by Jack Lee
Meet Gary Samore,
Will coordinate issues related to weapons of mass destruction across the government. His portfolio includes proliferation, nuclear and conventional arms control, threat reduction, and terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
Position sits within the National Security Council.
Is a veteran arms control negotiator.
B.A. in sociology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and his PhD in government from Harvard University in 1984.
After brief stints with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the RAND Corporation, joined the State Department during the Reagan administration in 1987. Held several positions there, including director of the Office of Regional Non-proliferation Affairs; special assistant to the Ambassador-at-Large for Non-proliferation and Nuclear Energy Policy; and deputy to Ambassador-at-Large for Korean Affairs Robert Gallucci. Helped to negotiate the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Framework Treaty
Joined the Clinton administration’s National Security Council in 1995 as an adviser on nonproliferation. Coordinated U.S. policy on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Was Director, Council on Foreign Relations (2006 to 2009); Vice President for Global Security and Sustainability, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (2005); Researcher, International Institute of Strategic Studies (2001 to 2005)
Ashton Carter has been criticizing the Pentagon for buying too many armaments it doesn’t need, decrying what he calls a lack of discipline and “failure to take account of cost growth in weapons systems and defense services.”
Will oversee a weapons-buying system that Obama has placed at the top of his list of federal programs he wants to fix and will be asked to quickly weigh in on difficult decisions concerning at least 10 major defense programs, while also instantly dissecting the procurement system’s ailments so he can advise the administration on its Pentagon acquisition reform agenda
Is a physicist and Harvard academic whose only previous Pentagon stint was in a mid-level policy post from 1993 until 1996 under the Clinton administration
Graduated from Yale summa cum laude; studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar and earned a doctorate in theoretical physics.
Chair of Harvard’s International Relations, Science & Security Area International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (1993 to 1996); Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School (early 1990s)
Has donated primarily to Democratic politicians since 2000. He donated $6,900 to then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2007 and 2008. He gave the same amount to then Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during that same span.
President Obama has appointed a total of 32 Czars.
Excellent post. Truth is always welcome.
You folks know I am not much of a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but hot damn if he does not get this dead nuts right —
Obama Puts Out Bounty on Supreme Court
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/03/obama_puts_out_bounty_on_supreme_court
Well, would you look at that, Jack? Turns out I was dead-on when I noted the “chain e-mail” quality of many right-wing blog stories–turns out the information in this article comes directly from an actual chain e-mail, according to this Christian conservative blogger:
http://davidholford.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/you-shall-not-bear-false-witness/
EDITORS NOTE: Chris, thank you for your thoughtful correction and I have taken the appropriate action. As it turns out you’re absolutely right, sort of. The reason the other 30 (also shown in that chain email) were not displayed here is because I could not verify the truth of the allegations and after resarching and researching I admit I wasn’t being very thorough. I actually did find some cooberation, but now I have to go back and check that source for where they got it.
NOTE: I felt it would be proper in the spirit of full disclosure to list their significant acheivements which prompted their appointments to their high positions.
So spreading lies for the greater good was obviously NOT part of my agenda, but if you think it was that is your prerogative and I must respect your opinion.
Sorry, but I don’t get it. I watched the speech today and I did not hear a bounty put out on the Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act is almost identical to Romney’s plan for Massachussetts and if the Supreme Court overturns it what happens to Massachussetts? If the government can’t force a mandate for health care, how can they mandate our social security and medicare contributions that Paul Ryan is trying to privatize with the latest budget? Most of the stuff in that plan was written by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s.
I am sick and tired of Limbaugh telling us what Republicans are supposed to believe. Bush had more Czars than Obama and we never heard word one about it. Romney is running around telling the media that Obama should release transcripts of all of his meetings with foreign leaders and Romney won’t even release his tax returns. Santorum said yesterday that at State universities in California students do not even have the option of taking a U.S. History class because they aren’t offered. This is a surprise to every student I know who is required to take it for graduation. These guys are the sleaziest liars out there who love to regulate things that make money or take power away from women but hate to regulate things that might actually keep water or air clean. Or money in the pockets of American workers. Romney is out there rooting AGAINST American car companies. What the heck? That is crazy!
The only decent Republican still in the race who refuses to sign pledges to the special interest groups like NOM is Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who says what he thinks and sticks with it through every debate. He is against war and doesn’t dance around it. He is speaking in Chico tonight and everyone should go to remember what it used to be like when Republicans were the thinking group at the table, not the radical lunatic fringe.
