Rush Limbaugh is the king of talk radio because he dares give voice to what others just suspect: Media Matters is attributing this to Limbaugh:
LIMBAUGH: Interesting point. Now, let me say something else that might be accused of cynicism: What is their religion? I don’t doubt they’re religious people, but, we talked about this. Political people are different than you and I. And, you know, most people when told a family member’s been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has, they turn to God. The Edwards turned to the campaign.
If true, bully for Rush. Media Matter is also atttributing this to Keith Olbermann:
Do you suppose, sir, you could summon the decency to delay injecting your cynical venom into this woman’s illness until just the day after? I mean, maybe that decency comes in pill form. Rush Limbaugh, today’s Worst Person in the World.
So how many people has Limbaugh killed? As for as I know, zero. The is no rational moral basis which would deem Rush Limbaugh the worst person in the World. Limbaugh may be loud, a braggart, and who knows what else. Yet Limbaugh has never killed anybody. If Olbermann thinks Limbaugh is worse than a murderer, Olbermann is truely insane. Then, I am stating the obvious.
Tags: BitsBlog, Blogging, Democrats, WHAT biased press?
March 24th, 2007 at 18:00
“Rush Limbaugh is the king of talk radio because he dares give voice to what others just suspect”? No. There is nothing noble or brave about expressing out loud your own personal darkest, nastiest thoughts about other people and then saying “I’m just saying what everyone else is thinking!”
There are some thoughts so deep and dark and coldhearted that if one has them, the least one can do if one has a heart is keep silent about them–and one of them is the “thought” that if someone you disagree with politically doesn’t respond to serious illness the way you “think” he or she “should” (and where do YOU get off telling other people how to respond to serious illness?) that they’re responding they way they are for cold, heartless, political reasons.
Most of the time, it’s not true–it’s just you projecting your own coldness of heart upon someone else and their motivations. That’s just what Rush is doing here, and Keith Olbermann called him on it. Good for Keith. Rush has the right to freely express whatever feelings he has, but Keith has the right to call him boorish for the quality of what he expresses. Free speech doesn’t mean that no one else is permitted to judge what we choose to say.
None of us has any business assuming that the Edwardses are not “turning to God” just because John Edwards is keeping up his campaign. If so, we must assume that every man who doesn’t drop everything he’s doing to spend all his time with his wife the minute she receives a bad diagnosis is an evil, irreligious creep. And we must assume that every woman who chooses to support her husband’s work and to encourage him to continue it despite knowing she has a serious illness is also an evil, irreligious creep as bent on the seizure of power as we assume he is. *sigh* As if earthly power means jack when you are hooked up to a chemo bag. As if earthly power means jack when the woman you love is hooked up to one. What is so wrong with considering the possibility that maybe these two people have a serious vision about wanting something better for their country and are willing to work together to try to achieve it, no matter what it takes? And that this is why they want him to keep campaigning for President? At least until it’s proven otherwise? Who does it harm to do that?
Second, Keith Olbermann has never claimed that his criterion for “Worst Person in the World” is “How many people did the person kill?” The name of the award is tongue-in-cheek, not serious. It is about calling attention to people who act self-serving, boorish and stupid and make life worse for others, usually in ordinary and banal ways. It is not about the truly evil, and it is not about who killed the most people; it’s more about just being a jerk. And with his remarks about the Edwardses, Rush Limbaugh fills the bill.
One more thing: What was the point to posting a photoshopped image of Olbermann with no hair? That was just plain juvenile, poking fun at someone by manipulating his looks. No more sophisticated than scrawling an ugly picture of the teacher on the blackboard when she steps out of the classroom.
All I can say is this: I hope you never have to learn the hard way what it is really like to have to deal with a life-threatening illness and watch other people publicly judge every decision you make afterward as if they were the arbiters of the correct and incorrect way for you to react. It’s a lousy way to have to learn that it’s a bad idea to sit in judgment of how others handle it when it happens to them. I don’t like Tony Snow, but I also don’t like it when other people who don’t like him question the timing of his discovery of a health problem that requires surgery. He is a cancer survivor, and every cancer survivor who can’t hope for anything better than “remission” lives in dread of the day when the cancer comes back. In that way Tony Snow is no different from Elizabeth Edwards. Neither is Laura Ingraham, for that matter. In that way we are all human, and we have no business imposing our own dark mistrustful thoughts on others who are wrestling with challenges the likes of which we may never have known.
