This Is Completely Ridiculous!

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Thu Feb 19 15:28:57 MST 2009


[Know what? These two stories just tripled my blood pressure! In the first one, the loser senior editor at New Yorker magazine (read by well-heeled parakeets everywhere) cannot justify his comparison of Limbaugh to Bull Connor, a virulent racist. He's just out to smear with the politics of detruction! How infantile! Joe Scarborough does a good job of applying pressure to this clown, but I think all who read this out to blister Hertzberg's tender sensibilities with angry prose. I'm not talking about mail-bombing anyone. Leave that to the lefties. Write this fool a very terse e-mail and send it to him! The second piece is about Chris Matthews throwing yet another tantrum, with Limbaugh in his gun sights. Look at the silly questions that Matthews asks! Matthews' attempts to goad a Republican strategist into bad-mouthing Rush show that Matthews hasn't grown up, either. I can't wait until Matthews runs for Specter's seat next year. I'm going to wear him out everywhere he goes that is west of Harrisburg! Matthews is also deserving of a demeaning scolding! - JAQ:]



New Yorker Editor: Rush Limbaugh 'Very 
Similar' to Bull Connor 

     New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg appeared on Wednesday's Morning Joe on MSNBC and compared Rush Limbaugh to 1960s segregationist and Ku Klux Klan member Bull Connor. He also linked Barack Obama to Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to Hertzberg: "And I'm not saying that Obama is Martin Luther King or that Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the opposition, is Bull Connor. But the dynamic is very similar." 

     Hertzberg, who once wrote for Newsweek, was on the MSNBC program to promote his new article that touts President Obama for embracing "Gandhian hardball" in the mold of the civil rights movement. Specifically, the New Yorker editor asserted that Obama used this strategy in the way that he fought congressional Republicans over the stimulus bill. Hertzberg told Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough: "You know, when, when [Martin Luther] King offered non-violence, when the civil rights movement came out and was non-violent and then the other side greeted it with fire hoses and clubs, nobody said, 'Oh, King has failed in his effort to have non violence.'" 

     [This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Wednesday afternoon, with video, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/02/18/new-yorker-editor-compares-rush-limbaugh-bull-connor>newsbusters.org ] 

     (It should be pointed out that Bull Connor, the Alabama public safety commissioner in the '60s, was a Democrat, thus making Hertzberg's comparison even more faulty.) Scarborough began the segment by reading from the New Yorker article. The conservative host offered an aside that the piece made him want to "throw up in my mouth a little." 

     Hertzberg wrote in the February 23, 2009 issue: "Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if or especially if the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it's not Rovian hardball he's playing. More like Gandhian hardball." 

     For the article online: <http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/02/23/090223taco_talk_hertzberg>www.newyorker.com 

     Later in the segment, Scarborough attacked the notion that the stimulus bill was bipartisan. He derided: "But in my mind, and you've seen the show, I try to be somewhat down the middle as much as I can - um, Barack Obama offered a cocktail party and invitation to the Super Bowl." 

     A partial transcript of the February 18 segment, which aired at 8:30am EST: 

     JOE SCARBOROUGH: Welcome back, we're having a debate about the 1990s right now with senior editor and political writer of the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, who wrote this in the latest issue of The New Yorker: "50 years ago the civil rights movement understood that nonviolence can be effective weapon even if, or especially if the other side refuses to follows suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship. Which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise can succeed as a tonal strategy once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning how to throw the ball harder. But it's not Rovian hardball he's playing, it's more like-" I'm going to throw up in my mouth a little bit when I say this but I'm going to get the sentence out- "Gandhian hardball."      ... 

     8:32 
     SCARBOROUGH: Did Gandhi go to the British and say "I won?" You're talking about How it's not Rovian. I thought it was a very Rovian display over the past week, where Rahm Emanuel was bragging about Obama mocking Republican people. Obama telling Republican senators, "Hey, I won. We're going to write the bill the way we want to write it." That's Gandhian? 

     HENDRIK HERTZBERG (The New Yorker): You got to learn a little bit more about what the Indian independence movement was really like. It was a whole of people and they weren't all wearing loin cloths. But this is.....this is.........I'm making this comparison, essentially, between the civil-rights movement and, and Obama. And I'm not saying that Obama is Martin Luther King or that Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the opposition, is Bull Connor. But the dynamic is very similar. You know, when, when King offered non-violence, when the civil rights movement came out and was non-violent and then the other side greeted it with fire hoses and clubs, nobody said, "Oh, King has failed in his effort to have non- violence." 

     SCARBOROUGH: But, but, I mean, Barack Obama in your mind, in the mind of people that write for the New Yorker, Barack Obama offered bipartisanship. But in my mind- and you've seen the show, I try to be somewhat down the middle as much as I can- um, Barack Obama offered a cocktail party and invitation to the Super Bowl. What did Barack Obama offer to make himself Gandhian? 

