though.

      1. I’m 72 inches of germanic caucasoid flesh, and I can tell you with no hesitation that I too am a magic negro.

    5. Ironically, the term was apparently popularized by Spike Lee (at least if Wikipedia can be trusted; and if Wikipedia can’t be trusted, who can be?).

    6. That was the LA Times; Limbaugh only quoted them.

  15. Very interesting reading the comments unattributed. (except for jcr’s)

    I’m guessing this was John:
    “If liberals can libal Limbaugh…”

    1. You should be able to pick my writing out by now, one would think.

  16. Damages? Limbaugh is making a fortune out of this. I even thought it was all a scheme to take the attention off of Beck.

  17. They’ll defend their decision the way Dan Rather defended his decision to publish and report the clearly fraudulent Bush records. If Rush didn’t “actually” say that, well, it’s pretty clear he would say it and agrees with it and would mean to say it, so it’s pretty much the same thing. Because everyone knows he’s racist.

    And you’re all racist – or ignorant – for disagreeing!

    1. I remember the whole Dan Rather debacle.

      It proved that the media had an agenda other than reporting the truth.

  18. Ask the black LA times columnist who coined the “magic negro” term if it’s racist enough, Tony.

  19. No way, no how, will there be any prominent retraction unless he sues, sues, and sues yet again. Too many people on that side of the political fence view Limbaugh as the center of all things Republican (which is ridiculous, of course) and won’t risk doing anything to make him any less demonic in their eyes. 2010 is next year, after all!

  20. So, the standard is actual malice.

    Great movie, even if it did have Sally Field.

    1. I think there was more factual malice here. That is, malice against facts.

      1. What’s good for the goose is good for these cunts. I heard all sorts of things about Maddow from a ‘source’.

  21. How do you drive a liberal crazy? Just say Rush Limbaugh.

  22. ProL, I’ve discovered that the threaded comments help in spotting trolls and avoiding all of the comments by the suckers responding to them. My occassional retort will be harder to avoid since it will be left justified.

    1. Give me sequentiality, or give me death!

      1. Looks like you’re getting death, as far as Reason is concerned.

        Would you like some cake with that death?

        1. Let them eat cake. Yes, let those who foisted this abomination upon me eat poisoned cake.

  23. And we are 100% certain that Rush never ever said those things because?

    1. Is that your standard for journalism? Really? Prove you didn’t say that?

      I hope that’s not their defense in court, if it comes to that.

      1. Nope. The “news” people should cite chapter and verse of the source of the quotes or retract and join the unemployed. OTOH, I’ve listened to Rush a good bit and when he is on a roll, not much would surprise me coming out of his mouth.

        1. So either way, your point is meaningless, and I just wasted a calorie or too reading your words.

          Thanks.

        2. So did you have fun not beating your wife LAST NIGHT, brotherben?

    2. No fan of Limbaugh here, but I’ll say “because we’re not going to try to prove a negative.”

      1. sage,

        Prove that you never had relations with Salma Hayek.

        1. Can’t. I guess that means I did.

          1. Congratulations! Wow, that’s great. Are you going to write a tell-all expos

          2. Dude you are a stud! We’re in rarified company, sage; it can’t be proven that I didn’t have sex with Jessica Alba.

        2. I think the fact that he hasn’t committed seppuku strongly supports the notion that he did not.

    3. 1) Because anyone who’s listened to him for more than a few minutes knows the quotes don’t sound like him. He’s not a KKK-type “racist,” just an anti-PC conservative who opposes leftism in various forms, which makes him a “racist” to people who use the term very loosely.

      2) Because it makes no sense that such outrageous quotes have little in the way of sourcing, just vague dates (like “2002”), Wikipedia references, etc. Democrats have been following every word from Limbaugh MRC-style since the Clinton years, at least. So why wasn’t there an uproar about the quotes when he supposedly said them? Because he didn’t say them.

  24. It would be on tape somewhere, Ben.

  25. I have no sympathy for Limbaugh. He makes money off of controversy – and then complains that he’s controversial?

    Just go buy a hockey team Rush, no one gives a shit about that sport.