Chris, so you are saying because it came from a Christian Conservative blogger, it is false?
You should know these people were appointed as Czars, many admit to communist leanings.
I sent the e-mail to Jack, I did so because when I discovered 32 of them I wanted to share the information.
I knew of the Czars but was shocked to learn of how many.
Harriet, it’s okay. You had good intentions and I didn’t do enough research. There were 32 of them listed and I could only find info to cooberate two of the claims. I now have to retrace my steps and see why those sites carried similar info. The internet is a great source of information, but it can also be a source of disinformation. That hoax email is a good example of how low some people will stoop and why we just have to careful out here. Chris is perfect and never makes a mistake..right? lol (He would like to think so wouldn’t he? But, in truth he has some of the most wrong headed ideas of anyone I know, except for Libby)
Jack, thank you for taking out the inaccurate information.
I know you well enough to know that you do not INTENTIONALLY spread lies for your cause. But I do think you have a habit of pouncing on anything you hear which might hurt the other side and help your own, without verifying whether or not it’s actually true. The instinct to do this is part of human nature, but it’s a part that we need to be wary of. As the blogger I linked to notes, this habit has become far too common in politics, and it hurts our ability to be truly informed. After skimming through some of his other articles, I can see that I disagree with probably 95% of that blogger’s political beliefs, but on this point I think we can all agree.
Princess: “Santorum said yesterday that at State universities in California students do not even have the option of taking a U.S. History class because they aren’t offered.”
There’s no way he actually said this?
*Googles*
Holy crap! He actually said this!
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/02/santorum-makes-false-claims-about-californias-college-curriculum/
I was just reading something last night from the state of California, Santorum said at a campaign stop in Wisconsin. And that the California universities I think its seven or eight of the California system of universities dont even teach an American history course. Its not even available to be taught.
Perhaps Santorum isn’t intentionally lying here. If not, he’s clearly too misinformed to be anywhere near the presidency.
Harriet: “Chris, so you are saying because it came from a Christian Conservative blogger, it is false?”
No. Read more carefully. I was actually agreeing with the points made by the Christian conservative blogger I linked to. It was he who explained that most of the information in the chain e-mail you forwarded to Jack was false. I strongly encourage you to read his deconstruction of the e-mail. Like I said, he is a devout Christian who is very far to the right of myself; you would probably find a lot of agreement with him.
Jack: “Chris is perfect and never makes a mistake..right?”
Actually, I made a few in my first comment to this article. I said that Reagan “appointed” Samore to the State Department, which is probably not true. I also said that, according to Wikipedia, Obama had appointed 38 czars and Bush had appointed 33–but I had just linked to FactCheck pointing out that not all czars are appointed by the president, so obviously that made no sense. That’ll teach me to type in a rush.
Although, now I see that that entire comment has been deleted, and so was some of my second comment? In that case, I take it all back! You are correct Jack, I have never made a mistake in my entire life. 😉
Regarding the Czars, one more time.
Voelker, Van Jones,Cass Sunstein and Carol Browner were appointed Czars, so thre is some truth in he e-mail. Not entirely bogus.
Nope, Limbaugh got it right, you got it wrong. Frankly, I am sick and tired of pathetic posers like you. This is not the first time the great narcissist Obama has dissed the Supreme Court. Get a clue. You actually think Obama Care should be forced on the US? Get the hell out of my party please. (That was a joke, you are not a Republican.)
As for your completely asinine nonsense “These guys are the sleaziest liars out there who love to regulate things that make money or take power away from women but hate to regulate things that might actually keep water or air clean” there is really nothing to say except FAIL. What obvious, stupid, idiotic, seminar instructed political crap.
Do you really think anyone with half a brain is not fully aware that you are nothing more than a phony Rat/Obama stooge at this point?
Princess: “The Affordable Care Act is almost identical to Romney’s plan for Massachussetts and if the Supreme Court overturns it what happens to Massachussetts?”
Nothing. The states, under the US Constitution, can make laws that cover things like health care. The federal government was meant to handle only defense of the nation and disputes between the states. The rest was left for the people or the states to do. Things like education, the arts, transportation should not be federal departments. In the past 80 years our republic, under considerable progressive influence, has been been usurped.
“If the government can’t force a mandate for health care, how can they mandate our social security and medicare contributions…”
The obvious first answer is because we let them! But there is a difference.
Under Obamacare Individuals are compelled to purchase a product (health insurance). If they don’t they pay a fine. (I imagine most young people will pay the fine and buy the insurance only when/if they need it.
