October 28, 2009

The phony quotes keep coming — and they go viral before even very quick corrections.

Yesterday, Yale lawprof Jack Balkin had to backtrack:
As I suspected, Justice Scalia did not say he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The newspaper account is incorrect and took his remarks out of context.
Although Professor Balkin picked up the story and wrote about it, to his credit, from the start, he hedged with phrases like "[i]f the current report is accurate."

The misrepresentation of Scalia's remarks went viral almost instantly, which is the way things go these days. Damage is done, even when the corrections are instantaneous.

This reminds me of those recent fake Rush Limbaugh quotes and the subsequent screw-up by Rush himself propagating some phony Barack Obama quotes. Rush was much better and quicker than his attackers about making a correction, but there's still some controversy about the way he corrected himself:
... I was libeled and slandered by countless members of the media, fabricated quotes, made-up quotes I never stated, never uttered, never wrote, nothing, were repeated all over this country by sportswriters, television cable hosts and so forth.  After we proved to them that I didn't do it they retracted it a week later, after the damage, and many of them said, "It still doesn't matter, we know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." 

So last Friday, I get a note from a friend who says, "You ought to see what's on this blog."  I looked at it, and it was Obama, his thesis from Columbia, "so-called Founders," didn't like what they did with the Constitution, there wasn't enough talk about distribution of wealth and so forth. I said, "Well, this has a ring of truth to it," because we've got Obama on radio from Chicago 2001 complaining about the Supreme Court not doing enough about redistribution.  So we ran with it, made a big deal out of it in the first hour.  In the second hour, I got a note saying, "Hey, Rush, we looked at this, we can't back this up, we can't find any actual sourcing for this."  So at that point I warned the audience that it may not be true, that we are still checking it. 

Shortly thereafter I learned that the whole thing was made up, it was a satire piece on an obscure website.  Then I said, "Okay, folks, I have to tell you, it's satire, there's no evidence that Obama ever wrote this, but, Media Tweak of the Day, I don't care, I know he thinks it anyway because I've got audio of Obama saying it, talking about the Supreme Court."  And we all got a great laugh about it because I corrected it immediately, I explained that it was a hoax, or was satire and then to tweak the media I said, "But I don't care, I'm sticking with it because I know he thinks it anyway."  So I dished out to Obama what the whole media did to me and I dished it back at the media as well....
Everyone jumped all over that, of course, because he didn't say he was sorry before he did what would be an otherwise justified punch-back at the media for the way they savaged him with fake quotes and withheld even corrections, not to mention apologies. Now, he must know that he screwed up what would have been excellent media criticism by not properly abasing himself first. You can see that he was milking the no sense of humor theme, but these talking heads who hate him are never going to find his sense of humor delightful, and he made it completely easy to portray him as a fool because he didn't first get in a clean apology ritual.

73 comments:

traditionalguy said...

If they intentionally screw it up so bad that all the internet seems to be a sea of false quotes slandering attributed speakers...then the only answer will become Content Monitoring of the Internet by expanding government regulations. Surprise, surprise.

rhhardin said...

You have to stand by your jokes.

Shanna said...

I’m not sure why you would believe that Obama’s thesis, which people have been trying to get their hands on for a bit, would just randomly be on a website without checking it.

If this was all a plan to mirror exactly what was done to Rush in the context of one show, then I think it was nice piece of theater. If they really believed it in that first hour, well that was dumb.

Florida said...

"The misrepresentation of Scalia's remarks went viral almost instantly, which is the way things go these days."

It's not just "the way things go" it's the way they're designed to go.

The Rush Limbaugh experience recently should have taught you that, Ann.

Study after study after study demonstrate two key points:

1) People believe what they read, even if common sense would tell them not to.

2) People almost never read retractions or corrections.

If you want to defame someone, you merely have to write it down and tomorrow retract your statements or otherwise correct the record.

The damage will be done.

And at virtually no cost to your credibility.

The media understand these studies and some even paid for these studies.

They know exactly what they are doing.

kentuckyliz said...