    1. Congratulations on completely missing the entire fucking point.

      1. What point? That a lot of people on the left don’t like Limbaugh and, because of this, exaggerate and lie about him?

        Like I said, Rush shouldn’t be surprised by this.

        1. Like I said, you completely missed the point. Try reading the post before commenting. The post is about the MSM willingness to commit slanderous and unrepentant libel while maintaining a double standard regarding alternate media.

          1. No, the post is about Rachel Maddow and an article in the Telegraph. Though I do find the falsehoods despicable and those who spread them shameless, I don’t consider it slander or libel.

            Furthermore, I don’t consider it a MSM plot against Limbaugh – I see it as Limbaugh reaping what he has sow.

            1. Judging by your stupidity here I would find gross lies about you on CNN to be reaping what you sown.

              1. So you’re implying Limbaugh is stupid?

                1. No, I’m saying you are.

    2. So G Mc, when were you last sodomized by donkeys?

      1. Last Tuesday. I know, I was there.

      2. MJ, do me a favor, I’m having trouble recognizing you – which elephant are you in this video? The one eating the shit or the one with the trunk up its ass?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2y_LEbdEVE

        1. G Mc:
          Did you castrate those little boys before you sodomized them? Or after?

        2. Apparently still having trouble recognizing the point.

          1. What does my unfortunate boy castration habit have to do with people making stuff up about Rush?

    3. Two things: 1. Limbaugh isn’t actually terribly controversial; he’s presented by the media as such because THEY disagree with him. 2. HE hasn’t been complaining. HE has been saying that he’s entirely unsurprised – disappointed at the incredible double standard being applied here, but unsurprised. Those of us who value truth and equal application of standards and law are complaining.

      1. There’s another double standard here that no one seems willing to mention. Rush rarely (if ever) fact checks and most of what he says is off-the-cuff. These journalists (unfortunately) assumed that the quotes — which were also in a print publication — had been fact-checked by the editors of Nation Books. Not a wise assumption, but the fact that any Limbaugh fan is disturbed by this is highly ironic, given that they put up with Rush’s chronic failure to substantiate any of his own claims.

        I taught an ideology course back in 1998 or 1999 in Ohio and clearly remember a student mentioning something similar to the James Earl Ray quote. It wasn’t in one of the episodes I personally listened to, but I don’t think we can necessarily assume he didn’t say it. Lacking substantive proof, however, those who were tricked by Huberman’s book should acknowledge their error. They also need to hire a few more fact-checkers unless they want to be in permanent company with the pseudo-journalists like Limbaugh.

  26. Maddow’s colleague David Schuster recited the fake slavery quote on air, as did Sanchez and handful of others.

    Handful? What?

    It was almost everyone, in every medium, all at the same time, reading or copying off the same sheet whoever puppets the “media watchdog” NGO ring handed them.

    There’s a story there. Is anyone willing to get blacklisted for life in order to tell it to us?

    Fuck no.

  27. Also, if there is any truth in this, someone, somewhere will come up with a record of it. For the money if for no other reason.

    1. Okay, I agree with that. Although it’s almost certainly not true, ’cause we’d be hearing about it already.

      To be sure, I’m not saying all this to defend Limbaugh. I’m more offended by the cavalier attitude so-called journalists seem to have for even the appearance of truthiness than I care about someone falsely accusing him.

      1. The argument starts with Moynihan making the assumption that the quotes are fabrications and building a case against msnbc on that assumption. It’s the same quality of journalism that msnbc produces.

        1. I heard a little about this yesterday. The source for the quotes appears to have been Wikipedia, with no other source found. It looks really bad, which is why I think the possibility of a defamation suit is a real one.

          1. Can’t just about anybody do a wiki entry? Like a bio on Donderoooooo for example? Wiki is not what I would cal a real credible source.