MCare and SS are programs funded through a payroll tax (contribution) and imposed on employees and employers. Both are forced to participate in this government managed “insurance” program. Employers are charged with collection of these taxes and if they fail to make timely deposits they are charged with interest and penalties. Employees are not held accountable.
“…that Paul Ryan is trying to privatize with the latest budget? Most of the stuff in that plan was written by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s.”
Yes…warnings go back to before the nineties when conservtives and libertarians alike were warning that the programs are unsustainable. The alternative is to continue on the current path and rack up excessive debt until we become Greece…no longer able to borrow or pay our debt and no longer able to pay for services or defend our nation (the one thing the fed is supposed to do constitutionally). So we can privatize or we can become Greece and leave our children and grandchildren a lousy legacy.
The one thing that would work best is having most Americans prosperous…that would require strong families and values, respect for the work ethic, a better educational system, and a strong sense of individuality where Americans, onvce again, feel responsible to meet their own needs, act as good neighbors, and participate in charitable organizations. We have a long way to go to meet those goals but it would be the best solution. when people mcan stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their own needs business has customers to whom they must answer…and keep prices down. when you stick government in the middle and create a middle man, a buffer, between busines and the customer a whole lot of waste and fraud takes place and prices go up.
“I am sick and tired of Limbaugh telling us what Republicans are supposed to believe…”
It’s just his opinion. You, the Republican Party, and individual Republican candidates are free to do what they want.
“…Romney won’t even release his tax returns”
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/main
Use the link to also read about how generous the Romneys are. (They didn’t inherit their money they earned it.)
“who love to regulate things that make money or take power away from women but hate to regulate things that might actually keep water or air clean…”
Princess for Gods sake we already have thousands and thousands of regulations for clean air and water…we don’t need more. In fact some of the regulations we have are based on falty assumptions and science. And women don’t need regulations to be empowered in their lives…free women don’t. Standing on your own and paying your own way is what a strong woman would do! (Why reade dependence on men for dependence on government?)
“Or money in the pockets of American workers.”
What are you talking about? A strong economy and a free people is what is needed for opportunity and choice for workers. Bigger government stifles business, limits opportunity and takes money out of everyone’s pocket! that’s what every Republican candidate wants.
” Romney is out there rooting AGAINST American car companies.”
Actually he’s rooting against government bailout of American car companies. He thinks that GM, for instance, should have gone through the normal bankrupty protection drill and restructuring. The bail out cost taxpayers money. Obama negotiated the deal to save union pensions and healthcare by giving them a percewntage of the company. He also screwed investors and some workers in the process.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/25/gms-union-on-road-to-recovery-after-stock-sale/?page=1
http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/558438/Local-Delphi-retirees-plead-case-to-House.html?nav=5021
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361663907855834.html
“not the radical lunatic fringe”
If it’s radical to think that Americans should figure out how to take care of themselves as adults, be responsible about marriage and creating and raising children, and pay their own way in life that would be news to me. If it’s radical to expect our educational system to teach about the tenets of our republic and the values that made America such an unprecedented success that’s news to me.
I think it’s radical and extreme to embrace the progressive big lie that everyone will have everything they need in abundance if government takes and redistributes the money that working folks earn (“other peoples money”) which progressives believe will always flow like water from a living spring. It’s radical to think that women need government to buy their birth control…or viagra for men! It’s extreme and radical for our educational system to spew environmental and anti-American propaganda and pretned it’s teaching science and history.
The Republican field are all good men and all desiring to serve the American people as we endeavor to restore American values and principles to our nation and an economy that promises a future worth having!
Hope you enjoyed seeing Dr. Paul tonight. He’s a good man and would make a good president.
The whole idea of czars has no place in our government. Cabinet posts must be ok’d by the Senate, but czars are accountable to nobody, and both political parties are at fault.
It’s time for someone in Congress to stand up and say “No more czars” and make goofernment more accountable. Hopefully after more Tea Partiers are elected in November . . . .
I tried a search on the two czars in Jacks article using various combinations of words. Several of the pages that might have been useful, in terms of information, had been removed.
We do not know whether the two men in this article had ties to or associations with communists. We do know there are communinists in the Democrat Party. There are organizations with Marxist goals supporting the Democrat Party. Prominent Democrats have, through the years, extoled the virtues of communism and embraced communist dictators. Students that support the Democrat Party wear Che t-shirts. Their protests are riddled with Marxist rhetoric. The Democrat Party embraces these communist ideas and supporters under their considebly Marxist leaning umbrella.