I thought Rush's bit was brill when I heard it. It was so perfect how the MSM fell for the bait and walked right into that trap. They are so unselfaware.

Pogo said...

Mark Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."


It was ever thus.

kentuckyliz said...

I don't believe the "we got a note..." bit. I think Rush knew it was fake when they started it, and did the gradual reveal, to set up the game.

Of course, those who think he is an idiot would think it past him to masterfully run such a game.

Sloanasaurus said...

There is of course a huge difference between the Rush Story and the Obama story. I never heard about the fake Columbia story until I read this Althouse post. In contrast the fake Rush quotes were everywhere - the media was jamming it down our throats. The media was attempting to destroy Rush by calling him a racist. Rush was just trying to perpetuate the idea that Obama hates America.

And yes, Rush still believes that Obama hates America. So do I, and so do most conservatives. No. Obama hates the America that we love - the America of the founders, where freedom is first, government is second. Obama is in fact our first non-American president. (one could argue that Woodrow Wilson was an anti-american president). Obama is like the first non-Roman Roman emperor. It's going to happen eventually, but that doesn't prevent our lamenting about it.

The problem with Obama types and liberals in this country is they cannot be honest about their beliefs becasue they know that most people in this country still believe in traditional American values - freedom, capitalism, small government. There is always a man behind the curtain with liberals. They have to pretend to adhere to these values, while tyring to pass policies that are in contrast. Obama was a master at lying about what he really believes, but the truth is coming out for all to see.

Paul Zrimsek said...

And yes, Rush still believes that Obama hates America. So do I, and so do most conservatives.

Say what? Obama loves America like Ike loved Tina.

Peter V. Bella said...

The MSM or so called traditional media retract- somewhere where it can't be read or heard. A short sentence.

They rarely, if ever apologize to people. Just to their audience for making the mistake. Why should Rush, or for that matter anyone on the right or left- do any different?

Oh, yeah, "this" president is different. History must be made. A legacy must be preserved.

al said...

If Obama would just release his college records and papers for everyone to see there wouldn't be any issues about phony quotes - at least wrt his college record. For some reason he wants to hide them.

Peter S. said...

Rush: 'After we proved to them that I didn't do it they retracted it a week later, after the damage, and many of them said, "It still doesn't matter, we know Limbaugh thinks it anyway."'

Honest question: So who said this? Who followed up their retractions with statements that, in essence, "we know [he] thinks it anyway?" It this Rush's version of a specific case, or just some broad characterization of the "kinds" of things the media did?

Titus said...

I too have been a victim of misinformation and the damage to my reputation is unimaginable.

garage mahal said...

Limbaugh got suckered on a bogus internet story about Obama and broadcast it to millions? No way!

MadisonMan said...

I agree with kentucky Liz -- Rush knew the whole time it was fake.

Fred4Pres said...

I vaguely recall once hearing Justice Scalia say that Brown v. Board of Education was justifiable because it was soundly based on the 14th Amendment. Justice Scalia was explaining why judical activism is wrong and where it is justified because of existing law and amendments.

AJ Lynch said...

I have seen or heard an audio or video interview where Obama said the constitution's shortcoming is it does not address "redistributive wealth".

I believe it was an interview done in 2000 or 2001 when he was a state rep and it was on a Chicago public [socialist] station.

So even if Obama's thesis has not been found and he did not write the words, he believes it aka the Dan Rather school of journalism aka "fake but accurate".


wv = storm = phils will throw a shitstorm on the old, washed up Yankees.

From Inwood said...

Peter S

You're behind the curve. Google the comments of folks like Chris Matthews. They went for the "fake but accurate" approach when it was impossible for them to continue to lie about the accuracy of the comments falsely attributed to Rush.

Prof A.

I don't know what you're talking about. I agree with kentuckyliz. I happened to be listening to Rush that day & he hedged his bets on the the story being the truth, the whole truth…. early on. Then, when his staff, having researched at his request, found that the story was, indeed, a satire, he acknowledged the truth but added the zinger that under the MSM rules of engagement of people we don't like, a/k/a, standards for judging conservatives (now Scalia), it was "fake but accurate", so there.