     HERTZBERG: One third of his package was tax cuts. One third. 

     SCARBOROUGH: To who? 

     HERTZBERG: Oh, sorry, but it was to people who actually need and might spend the money. 

     SCARBOROUGH: To who? 

     HERTZBERG: Not to the rich. In other words, is your test that if you don't give a lot of money to the rich, a lot of tax cuts to the rich, then you're, then you're what? You're not bipartisan? 

     SCARBOROUGH: Your argument, though, is he gave tax cuts and, so, he was bipartisan. But, I don't know a single Republican in Washington that would give $80 billion in earned income tax credits, which most Republicans see as income tax cuts for people who don't pay income taxes. So, we can debate that. And you can take the traditionally liberal side and I can take the traditionally conservative side. But, it ain't bipartisanship to put in $80 billion of that. 

<file://#top>
[]


 

[]
Matthews Prods Guest: 'Say Something 
Nasty About Rush Limbaugh!' 

     Chris Matthews is so obsessed with Rush Limbaugh's influence within the Republican Party, that he repeatedly dared, on Wednesday night's Hardball, GOP strategist Todd Harris to speak ill of the radio talk show host as he mockingly challenged: "Would you live in a country where he wrote the Constitution?...Would you live in a country where he wrote our rights?...Say something nasty about Rush Limbaugh!" 

     [This item, by the MRC's Geoffrey Dickens, was posted Wednesday evening on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2009/02/18/matthews-dares-gop-guest-say-something-nasty-about-rush-limbaugh>newsbusters.org ] 

     After playing a clip of a Saturday Night Live skit -- in which two Republicans argue over who is smarter, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh -- Matthews asked his guest panelists Harris and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, to evaluate how powerful Limbaugh was within the GOP in the following exchange on the February 18 edition of Hardball: 

     CHRIS MATTHEWS: That joke, which was, "That we wouldn't want to speak anything unfavorably of Rush Limbaugh, our god- 

     TODD HARRIS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Thou shall not speak ill of Rush Limbaugh. 

     MATTHEWS: -the oracle of thieves, you know, the great oracle of Delphi," rather. Is he that big in your world? I mean really do you look up to him as the smartest person in America? 

     HARRIS: I don't know. 

     MATTHEWS: You personally, Todd Harris? 

     HARRIS: No, I don't think he's-, no. 

     MATTHEWS: You don't? Do your confers? 

     HARRIS: I'm sorry? 

     MATTHEWS: Do your confers? Your colleagues on the Republican side look up to him as a great thought person? 

     HARRIS: Yes a lot of people do. A lot of people- 

     MATTHEWS: A deep thinker? 

     HARRIS: Yeah and sure, sure. 

     MATTHEWS: Okay. 

     HARRIS: And, and he, look, he is the intellectual lightning bolt of a lot of people on, on the conservative side and a motivator. And he, and he directly can turn out people to the polls and because of that he's very powerful. 

     MATTHEWS: Would you live in a country where he wrote the Constitution? 

     HARRIS: I don't know. No, I- 

     MATTHEWS: Would you live in such a country? 

     HARRIS: No I'm happy to live in this country. But, but- 

     MATTHEWS: Would you live in a country where he wrote our rights? Listed our rights? Where he listed our rights. Would you live, would you live in that country? 

     HARRIS: No because, no because I want to make this point he is no more powerful or influential within the Republican Party than the labor unions, MoveOn, SEIU on, on, on the Democratic side. 

     MATTHEWS: Oh here we go. "Oh so's your old man." This is "so's your old man." I would expect more of you Todd than "So's your old man," kind of arguments. In other words, "You guys have idiots too on the other side." Andy Stern and Rush Limbaugh. About the same? Yeah. 

     MATTHEWS: Is he a sacred cow? 

     HARRIS: Limbaugh? 

     MATTHEWS: Yeah. In other words you dare not speak evil of him if you're a Republican? 

     HARRIS: I think if you're an elected Republican it makes your life very difficult- 

     MATTHEWS: Ha! 

     HARRIS: -if you speak ill of Rush Limbaugh. Yeah Limbaugh, he has a lot of support. 

     STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Or if you are a commentator on Hardball. But- 

     MATTHEWS: But you're not afraid to take him on are you? 

     HARRIS: Oh yeah. No I'm gonna go- 

     MATTHEWS: Say something, say something wrong, say something nasty about Rush Limbaugh! 

     HARRIS: I could probably beat him in arm-wrestling. 

     MATTHEWS: Okay you chicken. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090219/7facab26/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cc7afc.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2045 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090219/7facab26/attachment.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cc7b0b.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2864 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20090219/7facab26/attachment-0001.jpg 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list