Democrats rarely announce their fondness and embrace of Marxist views, instead they attempt to wrap their views, and the goals and intentions that flow from them, in the American flag…a blatant deceit.
An inability to find evidence on the web doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, believing that would be absurd.
While Jack was remiss in failing to fact-check the email, the hauty tone in Chris’s criticism, now deleted along with the questionable information, was a bit snide. We are a discussion blog and Chris had every opportunity to express his disdain and rebuttal. Our readers, likewise, had every opportunity to check the information and decide for themselves as to the accuracy of the article. Some may have or find information not published on the internet.
Our self-appointed hall monitor is still on duty but we are not required to bend to his will.
The record of acedemic achievement of our current President cannot be varified online (or anywhere else) but that hasn’t stopped liberal progressive Democrats from touting his achievement and brilliance. They base it on his attendance at Harvard, the fact that he was elected to head the Harvard Law Review, and the assumtion that he is articulate (Is he without a memorized speech and teleprompter?). Is that enough information to determine brilliance? If not, does that mean liberal media and bloggers must pull all of their references to Obama “brilliance”?
Both the media and leftist bloggers make false assertions on a daily basis. It would be exhausting to attempt to correct all of it. Until talk radio, the internet, and blogging were available sources of information and opinion there were few voices from the right and certainly none that had an equivalent power the MSM has to sway opinion.
Liberal media and bloggers continue to operate as if this were still true. The spin continues to be that all liberals/Democrats are brilliant and all conservatives/Republicans are stupid.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2009/04/maybe-brilliant-isnt-exactly-right-word-obama/37650
After nearly three years of his presidency and two of campaigning for the office its clear, the left, including media, have zero interest in answering the question! They have no problem attesting to Obama’s “brilliance” with little evidence to demonstrate the hammered home assertion.
The American Thinker found information that places the assertion into question:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html
(Link to the law review letter above was in the American Thinker article as a link and inserted here by me)
Jack’s willingness to remove information that he could not varify affirms his moral character. We cannot say the same for sycophant lefty bloggers or certain members of the MSM.
J Soden, I sure like your comments. You really nail it every time, thanks for contributing! Jack
Tina, Answers the question on why he won’t release his transcripts. People only hide things they are ashamed of and display those they are proud of.
Wonder what grades he got in his constitutional law classes after making his remarks about the Supreme Court?
Re Tina’s: Our self-appointed hall monitor is still on duty but we are not required to bend to his will… While Jack was remiss in failing to fact-check the email, the haughty tone in Chris’s criticism, now deleted along with the questionable information, was a bit snide… Both the media and leftist bloggers make false assertions on a daily basis. It would be exhausting to attempt to correct all of it.
Exhausting INDEED! Dang Tina, did you nail that thesis to the doors of the Progressive Church Of Our Immaculate Obama or what?
And to think, I thought my respect for you could not possibly increase. I was wrong.
Thanks to Peggy and Pie for their kind words of praise and encouragement. After receiving such high praise I went back to correct a few obvious errors, some still rmeain, but I think I got the point across and look forward to hearing from Chris.
Tina, I find it a bit desperate that you want to change the subject from a failure of fact-checking on this site, to me and my “tone.” Perhaps if such errors did not appear on this site (as well as many other conservative sources of news) so often, I would not be so “haughty.”
I’m also curious why you use the term “hall monitor” to describe me. As I understand it, hall monitors have a bad reputation for trying too hard to uphold rules which are arbitrary or trivial, such as walking through the hall without a pass, or chewing gum on campus. Surely you don’t think that falsely accusing a prominent politician of being a Communist is equivalent to such harmless rule-breaking? Such false accusations can have very harmful effects on our political process. And yet they were made, not just by Jack, but by dozens of other right-wing sites all because of one chain e-mail. This is all too common.
I understand that your readers have the ability to fact check such claims on their own, but many will simply read what’s written and believe it without question. Look at Pie Guevara–he accepted the incorrect info as “truth” without question, because he trusts you and Jack to be accurate.
I also understand that you feel conservatives did not have much of a voice prior to talk radio, FOX News and blogs. Perhaps at one time, these sources provided a needed counterbalance. But I don’t see how you can deny that the right-wing media has become just as careless, irresponsible and dishonest as the mainstream media, if not more so. You just accept it easier because they support your political viewpoint.