Chris Matthews, for one, still doesn't get Rush’s point.

former law student said...

There was no need to make up fake Rush quotes because what he said on the ESPN broadcast was damning enough. He can plead he was misunderstood all he likes -- too bad Jimmy the Greek was no longer available to commiserate with.

Poor Rush has always been picked on, ever since he described on his TV show a picture of Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog." It was an accident people! Come on!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

he (Rush)didn't say he was sorry before he did what would be an otherwise justified punch-back at the media for the way they savaged him with fake quotes and withheld even corrections, not to mention apologies.

Why should he say he was sorry?

He wasn't sorry. He made a mistake and said so. But he wasn't, he isn't, he shouldn't be "sorry".

I am personally sick to death of all this fake apologizing in public officials and everyone else. They aren't sorry for their actions. They don't intend to change their actions.....they are just sorry they got caught.

If you are not sorry about something do not lie and say you are. I've told my child that if you are really sorry, feel bad, feel shame, feel sorrow say so....if not confess you made a mistake, did wrong and try to fix it and don't do it again. BUT DON'T tell me a lie.

A fake apology is worse than the original offense or mistake.

Henry said...

FLS wrote: There was no need to make up fake Rush quotes because what he said on the ESPN broadcast was damning enough.

Well, obviously, someone felt the need.

But this is the way of all media today. Everything has to be a George Tenet slam dunk.

Joan said...

Now, he must know that he screwed up what would have been excellent media criticism by not properly abasing himself first.

Chiming in with KentuckyLiz and From Inwood -- I heard the original broadcast, and Rush all along was saying that it was unsourced, there was the definite possibility that the quotes were made up. He was quite clear about that.

I saw a story on this linked from HotAir last night and it cracked me up because there was not one link to Rush's site, just to snippets of quotes from Rush on MediaMatters. You know when the "reporter" doesn't quote the source directly, they're manipulating the story past all reason.

slarrow said...

Peter S., two examples are Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star/Fox Sports. They originally began spreading this nonsense and, when called on it, offered up only mealy-mouthed apologies. Burwell's kinda-sorta mea-culpa was actually edited to remove even that from the public record (cowards).

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/9AF899FB9806F64E8625764F0014626D?OpenDocument

See the editor's note there.

Jason Whitlock's article precisely demonstrates this behavior, though. He says he shouldn't have used the quotes because he didn't need them to establish that Limbaugh is "America's most successful race hustler."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10256766/Upon-further-review:-The-word-on-Rush

There you go.

Crimso said...

"There was no need to make up fake Rush quotes because what he said on the ESPN broadcast was damning enough. He can plead he was misunderstood all he likes -- too bad Jimmy the Greek was no longer available to commiserate with."

There was no need to make up fake Obama quotes because what he said to Joe The Plumber was damning enough. He can plead he was misunderstood all he likes -- too bad Karl Marx was no longer available to commiserate with.

Peter S. said...

Inwood:

I admit it. I'm behind the curve. And perhaps my Google-fu is on empty. But I can't find any Matthews quotes.

Please help me my linking to or at least quoting your source -- the one that, you imply, everyone up-to-speed knows.

FWIW, I did find David Sanchez saying the following, which fits the Rush model:

"Limbaugh’s response to this is- and we want to be fair to Rush- he says, ‘We’ve gone back. We have looked at everything else, and there is not even an inkling that any of the words in that quote are accurate. It is outrageous.’ So Rush Limbaugh is denying that that quote has come from him.

"Obviously, that does not take away the fact that there are other quotes which have been attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which many people in the African-American community and many other minority communities do find offensive."


But you just told me that Matthews said it -- or something appreciably like it. Did he really?

Or did you just make that up? Did you possibly misremember? Are you in error?

And, if so, do you owe Chris M. an apology?

Peter

P.S. And keep in mind that you cannot support you claim by referring to Matthews saying anti-Rush things in other contexts. That would be pulling a Sanchez.

traditionalguy said...