            1. There is a wiki entry claiming that you are a racist animal abuser. I know, because I just edited it.

              1. Considering the stupidity of his comments this thread, I would believe that brotherben often abuses animals.

            2. Exactly. A journalist who relies on a wiki entry is, well, something other than a journalist.

    2. Exactly. How is this any different than the Michelle Obama “hate whitey” speech? Lots of people on the internet said she had made such a speech. Yet, the media didn’t touch it, rightly, because there was no proof. If Michelle Obama gave a “hate whitey” speech show me a tape of it or produce a credible witness. Otherwise shut the hell up.

      The media reported the quotes from Limbaugh, even though there was no proof of their veracity. Tell me they don’t work for the DNC

      1. What are you talking about John? I heard about the “hate whitey” speech, or rather the allegation of it, on “the media.” And when you say “the media reported the quotes from Limbaugh” are trying to say that Rachel Maddow and this Sanchez guy constitute “the media?” Maddow is probably not taken that seriously as a journalistic icon by the profession, she’s MSNBC’s version of Hannity and O’Reilly…

        1. Name me one major newspaper that reported the hate whitey speech. Name even one pundit who did. Hell, I don’t even think Rush Limbaugh touched it altough I don’t know for sure.

          1. I remember hearing about the possibility of the hate whitey speech on CNN among others.

            1. But we heard about the possibility of that speech, whereas many in the media reported the Limbaugh quotes as established facts.

              1. ‘That’s like uh, the same thing because like uh you can’t expect a stupid Leftist fuck to even know what a fact looked like.’

    3. Assuming there aren’t several minutes missing from the tapes ala Nixon 🙂

  28. Wow, shades of 12 Monkeys: Balloon boy found hiding in garage.

    *Shiver*

    1. Thank God. I was hoping he’d bailed early. The balloon escaping must’ve scared him–“Oh, crap, Dad’s gonna yell at me now!”

    2. Come on, now. Rush Limbaugh may be overweight, but calling him “balloon boy” is no way to argue.

  29. The post points out the real issue. Which is: the old media scoffing at the internet for not sourcing stories is total bullshit. It reminds me of Drudge getting bood by the National Press Club right after the Lewenski dress proved real.

    1. Well, there is a tremondous amount of hair-raisingly sloppy “journalism” going on in the intertubes, and were I a journalist who had been trained to try carefully do journalism I would be critical and full of disgust for that. Of course, it helps to realize that print journalists do some sloppy reporting now and then too.

      1. Why does all of the sloppy journalism done by the MSM happen when it fits their pre-concieved notions and slants Democrat? No one is printing fake quotes by Keith Olberman. No one ran a story about Obama based on an obviously fake memorandum.

        1. MSNBC=the mainstream media?

          1. Yeah. It is a major cable network. Furhter several newspapers and sports pages accross the country reported the quotes as real. And none of them have issued so much as a retraction.

            1. See, this is the problem. For you the “MSM” is every media outlet other than the avowedly conservative ones. That’s a huge sprawl. So of course you can point to some sloppiness or bias and then say “aha!, the MSM!”

              MSNBC is now an avowedly biased cable network. It’s hardly representative of the “MSM” whatever that is.

              1. Like CNN “fact-checking” the SNL skit that was a leetle bit critical of our President? (Our current President, of course. They were among the whoop-whoopers in the crowd, I feel certain, during the tenancy of our former President.)

        2. Like all those journalists who sloppily reported about the WMD’s in Iraq?

          1. They reported the CIA and the Intel reports on them. What were they supposed to do, go to Iraq and spy themselves? Furhter, taking the CIA at its word is a bit different than looking at Wikipedia. Moreover, the media gave a ton of coverage to Scott whatever his name was who was the former weapons inspector who said there weren’t there.

            Do you honestly think believing intel agencies is the same sloppy reporting as reading wikipedia and never checking it? That is retarded even for you MNG

            1. It wasn’t Republican journalists, it was many members of the “MSM” who uncritically parroted the “intel” administration figures pedaled.

              1. Stuart Cohen was the analyst in charge of the intel on Iraqi WMD.

                If you can not trust Stuart Cohen, whom can you trust?

          2. You know, we’re mostly libertarians here. Saying the GOP sucks, too, will just get nods. Besides, you pointing over there won’t make me turn and look. I know that trick, buddy ?

