masthead-highres

Friday, March 19, 2010

Why Read Time or McClatchy, When You Can Just Visit the Media Matters Website Directly?

Kate Pickert of Time magazine's Swampland column complains that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh responded to the left's exploitation of 11-year-old Marcelas Owens in its desperate 14-month effort to pass its health care takeover.

According to Pickert, Limabugh said:
"Now this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old boy being forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama ...And, I would say this to Marcelas Owens: 'Well, your mom would still have died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014.'"
and Beck said:
"That's the George Soros-funded Obama-approved group fighting for health care... Since all of the groups are so concerned and involved now, may I ask where were you when Marcelas' mother was vomiting blood?"
I don't see either of those statements as an attack on Marcelas, so if that's the worst Pickert can come up with, it appears the gentlemen were holding their fire, probably in deference to the boy's age.

Pickert then rather hypocritically says:
Since Democrats are trotting Marcelas before the cameras, there's nothing wrong with reporters or pundits checking out his story to see if it's true. That's fair game.
O-kay. Reporters checking out the family's personal history to see if Mercalas is a liar is one thing, but Limbaugh pointing out that passage of ObamaCare wouldn't help Mercalas' mother if she were alive and sick today, or Beck wondering why the groups exploiting Mercelas now didn't help his family when it could have used the help, is not?

Pickert linked to a McClatchy Newspapers story by Les Blumenthal as the source of her Limbaugh and Beck quotes. The Blumenthal story tracks extremely, extremely closely with a March 6 post by the left-wing Media Matters organization.

By sourcing Blumenthal rather than the Limbaugh and Beck shows themselves, Pickert essentially admits she did not listen to, or read a transcript of, what the two men said in context. By citing only the same quotes Media Matters reported, along with quotes from a Michelle Malkin column that the Media Matters post linked to, McClatchy's Blumenthal pretty much signals he reguritatated left-wing talking points and called it news.

Media Matters, for its part, was appreciative: It ran a post today commending Blumenthal for his article that "simply lays out the facts."

Addendum: Ed Schultz at MSNBC also seems to track pretty closely to Media Matters talking points, too:


Amazing how they all use the same quotes, isn't it?

Hat tip: YouTube - PoliticsNewsNews's Channel for the Ed Schultz video.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:30 PM

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

David Obey's War Tax

Here's a Rush Limbaugh partial transcript from today on the subject of House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's call for a "war tax" to fund, as this stirring Congressional leader put it, "whatever we're doing in Afghanistan if we decide to go ahead" (that sound you don't hear is Osama bin Laden quaking in his boots):
RUSH: David Obey wants to raise taxes on everybody to pay for the Afghanistan war. Last night ABC's World News Tonight Jonathan Karl had an interview with him.

OBEY: If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy whether it's the president's; whether it's the Democrats in Congress, whether it's the Republicans. Ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan.

RUSH: That's just not true. It's another fraudulent lie from one of the Four Corners of Deceit: Government. "Ain't gonna be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan"? We don't have any money now, you locoweed! We're $1.4 trillion in debt. I'll tell you what we should do, given what he said here. "If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative..." Let's pay for the Afghan war then and wipe out every damned one of these stupid, destructive initiatives. There was more. Karl said, "Talk us through exactly what you're proposing here."

OBEY: We've been told for the last year that we have to pay for every dime that the new health care reform bill will cost, and that's estimated to be about $900 billion over two years.

RUSH: Not true. It's $2 trillion!

OBEY: At the same time we're being told by people who support General McChrystal's approach to expanding the war in Afghanistan that we need to be prepared to hunker down and accept what could be a decade-long commitment in Afghanistan. If we do what has been in the papers about the size of that package, that also is about $900 billion. Except that's not being paid for. So what we're suggesting is that if we're going to pay for health care, we also ought to pay for whatever we're doing in Afghanistan if we decide to go ahead.

RUSH: We're not "paying for" anything. How can you say we're paying for it when we're $1.4 trillion in debt? It's not $900 billion, it's $2.5 trillion. The whole thing is rigged. The tax increases start three years before the payouts. That's how it's made to look like it doesn't cost anything. Deficit neutral? When's the last time anything government did did not cost more than what they projected? When's the last time a government program came in below cost? Well, Medicare Part D did, but that was Bush. And finally, "Let me ask you about your motives. Two years ago you proposed a similar tax on the war in Iraq. It was a nonstarter then. What makes you think your colleagues are going to support it now?"

OBEY: I don't know if they will, but two years ago the economy had not yet collapsed. Two years ago we didn't have a runaway deficit which we have now thanks to the collapse of that economy. And two years ago, we weren't being asked to expand another effort in Afghanistan that we're told might last ten years. We saw the progressive movement in this country back before the twenties wiped out by World War I. We saw Harry Truman's Fair Deal wiped out by Korea. We saw Lyndon Johnson's Great Society wiped out by Vietnam. I don't want to see the restructuring and reforming of our own economy wiped out because we get stuck in a ten-year war, a war that isn't paid for.

RUSH: What in the name of Sam Hill is he talking about? Lyndon Johnson's Great Society wiped out by Vietnam? It was no such thing. That's insane! Spending on the Fair Deal, the New Deal, the Rotten Deal, the Raw Deal, and the Great Society, never stopped. We're still spending on it! It's an entitlement. The Vietnam War didn't wipe out anything except the United States. It didn't wipe out any of these programs. This is what I mean, folks. They live in The Universe of Lies and Fraud. The Four Corners of Deceit are government (who you just heard from) academia, science, and media.