I remember the Kristallnacht mass robbery scheme by the nazi guys was said to be justified by an attack on a Nazi by a Jew.A convenient event was used like the Reichstag Fire had been earlier. The attacks on Emperor Obama by hateful private property clinging re-distribution targets are not going to be allowed last much longer. A the sudden take over of the unfiltered Internet and any Radio-free America broadcast stations will soon be upon us.

Henry said...

Off topic, but who pulled Maureen Dowd's fangs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/28dowd.html

Rialby said...

Anyone want to apply for the new cabinet-level position, "Czar of Leftist Smears". Responsibilities include:

* staging smears
* pretending to facilitate their retraction

slarrow said...

Peter S.: after a little Google-fu, here's the original version of Burwell's article. (Sorry for cut-and-paste link before; sometimes Blogspot eats my comments when I include links.)

Money quote from that:

"Fine, let's play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book. Heck, let's go along for the full ride and believe that it was all a horrible 'fabrication.'

So what are we left with?

Well, essentially, I think we just threw a deck chair off the Titanic.

There is still a huge pile of polarizing, bigoted debris stacked up on the deck of the good ship Limbaugh that he can't deny or even remotely distance himself from."

As for Althouse's contention that Limbaugh should have apologized anyway, I disagree. That's like taking the bait from the trap. Besides, they would have just preened over his having to "apologize". Why give people who operate in bad faith what they claim to want? Why reward that behavior instead of continuing to expose it?

gaywrites said...

"Obama is in fact our first non-American president."

Good to see the birthers are out in full force.

Andy Freeman said...

> There was no need to make up fake Rush quotes because what he said on the ESPN broadcast was damning enough.

These quotes are so "damning enough" that you don't bother to actually provide them.

Are you concerned about getting caught misquoting or concerned that that your conclusion doesn't follow from the actual quotes?

If something actually speaks for itself, the honest person lets it.

David Walser said...

@Peter S. - Here's an example of the type of thing Rush was complaining about:

Limbaugh claimed on his radio show Monday that his staff could not find any proof that he ever joked about slavery. I'm sorry. Limbaugh doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters.... [Emphasis added.]

The author, sports columnist Jason Whitlock, has the rare talent of reading other people's thoughts. In his column Whitlock not only claims Rush's race record is so bad he no longer gets the benefit of any doubt, he informs us Rush never intended to buy the St. Louis Rams. It was all a publicity stunt.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/20227

Roux said...

Rush loves to tweak the media because he knows they misuse every word he says.

jeff said...

"Poor Rush has always been picked on, ever since he described on his TV show a picture of Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog." It was an accident people! Come on!"

What year was that again? How many seconds passed before the apology?

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric said...

fls:There was no need to make up fake Rush quotes because what he said on the ESPN broadcast was damning enough.

Rush said Donovan Macnab was overrated. How is that damning?

edutcher said...

Rush said...

I explained that it was a hoax, or was satire and then to tweak the media I said, "But I don't care, I'm sticking with it because I know he thinks it anyway."

I'm a fan generally, but doing "fake but accurate" isn't any more justified even if it's been done to you.

Stick with the truth, Rushbo. Let the Lefties do all the lying. The days when they could get away with it are over.

Der Hahn said...

Peter S., a bunch of people are making a point about the fake Rush quotes that needs to be made often.

If there are other Rush quotes that rise to the level of denying him part ownership in an NFL team, why was it necessary to use fake ones?

The guy has been running his mouth on air for three hours a day, five days a week for at least ten, maybe twenty years now. He gives speeches. He writes op-eds. He appears on TV and even had a short-lived show of his own. I don't know but it's possible he's written a book or two.

Show us the money.

Where are these quotes, indisuptable from Rush, that are as damming as the fake ones?

And spare me any more references to 'Crips and Bloods without weapons' and 'McNabb is overrated'. If those were good enough, there wouldn't have been any need to trot out the fake ones.

Peter S. said...

Hi slarrow and David,

I submitted a longer comment on slarrow's original post before he linked to the original Burwell piece, but the Internets seem to have eaten that comment.