            1. You’re separating me from the herd with the “mostly” aren’t you? I feel so dirty now.

            2. “Saying the GOP sucks, too, will just get nods. Besides, you pointing over there won’t make me turn and look.”

              It’s a good thing I said no such thing here. I said that were I a trained professional journalist I would have disdain for sloppy internet journalism. I mean of course I would…No one who cares about their profession likes to see it done sloppily.

              1. But where you would rightly disdain sloppy blogger-journalism, wouldn’t you be absolutely HORRIFIED by sloppy, unfactual “legitimate” journalism?

          3. Further, isn’t the whole Dem line of Iraq and why so many of them voted for it that they were tricked into it by the evil Bush Administration manipulating the intel? If the entire Congress was tricked by the bad intel, how the hell was the media supposed to know?

            1. The media’s job is to ferret out the truth. I don’t care what the “Dem line” is for why so many spineless politicians supported it.

              There were journalists, analysts and even politicians who questioned this ultra-convincing intel consensus you imagine.

              1. “The media’s job is to ferret out the truth.”

                Actually that’s your opinion of the media’s job. According to the large media players themselves, truth is optional. When FOX news went to court in Florida against its own reporters, its position in court was that it has the right to lie. Far from being attacked for this stance by the rest of the major media outlets, the other MSM submitted amicus briefs to the court IN SUPPORT OF the FOX position.

                Only idealists believe it’s the media’s job to tell the truth.

              2. Saddam ran one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the world. Further, Saddam admitted later that he was lying about the WMDs because he was afraid of Iran. So how the fuck do you “ferret out the truth” when the inel and the Iraqi government are both saying the same thing. You guys act like “well any fucking moron should have known that”. Bullshit. It is just like Iran now. Why don’t you two clowns go over and ferret out all the facts on the Iranian Nuke program. Have fun.

                You are out of your tree on this MNG. To compare Iraqi WMD to spending to seconds on wikipedia and going “well it says so here it must be true” is transparantly rediculous.

                1. I don’t even respond to that troll since he said it’s fair to punch him in the face.

                  He’s a retarded fetus that should know better.

            2. Geez, John, maybe the media could have used their brains instead of rolling over like cheap whores. I expect congressmen to do that, not journalists. If Greg Cochran figured out the Bush line on Iraq was bullshit using only his brain and logic, any half intelligent journalist could have done the same.

              1. See my response above. They didn’t just roll over. Jesus fucking Christ, Saddam himself admitted he was trying to make the world think he had the damn things.

              2. no Greg Cochran was a stopped clock who happened to be right. He “figured it out” by believing what he would have believed regardless of the facts.

        3. I think the birth certificate conspiracy got a lot more MSM attention than it really deserved, frankly. Although obviously even that pales in comparison to left-wing coverage of fake stories critical of the right-wing.

  30. Iirc any suit by Limbaugh would be pretty useless, he’s a public figure and you must prove malice to win that case, which would be pretty freaking hard.

    Limbaugh is a big enough fool and bore without making things up about him…

    1. MNG,

      I don’t think so. Actual malice can be shown if the defendant used information that he knew to be false or doubted was true. There’s a legitimate cause of action here, at least on the surface.

      I doubt he’d bother suing, because proving damages isn’t always easy in these types of cases.

      1. Eh, without knowing all the details, I’d say it would take a pretty broad reading of ‘actual malice,’ relative to precedential standards, for a court to find for Limbaugh here.

        Thankfully, courts are very wary of libel chill in this country.

      2. How would you prove they knew it was false or had a reckless disregard? They’ll just say they thought it was true. You and I probably repeat things everyday that we think are true but cannot recall exactly where we got it from…

        1. “They’ll just say they thought it was true.”

          This would be the likely point of a Rush Limbaugh defamation suit.

          The media would be forced to say that they believed the statements were true.

          Which would then beg the question, “Why did you believe they were true?”

          The answer to that question would show their shoddy reporting even if the defamation suit did not win.