I could write a whole list of lies told by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but there would be no point; you’d either ignore them, find some way to spin them, or minimize them, as you always have. You still hold that Rush’s accusation that our President and our troops were “wiping out Christians” in Uganda was nothing more than an innocent mistake that anyone could have made, with no malicious intent whatsoever. If you can excuse that, you can excuse anything.
Princess, just ignore Pie; he has this condition where any kind of disagreement sends him into an incoherent rage. These fits leave him incapable of constructing an actual argument, with evidence to support his position, which is why his entire reply to you consisted only of insults and did not actually address any of the points you made. At least the others here try and actually debate.
But of course you are right, Princess. Rush’s assertion that Obama put out a “bounty” on the Supreme Court is ludicrous. Obama’s comments about “judicial activism” were stupid, false, hypocritical, and inappropriate, but nowhere did they imply any kind of threat of violence or retribution against the Supreme Court. If Pie disagrees, he should show us where exactly the threat appears in Obama’s statements. But he’ll probably just write a long reply about how dumb we are for not understanding his brilliance.
J Soden you have a point: “The whole idea of czars has no place in our government.”
I agree, especially if they do not have to come under review by our elected representatives yet are given power. In the past I don’t think many of them exercized any kind of power but instead only reported to the president. They acted more like researchers…but i could be wrong.
Does anyone know how this practice began?
Chris: I find it a bit desperate that you want to change the subject from a failure of fact-checking on this site, to me and my “tone.”
I guess you missed the first four paragraphs that I wrote! Now I know one was merely a sentence but I hardly attempted to change the subject in my remarks. How about your silly attempt to paint me as desperate? Whats that about?
As I have pointed out several times, you continue to support a man (President Obama) who lies and misrepresents the facts nearly every time he opens his mouth. You support a party that uses destruction of opponents, rather than debate about issues, to win elections. You support the party that has a manual to teach activists within the party how to use this tactic of lies and intimidation to target what they call their enemies for personal destruction. It’s hard to get too worked up about an occasional unintentional error on Post Scripts, or on Rush Limbaugh for that matter, when you obviously don’t really hold your leftist pals to any great high standard of conduct. If you did you would discontinue your association.
I’m also curious why you use the term “hall monitor” to describe me. As I understand it, hall monitors have a bad reputation for trying too hard to uphold rules which are arbitrary or trivial, such as walking through the hall without a pass, or chewing gum on campus.
Interesting that you should use the words arbitrary and trivial! Way back in the olden days, before drug possession and use, sex, sex with a teacher, beatings, and weapons possession and use had become the new “trivial” or “arbitrary”, chewing gum and walking through the halls without a pass were considered major infractions. Hall monitors spent their days monitoring for bad behavior and tattling to the teachers. I refer to you as a hall monitor because you remind me of the kids at school who were self-appointed snitches. You dont just point out what you think are errors and let it go; you attempt to play the part of conscience for everyone else based on what you think or believe is true or factual and as if you were the final authority.
Surely you don’t think that falsely accusing a prominent politician of being a Communist is equivalent to such harmless rule-breaking?
Surely you dont think I think that…do you? Sometimes it’s hard to tell…covert accusation or actual question?
I did say that we dont know whether these people have communist ties or not. I said that all of the information in the world is not on the web and that perhaps it came from some other source. A number of people were communists as college students but later left the party.
You dont seem to understand that as far as the right is concerned the policies of this president and most of his administration is extreme in that it is very Marxist. Some of the associations these people have, UN mostly, could be an indication of their personal beliefs and the one world commune (Marxist) ideas they hold. We criticize because we dont want to fundamentally transform our free republic into a country modeled on Marxism.
Such false accusations can have very harmful effects on our political process.
Hey…so can redistribution policies and agreement with the idea of a world carbon tax have harmful effects!
I think you worry too much about what people say in email and blogs, and about what people say in general, but I will agree that it is better to correct mistakes when and if we make them.
“I don’t see how you can deny that the right-wing media has become just as careless, irresponsible and dishonest as the mainstream media, if not more so.
Hmmmthere’s a bit of a fib in there. You have no way of knowing whether what you wrote is true and yet you posit the assertion as if it were obviously true. This covertly deceptive device is unnecessary and I resent it. You also couldnt resist piling on, if not more so, as if saying that would seal it in everyones mind. Im not surprised. You seem to be well grounded in the need to make morally equivalent statements, and then adding that my side is so much worseespecially when your side has had a very bad weekand you have!
“I could write a whole list of lies told by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but there would be no point; you’d either ignore them, find some way to spin them, or minimize them, as you always have.