In it, I focused on the rather straightforward and unambiguous nature of the Post-Dispatch editor's retraction note. But in this article, Burwell seems pretty clear in the moves he's trying to make. The worse for him.

I also spoke to the rather limited nature of Whitlock's rejoinder. He doesn't say that Rush is a racist, but a "race hustler," just like (his examples) Jesse and Al. Whether you agree or not, I think you can make that claim without mind-reading abilities.

Still, your points are taken and your examples are strong.

Thanks for the help,
Peter

P.S. I suppose Burwell and Whitlock don't exactly spring to mind when I think of the MSM, but that's a different issue. Perhaps they are huge in the area of sports reporting and opinion. I honestly don't know.

Peter S. said...

@Hahn,

Points taken.

But I thought that Ann and Rush were talking about a certain strain of fake apologies and fake retractions -- not whether or not the quotes were fake.

Chase said...

Poor Rush has always been picked on, ever since he described on his TV show a picture of Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog." It was an accident people! Come on!

fls -

Are you SERIOUS?

So why do perpetuate the very thing this post is pointing out - misrepresentation?


Here is the actual incident regarding Chelsea.

The Hateful left-wing media still inaccurately and deliberately passes around the Chelsea story - even all these years later: Time Magazine.

And here's a peek into the liberal mind about this through the Democratic Underground last summer. Notice how the last comment showing the real transcript shuts up the liberal hate search conversation.


Which means you have to ask:

Is it possible to ever trust any History written or told by a liberal Historian?


Liberal Historians are like the serpent in the Garden of Eden: 90% of the serpent's words to Eve were true. It was that false 10% that led to such disastrous consequences.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV said...

Peter S.: "Honest question: So who said this? Who followed up their retractions with statements that, in essence, "we know [he] thinks it anyway?" It this Rush's version of a specific case, or just some broad characterization of the "kinds" of things the media did?"

To the list started by others, add Michael Wilbon's column in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503799.html

An equally mealy-mouthed "it doesn't matter what the reality is, this is what I think, so..." essay.

MadisonMan said...

I am personally sick to death of all this fake apologizing in public officials and everyone else.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Carol_Herman said...

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I'm so glad I was actually tuned in and LISTENING to Rush. Last Thursday, or Friday. Because he did point out that Joe Klein didn't write anything for TIME MAGAZINE, that could be 'sourced.' BUT, Rush had an old AUDIO of Obama. When he was State Senator. And, he did address the Warren Court's "REMISS" of not adding "distribution of wealth" as a cure to the affirmative action 'needs' for re-dress. IN Obama's own voice! Clearly stated.

former law student said...

So why do perpetuate the very thing this post is pointing out - misrepresentation?

To show this sort of thing has been going on a long time, and to show that people are prepared to believe unflattering things about Rush.

Rush said Donovan Macnab was overrated. How is that damning?

First, that is a kindly summary of what Rush actually said. Second, consider that all that Jimmy the Greek said was that slavemasters practiced selective breeding with their human chattel, yet that barred him from working in broadcast sports again.

Shooting off your mouth disqualifies you from certain sensitive positions. Remember: the First Amendment applies only to government; private individuals can still tell you to STFU.

edutcher said...

former law student said...

... consider that all that Jimmy the Greek said was that slavemasters practiced selective breeding with their human chattel, yet that barred him from working in broadcast sports again.

Shooting off your mouth disqualifies you from certain sensitive positions. Remember: the First Amendment applies only to government; private individuals can still tell you to STFU.


Hate to say it, but Jimmy, whom I could not abide BTW, was historically correct. So telling the truth or, at least, recounting an historical anecdote is "shooting off your mouth"? This wasn't "private individuals"; this was an organized blacklisting campaign, mainly, I suspect, to keep all us bitter clingers in our place.

Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting it's only blacklisting if the Lefties say it is.

AJ Lynch said...

Carol:

Thanks. You confirmed what I recalled as well. There is documented, recorded evidence of Obama espousing wealth re-distribution while discussing the constitution.

jkmack said...

all this discussion about the content of the fake quotes vs past real quotes is all nonsense.