        2. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh will be perfectly happy, in lieu of damages, to have Rachel Maddow testify under oath that she’s such a dim bulb she had no doubt that Limbaugh said James Earl Ray should get a Medal of Honor.

        3. Just like I would find it at least kinda true to hear about Maddow raping dead children.

          That should be reported from the rooftops because it might be true and there’s no actual malice because somewhere sometime might have mentioned it.

          1. You just mentioned it. Now it can be reported.

        4. If the determination were that subjective, then no one would ever lose a defamation case. Yet people do.

          I think there are probably some smoking gun e-mails, too, knowing how things work these days. Who typed the wiki bit, anyway? Better not be anyone with any ties to, well, anyone.

          Limbaugh would be unlikely to get much in the way of damages, just because that’s the real trick in these cases, but he’d when huge just lodging the suit.

    2. actual malice, yes – or acted “with reckless disregard as to the statement’s truth.”

      I.e., a reasonable person would have checked whether he actually had made such an obviously outrageous statement before publishing it. They were in such a hurry to get it out there so they could smear Limbaugh and hopefully damage him, they didn’t bother to do the most basic, easy check on the veracity of what they were reporting. That’s reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.

      People often quote the “actual malice” part but forget the other half.

      1. This is a tricky issue. As I recall, mere negligence in fact checking isn’t enough to get actual malice. But I think “relying” on a facially questionable wiki entry is more than mere negligence.

        I’m surprised that anyone would let their distaste for Limbaugh cloud the absolutely contemptible behavior of the press here.

        1. Can anyone name me ANY public figure, especially a political one, who has one a libel/slander suit against a media outlet lately? Again, you have to show the person had malice, i.e., actually knew it was false and still said it, or “reckless disregard for the truth”, which rises quite above negligence; you’d have to show they were wantonly negligent regarding the truth of the statement. That’s a high bar dudes. And for good reason, we don’t want libel laws to chill vigorous and rancorous political debate…

      2. Iirc simply failing to do this:”a reasonable person would have checked whether he actually had made such an obviously outrageous statement before publishing it”=negligence. But not recklessness. Otherwise, where is your line between the two? Besides they will say they checked, they checked on Wikipedia or other sites. Should they have checked harder? Yes, they were shitty checkers, but that maybe gets you to negligence, not malice/recklessness…

  31. …but Maddow told MSNBC viewers that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomeyer should not despair…

    Yikes!

    1. See, Obama got not only a Catholic, Hispanic and woman but a Jew too. Quite the pick there!

    2. I wish I were a Sotomayer Wiener, that is what I truly wish to be!

      1. She’s a wise latina tranny?

        would that be latinO?

  32. damnit…cant get link to work

    here

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33…..ethnicity/

    judge refuses interacial marriage license cause kids might be teased.

    1. I found out the hard way that it looks like quotation marks are now mandatory around the URL within the tag (i.e., href=http://).

  33. Fox news is running with this RIGHT NOW, and talking about how it’s a smear campaign to ruin Limbaugh’s chances with the NFL.

    1. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t fit his head into a football helmet if you threw a chocolate coated chicken leg in there.

      1. I don’t know, they make some big helmets now (see Jamarcus Russell). A jersey, on the hand, no fucking way.

  34. Limbaugh, as a public figure, would have to show “actual malice” under the Sullivan case. What that means in practice, though, is that the statement was made with either knowledge that it was false or, and here’s the punchline, reckless disregard for the truth.

    I think he has an excellent case for reckless disregard. He was very careful on the air today (the parts I heard, anyway) to not say he wasn’t going to sue anyone.

    Besides, the payoff for him would be in the trial itself, not the verdict. I really, really, hope he sues.

    1. As detailed in my comment way up above, I contacted NationBooks way back in June. Did they sell any copies since that time? Did they immediately recall the book? Did they print a correction.

      I hope Limbaugh sues their ass off.

      1. It would be worth sending your correspondence to Rush. I wouldn’t expect them to come digging on reason for ammo.

    2. the payoff for him would be in the trial itself, not the verdict.

      A nice retraction and apology from MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS, among others, would be equally sweet, RC. I hope he sues as well. Teach the bastards a lesson.