More haughtiness! But youre right about one thing, there would be no point in writing a list because: 1) I wouldnt trust your sources or youre ability to understand what they are doing or saying, 2) Youve demonstrated many times that you dont care about getting what they are saying and why; you care about nailing them (or me) to the wall, 3) My experience of the two men is that they are men of integrity, 4) They have no reason to purposely lie because the truth is ammunition enough and readily available, 5) These men dont lie about their conservatism or pretend to be middle of the road, 6) They correct themselves when/if they think they have made a mistake and 7) I think when you have a problem with something someone says you should take it up with them, especially when you have been indulged way beyond what is necessary.
You still hold that Rush’s accusation that our President and our troops were “wiping out Christians” in Uganda was nothing more than an innocent mistake that anyone could have made, with no malicious intent whatsoever.”
You are fibbing again. I understand you hate Rush and would do anything to bring him down but what you say happened is not what happened at all. And I did not say that what happened was an “innocent mistake”. I said Rush made a mistake and quickly corrected it and moved on. I said his audience understood what happened. He dropped it and he didnt receive a single call about it one way or the other to my knowledge.
Had he intended to lie (something he would not do) he would have continued with the ruse and hammered the point home; thats his style. Had he wanted to lie he would have made it a half hour monologue!
If he were a liberal he would have gotten a few of his buddies to spread the lie and the rest to swear to ithe would have alerted Media Matters or sent out the ACORN or SEIU storm troopers to intimidate anyone who disagreed.
Instead he dropped it.
“Rush’s assertion that Obama put out a “bounty” on the Supreme Court is ludicrous.”
Ludicrous? Opinions are now ludicrous? creative ways of demonstrating a point are ludicrous!
Our readers can read the full transcript at the link below. The portion that contains the word bounty occurs about half way down the transcript:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/03/obama_puts_out_figurative_bounty_on_supreme_court
Chris what do you think the President meant by his ludicrous remarks? What do you think he was attempting to do? Was he smart or stupid and if stupid, why did he risk looking so incredibly stupid?
Our readers can see how Media Matters chose to characterize Rush’s remarks here:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201204030009
Chris that short bite does not adequately represent the intent or point behind Rushs full remarksnever mind the ugly photo they used. Who was influenced by this misrepresentation? Why didnt MM just express what they found objectionable? Why didn’t the just express how they saw things differently?
Rushs intention is to demonstrate to his audience that liberalism, and the people who represent it, are wrong for our country. What was Media Matters’ intent? In my opinion they only want to destroy Rush and his message. They don’t want people to hear debate points or another opinion; they want people to believe Rush is a bad person.
Talk about desperate!
Tina: “I guess you missed the first four paragraphs that I wrote!”
I read them, but I don’t think the sentiment “You’re all a bunch of Marxists” is even worth responding to any more. We’ve argued about the definition of Marxism before.
“As I have pointed out several times, you continue to support a man (President Obama) who lies and misrepresents the facts nearly every time he opens his mouth. You support a party that uses destruction of opponents, rather than debate about issues, to win elections.”
Realistically speaking, the alternative to that is to support another man who lies and misrepresents the facts nearly every time he opens his mouth, and another party that uses destruction of opponents to win elections. I hate that politicians behave this way, but I don’t pretend that Obama doesn’t do this, nor do I excuse it when he does. I just think the other party is even worse.
Maybe it’s cynical of me, but I saw the last election as a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I see the next election as being an even worse example of that. Obama has let me down in a big way, but I think Romney is a worse candidate than McCain was. And most of the problems I have with Obama will not be solved by Romney; I expect they will either stay the same or be magnified.
“It’s hard to get too worked up about an occasional unintentional error on Post Scripts, or on Rush Limbaugh for that matter, when you obviously don’t really hold your leftist pals to any great high standard of conduct. If you did you would discontinue your association.”
This is interesting. You’re asking me to discontinue my association with my party and certain people on it, but I don’t ask that of you; all I ask is that you admit every now and then when someone on your side does or says something wrong. Yet even that is often too much to ask of you.
I’m only asking you to do as I do; you’re asking me to do more than you do.
“Interesting that you should use the words arbitrary and trivial! Way back in the olden days, before drug possession and use, sex, sex with a teacher, beatings, and weapons possession and use had become the new “trivial” or “arbitrary”, chewing gum and walking through the halls without a pass were considered major infractions. Hall monitors spent their days monitoring for bad behavior and tattling to the teachers. I refer to you as a hall monitor because you remind me of the kids at school who were self-appointed snitches.”