Rush is right (as usual! -- I'm happy to admit I've been a dittohead since being introduced to Rush -- at least, his non-KQV persona -- at the famed Howell Heflin "offshore drilling" CNP meeting circa, I think, 1988 [Rush says it was '92 or '93, but I think he's off by a few years. I believe I went home after that speech and found Rush on the dial for the first time, and had to listen to a Baltimore station if I wanted to catch all three hours of the show, because WMAL in DC only ran two hours.]).

On the war tax itself: National defense is one of the few things the federal government should be paying for, so go ahead, Rep. Obey, make us pay one -- but we'll expect you to drop most of the other taxes.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:30 PM

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Rush Should Sue

Bob Parks believes Rush should sue.

I believe he should also, although I am agnostic on which individuals and/or businesses have met the legal definition of libel in this instance. (For one thing, I haven't seen everyone's comments in context.)

Aside from whatever satisfaction Rush might get from the experience (assuming that would outweigh the hassle factor), I think Rush would be doing a significant public service inasmuch as the news media is way, way too casual about throwing around false information. Yes, about conservatives, but generally as well. A few lawsuits might remind some reporters and editors that if they don't care about accuracy out of pride in a job well done, they might care about it to save their own bank balances.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:13 AM

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Another on Rush

Another on Rush, from a Steelers fan:
Dear Amy Ridenour,

I am glad people are talking about boycotting the NFL. I have already emailed them to let them know of my intent. I almost ditched the Steelers last Super Bowl when Mr. Rooney thanked President Obama. As a huge Steelers fan myself, this was the last straw for me and the entire NFL.

Thanks.

Joseph McCoy
Oil City, PA

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:09 PM

Another Thought About Rush

Another observation about Rush and the NFL:
Unlike the opposition, Rush Limbaugh handled this situation with class. But let this be a warning! This is a good snapshot of what is happening to OUR country. How dare the left stand on their soap box and play the race card. So far their objectives and goals about Rush Limbaugh are the only transparent objectives and goals of this administration.

Best regards,

Jeanne

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:03 AM

More on Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

On Rush Limbaugh and the NFL, more from the mailbag:
When our youngest (of 3) child became a serious soccer player, he introduced us to the world of international "football" or soccer. Now twenty years old, he has announced that he will never buy an NFL ticket or another NFL jersey, and he doesn't even listen to talk radio. If you were to check out his Facebook page, you would see an appeal to free Plaxico. He is well informed about the NFL and its players and the rather uneven penalties meted out to the players depending on where they may be found "guilty", and he may still watch a Panthers game or two, but he will save his money for English Premier League, European Soccer or World Cup.

And this is where the NFL is (pardon the expression) idiotic. The world of sports viewership is now global. And as William has pointed out this week to us, you don't hear the EPL players making political statements or any of the European or African players we follow. The governing bodies of international soccer may be territorial, but they are most definitely not commenting on the politics of team owners. A Russian thug can buy an English team, but that won't affect whether we root for Chelsea FC or not (we are, in fact, Arsenal FC, another London club, fans; and they are affectionately know as the "gooners", nothing politically correct about that, despite the rampant political correctness in the UK).

So, good luck NFL, I have been introduced to the excitement of the EPL and I will now allow that to monopolize my weekend viewing. An American actually owns a piece of Arsenal, but that doesn't affect my affections one iota. I will delight in the skills of players from Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, France, England, Bosnia, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mexico, and any other country that produces Arsenal talent. And, guess what, these players even understand economics (unlike some loud mouths from the NFL who have no problem alienating me and my pocketbook) and have commented on how the increase of UK income taxes from 40% to 50% this year will affect where they choose to play and the contracts they negotiate. Witness the top player in the world leaving Manchester for a Spanish team this year.

We now live in a GLOBAL economy. The NFL has just revealed how provincial it really is. So weekdays if I'm in my car, I'll listen to Rush; and weekends I'll be tuned in to the soccer channels. I grew up on Johnny Unitas and the Baltimore Colts. I'll relish my football memories as I savor political debate. Life is too short to waste time on Keith O's pregame show or whining football players. RIP, NFL. Your competition is global and your days are numbered. That's what they put the nets up for, regardless of the sport.

Mary Bejan
Durham, NC 27707

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 AM

Friday, October 16, 2009

Quote of Note: Did Rush Really Lose?

"...most of the same people who want Limbaugh ostracized are the same ones who think it is OK for Roman Polanski to drug and rape a 13 year old. These are also the same people, the white ones, who do not want Michael Vice to ever play again, or at least to make his life a living hell as long as he does play.

In the end, and to their shame, the group of potential owners caved in and removed Rush Limbaugh from the investor group saying that it was not worth it to keep Rush involved if it risked their not getting the franchise.

In the past 2 days ESPN and other media outlets have been announcing that Rush Limbaugh has been punted, and there is I am sure great rejoicing in this in many quarters, particularly in the black community and on the left. They see this as some great victory. This is very sad. Why? Because I ask the simple question, who really won and who really lost? Did Rush really lose? Did black players or even more so black Americans win?

Rush is still the most popular radio personality in America. He will still earn over $25 million a year, and he will still want Barack Obama to fail. Nothing has changed.

At the same time, will one black child do better in school? Will one less gang killing take place in Chicago, Philly LA. Will the Rams play any better? The answer is of course no. No new jobs have been created and Iran, North Korea are still feverishly building nuclear weapons.

This is a sad state for our nation. Black America in the grip of the Liberal establishment is more addicted to mediocrity than they are to 'Crack Cocaine.' They are the willing pawns in the Liberal game. This is a sad state. In the end everyone that needs to win loses."

-Eddie Huff, "NFL vs. Rush Limbaugh - Who's The Real Loser," New Black Thought, October 14, 2009


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:56 PM

Copyright The National Center for Public Policy Research