  35. MNG-

    Please. There is just no defending MSNBC, Sharpton, the NFLPA executive director, Maddow and any others who have published or repeated the falsehoods.

    1. I’m not defending them, I’m saying they are hardly representative of “the MSM.”

      1. If MSNBC isn’t mainstream media, then no one is.

  36. It’s ironic that the Donovan McNabb quote is the one real piece of evidence for Rush’s being a racist, when all that quote really proves is that Rush doesn’t know anything about football.

    1. Tim-

      I bet he knows a lot more about football than you do.

      Do you know when Rush made the point about the media wanting McNabb to succeed because he was a black quarterback? It was in September of 2003. Donovan was just beginning his fifth season. His highest passer rating up to that point in time was 86.00 in 2002. Do you know how the 2002 season ended for the Eagles? Do you know that the Eagles lost the NFC championship game, in the last game played at the old Vet, to the underdog Tampa Bay Bucs? Guess who failed to deliver?

      Sure, to be fair, Donovan did compile a very good touchdown pass to interception ratio in his first four years-but he failed to complete 60% of his passes. He has never had the reputation as being a very accurate passer and he is not.

      One who opines that McNabb is not in the top echelon of NFL quarterbacks is not one about whom another can reasonably state that the former does not know anything about football.

      1. Do you know that McNabb’s page over at pro-football-reference.com lists his top QB comps after his first four years in the NFL? They include Boomer Esiason, Brett Favre, Ken Anderson, Tom Brady, Jim Everett, John Elway, and Joe Montana. Most of them are in the Hall of Fame (or will be once they’re eligible), and the couple who aren’t have been finalists in the HOF voting. In addition, at the time Limbaugh made his comment, McNabb has just gone to the third of his five consecutive pro bowls, and he’d also been MVP runner-up a couple years before. Limbaugh’s exact comment was “Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go.”

        So yeah, Limbaugh doesn’t know anything about football (or at least he didn’t at that time).

        1. temp-

          The fact remains that No.5 had passer ratings of 60.1, 77.8, 84.3 and 86.0 in his first four seasons. Are you claiming that those are very good passer ratings?

          How about this? In his first ten years, McNabb has had only 1 season of with a passer rating over 100.00.

          1. I’m not saying those a great QB passer ratings, although with the exception of the first one based on relatively few starts in his rookie year they’re pretty good. (And any QB rating over 100 absolutely puts him firmly in the “very good” category – that’s only happened about 40 times in the history of the NFL, and his 104.7 is 18th best all-time – although I realize that happened after Limbaugh’s comment.)

            And perhaps more importantly, QB passer rating isn’t the be-all and end-all of QB quality. For example, it doesn’t reflect the fact that McNabb has pretty consistently been at or near the top of the rankings for QB rushing yards and touchdowns throughout his career. He currently has over 3,100 yards rushing, which I’m pretty sure is top 10 all-time for QBs.

            But most important of all, Limbaugh’s statement wasn’t about whether he was “very good” or “great” or “top echelon” – he set the bar lower than that. He said McNabb “[wasn’t] that good,” which is just downright silly, either in 2003 or now.

            1. Just to be clear, when I hear “he’s not that good,” I’m interpreting it to mean that he’s at best average, or possibly somewhat below average. Maybe that’s not what Limbaugh meant and maybe that’s not how you’re interpreting his comment, but I think it’s most consistent with a straightforward reading of the comment, and with how the phrase “not that good” is most commonly used.

              1. If I remember correctly, the sentiment was that McNabb was overrated. Hell, you could say the Beatles are overrated and that isn’t a stretch.

              2. If I remember correctly, the sentiment was that McNabb was overrated. Hell, you could say the Beatles are overrated and that isn’t a stretch.

      2. Yeah, the McNabb thing was more a critcism of the sports media than one of McNabb.

        1. Its not as if Limbaugh argued that McNabb stunk. If one so argues, then yes, I would agree that one does not know anything about football.