But who exactly am I tattling to? I have no power to change you or make you suffer consequences for anything.
“You dont just point out what you think are errors and let it go; you attempt to play the part of conscience for everyone else based on what you think or believe is true or factual and as if you were the final authority.”
I don’t believe I am the “final authority,” but I do think there are objective criteria for determining truth. If I didn’t think that, I’d be guilty of moral subjectivism, something that conservatives say they hate.
My tone may sometimes come across as haughty because I do get annoyed at what I see as a pattern in the right-wing media. Too often conservative bloggers, talking heads and journalists buy into fake stories so easily because they are willing to believe anything as long as it makes the president look bad. Look at how many people kept repeating the lie that the COLB presented by Obama in 2008 was not a legitimate birth certificate. Look at how many sites repeated that wildly inflated number for Obama’s India trip. Look at how many people still think that Obama is a Muslim.
Have you ever heard the expression, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its pants on?” I get annoyed because correcting misinformation takes a lot more time and commitment than repeating misinformation. Have you also heard the saying, “A blog commenter should never do more work than the blogger?” Of course you haven’t, because I just made it up. 😉
“Surely you dont think I think that…do you? Sometimes it’s hard to tell…covert accusation or actual question?”
Actual question. Good to know your answer is “no.” But I think you do try to downplay the significance of such accusations when they turn out to be false. You did it here by essentially saying, “Oh well, most Democrats are Marxists anyway.”
“I did say that we dont know whether these people have communist ties or not. I said that all of the information in the world is not on the web and that perhaps it came from some other source.”
True, but we’d need to see that evidence to draw a conclusion.
“You dont seem to understand that as far as the right is concerned the policies of this president and most of his administration is extreme in that it is very Marxist.”
I do understand that, and I think you’re not just wrong, you’re laughably wrong. I think “Marxist” has become a buzzword on the right that is used way too often in order to muddy the waters and discredit people you disagree with.
“Some of the associations these people have, UN mostly, could be an indication of their personal beliefs and the one world commune (Marxist) ideas they hold.”
Wait, what? Associating with the United Nations is now evidence of Marxism? I’m confused.
“I think you worry too much about what people say in email and blogs, and about what people say in general,”
That’s what my friends tell me. 😉 On a lighter note, I wonder if you’ve seen this hilarious and relatable cartoon:
http://xkcd.com/386/
“but I will agree that it is better to correct mistakes when and if we make them.”
Thank you.
“Hmmmthere’s a bit of a fib in there. You have no way of knowing whether what you wrote is true and yet you posit the assertion as if it were obviously true. This covertly deceptive device is unnecessary and I resent it.”
Sorry, no deception intended; I think it is true. I don’t have the time to get into it right now, so all I’ll say is that you don’t have to agree with me.
“More haughtiness! But youre right about one thing, there would be no point in writing a list because: 1) I wouldnt trust your sources”
What’s wrong with the sources I usually use?
“2) Youve demonstrated many times that you dont care about getting what they are saying and why;”
I do understand, I just don’t agree.
“7) I think when you have a problem with something someone says you should take it up with them, especially when you have been indulged way beyond what is necessary.”
I’ve called Rush before, and haven’t gotten through. In my experience listening to the show I have rarely heard him take calls from people who oppose his point of view, and when he does, he yells at and belittles them.
“You are fibbing again.”
I think my characterization was accurate, as I will explain below.
“I understand you hate Rush and would do anything to bring him down”
And yet, you don’t understand that Rush hates Obama and would do anything to bring him down. I haven’t said anything worse about Rush than he has said about our president; and yet, you have denied that Rush hates Obama, saying that his remarks are not about hatred. That’s what I meant when I said that you think his LRA statements were just an “innocent mistake with no malicious intent.”
I do think his statements about the LRA show that he has hatred for this president. Why else would he assume that the president’s motivation in sending troops to Uganda was to “wipe out Christians?” Why would he not do more research before repeating that gross assumption to the entire country over the air? I can’t imagine doing something like that to someone else unless I really, truly hated them, Tina. Of course we cannot know what is truly in anyone’s heart, but we can make rational judgments based on people’s actions. You say that I “hate” Rush, but what have I said about him that is worse than accusing the president of attempting to commit religious genocide? You are employing a double standard when you say that I hate Rush, but Rush doesn’t hate Obama.