It is a culture/political war. The Demonization of ideological opponents is what this is about, the truth is, a competent black man, including McNabb has no better friend than Rush Limbaugh, but democrats and race hustlers have to demonize him as racist to try and discredit his ideology and de-energize his listeners.

As he has been on for over 20 years and still peaking in popularity, I suspect they have failed.

I do appreciate the litmus test though, I am now able to instantly sum up a persons ideology with a few quick questions regarding the Rush fake quotes and the Rush Mcnabb comments.

MadisonMan said...

This wasn't "private individuals"; this was an organized blacklisting campaign, mainly, I suspect, to keep all us bitter clingers in our place.

I suspect it was done to keep advertisers happy. Very nervous and jumpy about any kind of controversy.

Follow the money

Bruce Hayden said...

There was no need to make up fake Rush quotes because what he said on the ESPN broadcast was damning enough. He can plead he was misunderstood all he likes -- too bad Jimmy the Greek was no longer available to commiserate with.

Rush still hasn't really apologized for that McNabb quote, and probably never will. He was right at the time, and the fact that it was uncomfortable and politically incorrect is no reason for him to apologize.

I do find it interesting that a lot of people got upset about the Crips and Bloods thing at the end there. He was talking about players gang signing in the end zones, getting shot at, shooting people, etc. In short, a lot of gang banger type stuff on the parts of the players at the time.

He hasn't really apologized for the Obama thing either, except that it actually didn't come from Obama. And, I think he is right not to apologize for that, esp. after what has happened to him.

But he immediately, and repeatedly, apologized for the Chelsea thing. He has put up the transcripts, and, I think, even the audio. He said he (or his staff) made a mistake, and that that was improper, wrong, etc.

I think that he was right on all of these. He apologizes when he screws up, esp. when it hurts an innocent (e.g. Chelsea).

WV: rerace - interesting coincidence with the McNabb and gang banger things here.

Stephen Snell said...

Crimso wins the thread.

IIRC correctly, Rush said that the MSM wanted to have a black QB succeed (perhaps they were busy masturbating to Gorbachev when Doug Williams won the Super Bowl MVP) and so the MSM overrated McNabb. The implication--arguably--was that McNabb wasn't that good.

So Rush may have been wrong about McNabb--the guy is quite good--but that doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong about the MSM. And you can say e.g. Tom Brady is overrated and still think Brady is a good player.

Jimmy the Greek was unwatchable, but I would have liked to know where he got the idea that he expressed.

The taboos on saying things that are debatable, arguably true, true, or reasonable opinion--those taboos pretty much ensure continued racial animosity (bad sentence structure notwithstanding).

rastajenk said...

I believe Rush was merely ahead of the curve with his McNabb comments. By then, Bengal fans had already been burned by the Akili Smith hype. Soon to come: Vince Young hype. Currently playing: the JaMarcus Russell flame-out.

This is not to suggest that blacks can't be NFL-level quarterbacks. That would be blatantly racist and not a true reflection of my personal attitudes. And certainly plenty of white QB's don't rise up to the expectations of so-called experts.

But it's certainly not race-neutral. That's what Limbaugh said to get fired, and he was right.

traditionalguy said...

Rush can defend himself. But in theory Hate Speech regulation should exempt sports commentary. Sports are the last remaining venue where good old fashioned hate can be expressed. Where do you think that Olberman got his hate every opponent shtick going? The Georgia Tech fight song ends with the mass crowd chanting "...and she will sing to hell with Georgia like her daddy used to do."

Jon said...

I would like you all to know that I remember listening to Rush during the early days of the Clinton Administration when he DID say something churlish about Chelsea's looks. He then got reamed out by his callers (for picking on a kid), to the point where he strongly apologized and then pledged never to say anything like it again.

former law student said...

This is not to suggest that blacks can't be NFL-level quarterbacks. That would be blatantly racist and not a true reflection of my personal attitudes.