          McNabb is a good quarterback. On some days he is very good and he has been the best quarterback on given sundays. He is not Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, John Elway or Brett Favre. He is certainly better than Jim Everett was and arguably as good as or better than Esaiason was.

  37. I now have zero respect for Roger Goodell. Same for the principals in Rush’s group that ousted him.

  38. Maureen Dowd seems to believe this myth as well.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10……html?_r=1

    1. I should add that Maureen Dowd has never said anything intelligent in her life. I’m amazed someone that stupid can even stand up.

      1. Or learn human language.

        1. or breath without drowning in their own saliva. what a heinously retarded wench.

  39. Click my name for a very short video-take on this cultural character assassination.

  40. Limbaugh wants a seat on the millionaire-welfare-queen gravy train. Some people act as if he’s being deprived of a sacred right.
    I’m, ummm….

    shocked.

    1. Actually, it is a sacred right. At least in the Quran:

      S?rah al Hujurat 49. 11-12
      The Qur’an recognizes the right of human beings to be protected from defamation, sarcasm, offensive nicknames, and backbiting.

      1. Yet another point at which Limbaugh and the Taliban converge.

        1. How wonderful that you set up all muslims as strawmen for your argument.

          1. Nah, just trying to get your goat briareus. You know, before it sodomizes you with that donkey.

            1. Goats are much better loving than you’d guess.

              And for the record, there’s no ass rape like gang donkey ass rape.

        2. This has to count as some sorta Godwin. Can I get a ruling from the line judge?

  41. Oh Tim, surely you can’t be witness to the Obama love and believe Limbaugh was wrong about McNabb’s press? But you are right that McNabb is really pretty good, when he can play.

    1. James Ard-

      I agree that he is pretty good. On some days, he has been fantastic.

      However, he is not destined for Canton.

      1. Unlike a certain ex-dogfighter backup QB.

        1. Vick in Canton???? What’s his QB rating? The man can’t throw.

      2. My guess is that McNabb is destined for Canton which is probably what Limbaugh’s point was.

  42. Sorry, but I had to share this tidbit of wisdom from the AP story.

    NEW ORLEANS ? A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

    “I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

    1. Sadly he is not alone. Many people of both races have a problem with interracial marriage. Interracial couples get it from both ends.

      1. Interracial couples get it from both ends.

        heheh heheh heheh…

      2. In 1970, ninety percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage. That would not be possible if only white people objected to interracial marriage.

        President Nixon once said that a pregnancy between a black and a white justifies an abortion. At the time he said that, most Americans would have agreed.

        1. At the time of Nixon? I think not, at least not publicly. The 70s were pretty anti-racist. During the 50s … yes. By the 1970s racism was already pretty socially unacceptable. Not that there wasn’t a lot of racist humor around. But that in itself was a symptom of the supression of overt racism in polite society.

    2. So this justice of the peace is a racist AND a polygamist?!

  43. I bet he makes them drink out of paper cups!

  44. Those folks kid might be the next Black president, or would s/he be White?

  45. Ben, I’m astounded there are people that freaking retarted 30 miles away from here. Then again there’s a church near there that was practicing beastiality and child molestation.

    1. Practicing bestiality? Seems like it can’t be that hard to get wrong. Oh well, I suppose practice makes perfect.

  46. You mean I have actually defend Rush Limbaugh?

    No, but you can slam a major media outlet for a complete failure to fact-check a fucking quote! I mean, come on!

  47. Limbaugh wants a seat on the millionaire-welfare-queen gravy train. Some people act as if he’s being deprived of a sacred right.
    I’m, ummm….

    shocked.

    Actually, it is a sacred right. At least in the Quran:

    S?rah al Hujurat 49. 11-12
    The Qur’an recognizes the right of human beings to be protected from defamation, sarcasm, offensive nicknames, and backbiting.

    IIRC (and I usually do) Moses brought down some commandments from Yahweh that included something about slander being prohibited.

    SCREW THREADED COMMEENTS!

    1. Fuck you all. I like threaded comments.

      1. It does make it a pain in the ass to revisit a thread and see new comments. Rather than going straight to the end and reading the latest ones sequentially, you have to scroll down the whole thing looking for nested replies that weren’t there last time.