“I said Rush made a mistake and quickly corrected it and moved on. I said his audience understood what happened. He dropped it and he didnt receive a single call about it one way or the other to my knowledge.”
He didn’t use any calls about this subject on his show once he realized he was wrong, but I am sure he got them. I know Senator Inhofe, a friend of Limbaugh’s, got calls about this subject; so many that he felt the need to address the issue on the House floor and make it clear that Obama was not, in fact, targeting Christians in Uganda. That shows that there were quite a few Rush listeners who did believe the false accusations and did not understand what actually happened.
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/10/18/346700/inhofe-calls-out-limbaugh/
Limbaugh did correct himself, but he did not apologize to the president or our military, which he clearly should have. But my point is that in order to even make this mistake to begin with, one would have to have a very reckless disregard for the truth, as well as a strong vendetta against the president. An accusation such as this should never be made unless one has done proper research, but Rush made it anyway. And I believe the reason he did so was because he is much more concerned about making Obama look bad than in getting to the truth.
“Had he intended to lie (something he would not do)”
How can I even respond to this? You know that lying is just “something he would not do?” That is just naive. Have I ever said that about anyone on my side, Tina? This is what I mean when I talk about your blind loyalty to the people on your side. If you start out with the assumption that Rush Limbaugh would never tell a lie, then I don’t see how any amount of evidence to the contrary would change your mind.
“Ludicrous? Opinions are now ludicrous?”
No, all opinions are completely equal, and no one should ever criticize the opinion of anyone else. That was sarcasm, by the way; such a position is the very definition of political correctness. Of course some opinions are ludicrous.
“Chris what do you think the President meant by his ludicrous remarks? What do you think he was attempting to do? Was he smart or stupid and if stupid, why did he risk looking so incredibly stupid?”
I already responded to the president’s stupid remarks in comments to the article dealing specifically with them.
“Our readers can see how Media Matters chose to characterize Rush’s remarks here:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201204030009
“Chris that short bite does not adequately represent the intent or point behind Rushs full remarks”
Tina, what exactly is the Media Matters snippet missing that you think should be included?
“never mind the ugly photo they used.”
After looking at the Rush Limbaugh transcript you linked to, I find this criticism deeply ironic. On that transcript you will find not one, but two very ugly-looking picture of President Obama grimacing and making very deep frowns. Both, to me, look like they have been photoshopped to make Obama’s face look weird. The first picture casts him as “The Thugfather,” while the second has him alongside the words, “The United Socialist States of America.” Below is a very flattering picture of Rush Limbaugh standing in front of the constitution and a gavel.
Now, really. You can’t complain about Media Matters using an ugly (but real) photo of Limbaugh, while ignoring that Limbaugh’s own transcript of the same remarks uses two ugly (and, seemingly, fake) photos of Barack Obama.
It should also be noted that in most articles dealing with Limbaugh, Media Matters does link to full transcripts from his site. The audio clips don’t have those links because they are posted before the transcripts are up.
“Who was influenced by this misrepresentation?”
You haven’t explained what the misrepresentation was, and I don’t see it. They played a snippet of his comments. I don’t see how the snippet was edited to make it sound like Limbaugh was saying anything he didn’t say; it seems to me that this clip was a fair portion of his argument. I would say Limbaugh’s representation of Obama as “threatening,” “intimidating” and putting a “bounty” on the Supreme Court was much more of a misrepresentation.
“Why didnt MM just express what they found objectionable? Why didn’t the just express how they saw things differently?”
So now they’re doing the wrong thing by presenting Rush’s own words without comment? I can’t take this criticism seriously.
“Rushs intention is to demonstrate to his audience that liberalism, and the people who represent it, are wrong for our country. What was Media Matters’ intent?”
To demonstrate that the ideas of Limbaugh, and people like him, are wrong for our country.
“In my opinion they only want to destroy Rush and his message.”
*sigh* There’s that double standard again. Rush would never try to destroy people or their messages! If someone is destroyed, it’s only a side effect of Rush loving America too much.
“They don’t want people to hear debate points or another opinion; they want people to believe Rush is a bad person.”
If they didn’t want people to hear another opinion, they wouldn’t provide audio of other people’s opinions. And all they have to do to get people to believe that Rush is a bad person is to play Rush’s own words in context. I started believing Rush was a bad person when I heard him claim that Michael J. Fox was faking his Parkinson’s disorder. As far as I know he has never apologized for this. That was years ago. Most everything he has said since then has only confirmed my initial impression. I didn’t need Media Matters or anyone else to point that out to me.