Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Oh, Rush

You know, it's funny enough when Rush Limbaugh gets punk'd by a prank. It's a whole 'nother level of funny when he tries to defend himself.

Last Friday, Rush stumbled upon a hot and juicy exclusive - Obama's college thesis, in which he wrote:

'While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned,' read the fake report on Obama's Columbia University thesis, referring to the Constitution. 'While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.'

Limbaugh went off on his show.

'So here is who we have as our president of the United States: an anti-constitutionalist man who finds it an obstacle and is finding ways around it on purpose, unconstitutionally,' Limbaugh said.
The fires were stoked, according to Limbaugh, because someone at Time had this story for months and was sitting on it. The outrage! The injustice! The spittle flecked rant!

One problem - it was all a hoax, which Rush fell for hook line and sinker.

Which is funny enough. But what's really revealing is how Rush handled the news:
Later in the program, Limbaugh learned the report was a fake and alerted his listeners. But he insisted the fabricated thesis was still in line with what the president thinks, the New York Daily news reported.

'So I shout from the mountaintops: 'It was satire!'' Limbaugh said on the program. 'But we know he (Obama) thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth.'
In other words, the important thing is what Rush thinks about Obama, not the actual truth of the matter. That's particularly ironic, coming from Rush.

Remember the dust up when he was booted out of the group looking to buy into the St. Louis Rams a couple of weeks back? Turns out that several of the racist statements attributed to Rush, some of which were picked up by the mainstream media, were hoaxes themselves. Rush fans were outraged. Turns out, all that outrage was wasted, as Rush has now shown that what someone actually says isn't important, it's what we think they said (or really think) that's important.

Thanks for clearing that up, Rush!


Montana said...

So Rusky does not fact check? Wow, what a surprised.

Oh, and when contronted that he was punked, he defended himself by saying "we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway"

After so many years of mis-labeling and mis-characterizing others he gets smacked down by the NFL "Not For Limbaugh". Way to go NFL, Great job!

jedijawa said...

Why do you need facts when you're on the right?

Muze Euterpe said...

Woa! Woa! Hold on. If he didn't fact check how could he have corrected himself on-air?

And, he wasn't doing anything that Dan Rather didn't do to 'W'. Rather, if you recall, upheld the bogus documents against Bush by saying even if they were fabricated he thought the incident really happened.

I've read the Big O's books, I've heard the clips. The man wants the Constitution changed.

And -- I don't think the crack against the Big O is anywhere near as serious and utterly detrimental as the outright racist accusations against Limbaugh. The Big O is in a serious position of power, Limbaugh is a right-winged Michael Moore.

JDB said...

If he didn't fact check how could he have corrected himself on-air?

Huh? He didn't fact check it before he ran with it. He later learned it was a hoax. Rather than admit being duped, he pulled the "we all know it's true anyway" gambit. If he wants to play that game, fine, but he can't complain if folks do the same to him.

And, he wasn't doing anything that Dan Rather didn't do to 'W'.

Uh huh, but Rather got fired for that, remember? Rush just plumets boldly forth through another day of BS.

The man wants the Constitution changed.

So does every Congrescritter (from both sides, sadly) who proposes stuff like a flag burning amendment or an amendment to ban gay marriage. I read libertarians who argue for doing away with the 17th Amendment and go back to state legislatures picking senators. So? It's a Constitution, not holy writ, it's designed to be changed.

Having said that, please direct me to where Obama has ever said he wants to change the Constitution.

The Big O is in a serious position of power, Limbaugh is a right-winged Michael Moore.

Yes, being president is a position of power, I'll give you that. But Rush has loads more influence than Moore. Remember all those GOP Congresscritters who have to bow, scrape, and atone when they said something he didn't like?