  48. From what I gather the cited quotes originated in this guy (Huberman’s) book here:

    http://www.amazon.com/101-Peop…..1560258756

    Apparently the author reprinted a bunch of contrived quotes he found on blogs

    Im not sure I understand the outrage though. Rush has said plenty of despicable stuff. I dont see why his critics would necessarily need to ‘make stuff up’

    1. Well, lets have it. Examples of such despicable stuff?

    2. “I dont see why his critics would necessarily need to ‘make stuff up'”

      If they don’t need to use made up quotes, and yet they do it anyway, doesn’t that say even more about their lack of integrity?

  49. Until Rick Sanchez and Rachel Maddow resign, every person who works at CNN or General Electric should have shit flung at them.

    Shit employees for shit companies.

    1. Fake blood would be a nice touch.
      Hell, make it real blood!

  50. Screw Rick Sanchez … can I dirty sanchez Rachel Maddow?

    1. If you are a female, then absolutely.

  51. Why hasn’t anyone told Lonewacko to shut the fuck up yet? Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

  52. Rush Limbaugh has been on the air for over twenty years. Surely the opposition could have simply used a real quote from twenty years of archives.

  53. Roger Moore the best Bond? Is that a joke? Obviously Moynihan has never read the Ian Fleming novels. Bond was a classy and dangerous gentleman. Moore’s characterization is pure caricature, often without the tongue-in-cheek that would make it bearable. Sean Connery was clearly THE Bond – James Bond. George Lazenby wasn’t bad either in his one time out.

    Exception: The Roger Moore disease had struck the producer, director and Connery by the time Diamonds are Forever was released.

  54. The MSM is just the communications arm of the DNC.

  55. Jack,

    At last, someone who doesn’t feel the need to be a contrarian. Of course Connery was the best. Everyone knows it.

  56. I’m glad you guys are dealing with this. I have been at a loss since I heard about it. This whole hysteria is complete bullshit and I’m pleased to see you tell it like it is.

  57. Here is hoping Rush has the last laugh.

  58. Those quotes are obviously phony. I spotted that immediately.

    Retraction, anyone? Mea culpas?

    It’s the Democratic party with the history of racism. Why doesn’t anybody point that out?

  59. does rick sanchez post on hit’n’run? he’d be a natural.

  60. Liberals are idiots. If Limbaugh actually owned the Rams he’d be forced to neuter himself for the sake of the business. Owners usually don’t court controversy, and Limbaugh certainly would need to try to stop alienating blacks in order to keep his players happy. The left just missed a golden opportunity.

  61. Actually the only reason I want Limbaugh to sue, is the discovery process. I don’t know the law here. Are media protected by the 1st Amendment from the discovery process in a civil suit? And then there’s the fact that NBC is MSNBC’s parent company, and I’m sure Limbaugh would have enough sense to include deep pockets NBC – and perhaps even deeper pockets GE – in the complaint. I’m sure they’ll be overjoyed to have a team of right wing lawyers running wild through their files. Limbaugh’s lawyers would have to examine everything of course. Especially in the interests of establishing other false or malicious stories; just in the interests of establishing a pattern of reckless negligence. Suppose that, during the course of establishing this pattern, they revealed that MSNBC had lied about other figures, would they be liable – along with the parent company – to suits brought by others?

  62. RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A LOUD MOUTH PILL POPPING RACIST IDIOT. HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL. WHAT ABOUT THE DRUGS FOUND IN HIS HOUSE? HE IS A LOW CLASS IGNORAMUS IDIOT THAT’S NOT TERRIBLY BRIGHT. YOU CAN TELL FROM THE TIMES HE’S BOTH MARRIED AND DIVORCED. 3 TIMES

  63. Liberals are idiots. If Limbaugh actually owned the Rams he’d be forced to neuter himself for the sake of the business. Owners usually don’t court controversy, and Limbaugh certainly would need to try to stop alienating blacks in order to keep his players happy. The left just missed a golden opportunity.

  64. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.