That's mighty white of you, mighty white indeed. But I'm sure Hall of Famer Warren Moon would be glad to hear this. Randall Cunningham (not the disgraced former GOP congressman, natch) and the late Steve McNair would be glad as well.

Alex said...

FLS - and yet they all never won a super bowl, always losing to pasty-faced QBs.

ondeafears said...

Jon:

Rush personally apologized to Hillary Clinton for that remark.

ondeafears said...

Jon:

Rush personally apologized to Hillary Clinton for that remark.

former law student said...

FLS - and yet they all never won a super bowl, always losing to pasty-faced QBs.

Well, not everyone can be Doug Williams. He beat some pasty-faced loser -- what was his name again? Jake Elmore? James Elbow? It had a J and an El in it.

George Bruce said...

I think I will fix that quote:

"There is no need to make up any more fake Rush quotes because there are plenty of other fake ones circulating that are effective enough."

There. It is fixed now.

Cedarford said...

al said...
If Obama would just release his college records and papers for everyone to see there wouldn't be any issues about phony quotes - at least wrt his college record. For some reason he wants to hide them.


And if Sarah Palin would only release her gynecological records to Andrew Sullivan, the controversy would die away. For some reason, Palin and others resist sending their medical records to journalists who damand them. Privacy?? Go figure!!

It would be nice if politicians released lists of every course they had, book they read, girlfriend they dated...but then who would want to be a person with no privacy?

It seems that if the question of what Obama learned and what his attitudes are are so important...a good journalist could get off his or her ass and interview Punanu, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law classmates about Obama...and ask his past co-workers and GFs (Michelle was the 1st, apparant, "going black" GF he had).

For me, I am far more interested in the present. What he will do the next 3 years with the economy, healthcare, cap 'n trade, war, and international relations.
The campaign is over. What classes he had at Occidental College have absolutely no bearing on the arc of his Presidency.

Hopefully he will lose in 2012 and then his many remaining syncophants in the media can busy themselves writing his biography and getting nice bon mots from the bitches he slept with at Columbia.

Of course, they have to worry that The One already devotes part of his day to assembling the Next Great Book About Himself.

Joan said...

I don't know, C4, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to request to see a job applicant's college transcripts, especially when they don't have much relevant experience in the position for which they are applying.

Edgehopper said...

Cedarford-

1. There is an obvious difference between an academic record (which most employers just out of college will ask for) and medical records (which are typically private).

2. If a thesis doesn't matter to team Obama, one hopes they would condemn Creigh Deeds for running his entire campaign around McDonnell's college thesis.

3. The most damning thing about Obama's academic record is his lack of post-graduate publications, despite being a professor at UChicago Law School. I, a 2008 graduate from our esteemed host's alma mater, have more academic publications to my name (at 1).

4. That being said, it appears that Obama's paper is just lost. Columbia didn't have a thesis requirement when he was a student, so his paper wasn't an official thesis preserved for posterity. His wife's was, and was duly produced--after all, she went to a better school.

Mixalhs said...

My question is this: Is there any doubt that Scalia would have dissented in Brown? I don't think there is.

Mixalhs said...

Cedarford:

Obama's highschool is called "Punahou," not "Punanu." Considering the linguicide already committed against the Hawaiian people by Americans, we'd do well to at least not massacre the name of this rather prestigious high school.

Mixalhs said...

I'm sorry, Sloanasaurus, but by your definition of "anti-American" I'd say that GW has dibs on that title well before President Obama.

This quote seals the deal: "America of the founders, where freedom is first, government is second." Where you not here while Bush was expanding government beyond anything we've ever seen in the history of this country? Expanding the powers of the executive and trampling the powers of the people? Bankrupting our country with unprincipled wars based on "faulty" intelligence (read: lies)?

Seriously. You understand that comments like yours are why most intelligent people view "conservatives" with skeptism. The whole "conservative" movement is a scam. You believe in "freedom" and "capitalism," except when that "freedom" gets in the way of imposing your religious "values" on everyone else.