I don’t know whether any of this will make you think, or not. But if it just makes you stop and think twice–even if for just a second—before assuming the worst of all people who don’t share your political viewpoints, it will have made a difference.
March 24th, 2007 at 18:51
I did not call Keith Olbermann a bad person. I called his a bad commentator
My heros have never been conmentators.
There are boorish people, and Rush Limbaugh may be. If you feel that Limbaugh is boorish, sobeit. There are also evil people. What ever you may happen to think of Limbaugh, he not evil. Being a boor may be rude. It is not evil. IF Keith Olbermann can not tell, or will not distinguish, between boorish and evil. it doesn’t say much for Olbermann does it.
As for picturing Olbermann sans his rug. such is life.
Wlll treat Olbermann as a adult, when he starts acting like one. Adults don’t throw temper tantrums, and temper tantrums are about of which Olbemann is capable. As long a Olbermann passes off temper tantrums for commentaries, he will continue to fair game, when I feel so inclined.
As to judgementalism, I am judgemental. Everybody is. Further, it is vitally important for civilized human beings to be judgemental. Do you judge me wrong?
March 24th, 2007 at 22:21
Actually, I’d call him both, and never bat an eyelash over it, much less develop the sweat that Karla seems to. Saying that somebody is human, and therefore deserves respect, is on its face ridiculous. Not all humans deserve respect. Case in point, Keith Olbermann. In my view, respect is earned, and Olberman hasn’t.
Karla, I notice that you entirely ignored in the comment that I made with regards to Edwards and his wife the other day. Just for you, I will re-post it, here:
Am I right here? I’ve no idea. I rather hope not, as I say, because that would mean that she actually does have a larger problem, as I said. Is Limbaugh? I don’t know, but I rather hope not, for the same reason.
But as to whether not the speculations make me a bad person, I’m not going to even bother entertaining that one. Of the two, I suppose that Limbaugh is less insulting, since he assumes that Edwards and his wife are telling the truth. I can make no such assumptions. Frankly, gfiven the history of Democrats recently, to do so is highly optimistic.
Am I really are reading you to say, that because somebody claims to have a life threatening illness, they are no longer subject to question and reproach for their politics, or their actions? Sorry, I don’t buy it. I’ve been lied to, too many times before. So has Limbaugh. We even had one mental midget in Usenet, not so very long ago, who claimed to have lost a kid to a childhood illness. Turned out he didn’t even have a kid. Why would he do it? So that his politics would stop the question so publicly, and so forcefully. And of course I was a big bad Meany for calling him out on it, until such time as the rest of the crew figured out he didn’t even have a kid. We don’t hear much from that particular liar anymore.
However, there are others.
Now, as regards to Tony Snow if you look at this link, you’ll find that they were most certainly NOT questioning the timing of his statement, they were wishing him dead. There’s a major difference, that seems to get by you, on that one. I wonder why? Looking more closely still, those on Mr. Snow’s side of the aisle, have no history of pulling such nonsense. But we’ve seen sympathy ploys of various types form the Democrats for the last several cycles… It would be illogical not to at least raise the question.
Somehow, I get the sense that if the parties were reversed, and Edwards were some unnamed Republican, you wouldn’t be quite so defensive. If Limbaugh were Olberman, you wouldn’t be quite so defensive, either. Were you for example, defensive of Rush when he became addicted to legally prescribed pain medication for any serious condition? Or were you in the crowd screaming for jail time? Hmmm. Or did you consider that it was some kind of ploy?
Look;
As I’ve said, if she’s really got a problem, then my sympathies are with her. Just don’t expect me to be voting for her husband, because of it. And in any event, I suspect, based on recent history, that’s precisely what’s going on here; a sympathy ploy to gain more money for more political power for Edwards. Sorry , Karla, but I’m not buying it. … Sorry that you can’t deal with it.
March 25th, 2007 at 16:30
I should also point out, that if I’m right about this, and John Edwards, god forbid, should ever after the White House, Elizabeth Edwards will suddenly find herself in a situation of miraculous God given recovery.