Yours is truly the disingenuous group. Indeed, what you call conservaitve is really just a hodge-podge of inconsistent principles clumped together to form a party. The religious right and the libertarians have very little in common, but have joined forces in order to create sustainable numbers. But this unholy alliance is destined to fail. Such a charade can last only so long, after all.

Richard said...

Mixalhs:
I'm sorry, Sloanasaurus, but by your definition of "anti-American" I'd say that GW has dibs on that title well before President Obama.

Seeing as how "GW" matches initials with only one President (George Washington), can we take your comments as being firmly on record that leftists such as yourself really do revile the Founders, and the individualist liberty-loving tradition they stand for?

JimAtLaw said...

Wow. Never seen the real story on the Rush/Chelsea thing before, it seems Franken and others repeating this story are flat out deliberately lying about what happened, and Franken in a book no less.

Amazing that someone like this could be elected to office, but then again, I'm sure the papers there would hesitate to report something like this that might militate against their preferred outcome.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, the "any means whatsoever to tear down anyone who doesn't follow The Party" and Barack "The One" philosophy continues unabated.

The Thinking Man's Man said...

Don't forget about the impostors who staged a U.S. Chamber of Commerce press conference last week and purported that the Chamber had switched its position on cap-and-trade. The political vitriol continues to escalate. And frankly, I can't help but point my finger at President Obama. He's tastelessly sought to ostracize all dissenters. Rush, the Chamber, and other conservative entities have all been the focus of gratuitous, acerbic public attacks by the President. And I think it emboldens other Democrats who do not feel that they need to carry on with the same degree of political tastefulness as Obama -- which Obama has set to a low bar.

From Inwood said...

Peter S

Good grief. You're still behind the curve since you even found the MSNBC guy who proves my point, which was the answer to your question:

“Who followed up their retractions with statements that, in essence, "we know [he] thinks it anyway?" It this Rush's version of a specific case, or just some broad characterization of the "kinds" of things the media did?

It's not a brilliant defense on your part to go on for 200 words to show that I misattributed this slavery non-apology apology to Matthews while correctly noting the zillion smarmy MSM guys who repeated this nonsense.

You were wrong in your challenge as has been shown by other commenters here & now, you won’t man up & acknowledge your error but want me to apologize &, I guess to show that Conservatives make mistakes, so there!

OK. Apparently Matthews never apologized to Rush for his network's lies about Rush favoring slavery.

Smart-ass reply by me?

Well, yes. So, I'll say: I was wrong to have mixed Matthews up with the other guy at MSNBC that you now realize who, along with the other non-apology apologists listed by other commenters, went with the fake but accurate stuff. No excuse.

Now I'm waiting for you to admit that "It still doesn't matter, we know Limbaugh thinks it anyway."' is a fair characterization of the non-apology apologies given by many of the people in the MSM who rushed to judgment.

Inwood

PS: Not that I shouldn’t have checked my incorrect attribution, &, I agree with you that confusion is no excuse, but obviously I was confusing Matthew's "non-apology apology" about his idea of Limbaugh's head exploding. The one where he made light of the entire episode, & emphasized how he had been able to bring in a wonderful movie reference which showed him so au courant, cool, & hip, but actually never said he was sorry.

Matthews is déclassé. And obsessed with Limbaugh. As is most of the MSM. When they’re not obsessing with FOX News, that is/

Gary Rosen said...

"Hopefully he will lose in 2012"

It will be more likely if you don't vote for him again, Fudd.

Crimso said...

"Where you not here while Bush was expanding government beyond anything we've ever seen in the history of this country?
......
Seriously. You understand that comments like yours are why most intelligent people view "conservatives" with skeptism."

You may or may not be technically correct if you literally mean "we've." You are most definitely incorrect if you mean to say "anything ever seen." You understand that comments like yours are why most intelligent people view those of your mindset with skepticism (I won't say non-conservatives, since I consider myself one), as you have obviously not familiarized yourself with the War of the Rebellion (not the Revolution, but the Civil War for those unaware of its official designation) and its aftermath.

Mixalhs said...

Richard:

What a clever (read: desperate) way of avoiding the substance of the issue.