RSS
Rush-ing to judgment
Almost immediately after President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for a Supreme Court judgeship on Tuesday, I had to get in my car and make the nearly five-hour drive from my parents' house in Rochester to my house in Kingston. So I turned on the radio to hear what the right-wing noisemakers were saying (this is how I stay alert during long trips on the Thruway) and quickly found the self-important, egomaniacal, oh-so-proud-of-himself Rush Limbaugh shooting off his mouth about how terrible Sotomayor would be for the high court and the country.
Don't get me wrong. I respect Rush's convictions. He's a rock-ribbed right winger who disdains the liberal agenda, and that's his prerogative. But his attacks on the Democrats he so dislikes are largely personal, frequently unjustified and often based on supposition rather than fact. That is, if you have a D after your name, Rush hates you and shouts from the rooftops that he hates you - regardless of whether he's ever met you or done any research about you.
Bloviating about Sotomayor, Rush simply ticked off the right-wing talking points: She a "liberal," a "radical," an "activist," an "anti-constitutionalist" and, merging a couple of those, a "radical anti-constitutionalist." (Is "anti-constitutionalist" even a word?) But he offered almost no factual evidence to back up his name-calling.
And Obama, according to Rush, is "the most radical president in history." Of course he is, Rush - just like every other Democrat to occupy the Oval Office, right?
And then Rush took Obama to task for, as a senator, voting against recently appointed Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts solely on the grounds that they were nominated by a Republican (George W. Bush).
Excuse me? It's OK for Rush to blast Sotomayor simply because she was nominated by a Democrat, but it's not OK for then-Sen. Obama to have voted against two men nominated by a Republican? Yeah, that makes sense.
This is why Rush's show should be categorized as comedy (and bad comedy, at that), rather than commentary. He is, in every sense of the word, a joke.
And by the way, Rush: Sotomayor's original nomination to the federal bench, in 1992, was made by REPUBLICAN President George H.W. Bush. Funny, but I never heard you mention that on Tuesday.
Don't get me wrong. I respect Rush's convictions. He's a rock-ribbed right winger who disdains the liberal agenda, and that's his prerogative. But his attacks on the Democrats he so dislikes are largely personal, frequently unjustified and often based on supposition rather than fact. That is, if you have a D after your name, Rush hates you and shouts from the rooftops that he hates you - regardless of whether he's ever met you or done any research about you.
Bloviating about Sotomayor, Rush simply ticked off the right-wing talking points: She a "liberal," a "radical," an "activist," an "anti-constitutionalist" and, merging a couple of those, a "radical anti-constitutionalist." (Is "anti-constitutionalist" even a word?) But he offered almost no factual evidence to back up his name-calling.
And Obama, according to Rush, is "the most radical president in history." Of course he is, Rush - just like every other Democrat to occupy the Oval Office, right?
And then Rush took Obama to task for, as a senator, voting against recently appointed Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts solely on the grounds that they were nominated by a Republican (George W. Bush).
Excuse me? It's OK for Rush to blast Sotomayor simply because she was nominated by a Democrat, but it's not OK for then-Sen. Obama to have voted against two men nominated by a Republican? Yeah, that makes sense.
This is why Rush's show should be categorized as comedy (and bad comedy, at that), rather than commentary. He is, in every sense of the word, a joke.
And by the way, Rush: Sotomayor's original nomination to the federal bench, in 1992, was made by REPUBLICAN President George H.W. Bush. Funny, but I never heard you mention that on Tuesday.
Labels: Disorder on the court
posted by Jeremy Schiffres, City Editor at
9:30 AM
3 Comments:
One thing I have to give to the "heads" of your paper; at least you and Ira are consistent.
You loathe and lash out at "haters," yet your own statements are representative of them.
You are quick to criticize, insult, and demean Republicans if they stick up for their stated beliefs, yet you gush over "the good sense Democrats show with their solidarity."
You are quick to call Bush, as well as Republicans and Conservatives in general stupid, yet as Editor, your own published statements frequently require editing, such as the title of your entry Wednesday, April 1, 2009, "I spoke to soon."
Last but not least, unless you have risen to your current position regardless of being horribly mistaken, ignorant, and ill informed, you are not honest.
Case in point:
You said, "I respect Rush's convictions. He's a rock-ribbed right winger who disdains the liberal agenda, and that's his prerogative." However, you then went on to devote the rest of the article to bashing Rush, completely misrepresenting what he states on a regular basis, and made a whole slew of false accusations. Whether you were lying, or simply not knowledgeable of his views and public statements doesn't matter. It's your job to get it right!
"...if you have a D after your name, Rush hates you and shouts from the rooftops that he hates you - regardless of whether he's ever met you or done any research about you." That statement is patently false, and I have to believe you know that.
Same point with your statement, "It's OK for Rush to blast Sotomayor simply because she was nominated by a Democrat, but it's not OK for then-Sen. Obama to have voted against two men nominated by a Republican? Yeah, that makes sense." Now that's clearly not true either, and since you claim to have listened to the program, you know that as well. He spent the majority of his show explaining in great detail, as well as playing tapes of her own statements that support his opposition to her selection.
Finally, (because this has already taken much more time than I wanted to devote to straightening out your misstatements) And by the way, Rush: Sotomayor's original nomination to the federal bench, in 1992, was made by REPUBLICAN President George H.W. Bush. Funny, but I never heard you mention that on Tuesday.Yes, but GHWB certainly wasn’t a “hero of the right,” and the important truth of the matter is she didn't make the stupid statement suggesting she believes she has the right to legislate from the bench until 2005. At that time, Senate Democrats suggested Sotomayor as a nominee to George W. Bush, who eventually selected Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Many of us are offended by and resent the strong bias you and Ira constantly display toward liberal Democrats, your openly hostile, condescending, and insulting statements and attitudes toward Republicans who disagree with your personal beliefs, and your constant criticism of Republicans. It is blatantly reflected in your coverage of anything political, as well on the blog pages, yet you deny and scoff at the suggestion of having a liberal bias!
It is my strongly held opinion that, contrary to almost every other newspaper with blogs, where lively extended discussions take place, there’s the reason virtually no one even bothers to engage either of you with comments. If I’m right, it’s pretty sad that your behavior has resulted in the vast majority of the Daily Freeman readers considering the rantings of the Publisher and Editor to be largely irrelevant, and not worth addressing.
However, if and when the DF shuts down because not enough people care enough to keep it alive, you guys will blame the internet, right-wing talk radio, and all the rest of the nonsense you spout off on, instead of acknowledging that you drove your audience away!
Mr. Constitution:
Regular readers of my blog - a group that clearly does not include you - know that I have been critical of numerous Democrats, including Kingston Mayor James Sottile, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and, yes, even President Barack Obama.
To generalize that I favor all liberals and oppose all conservatives is to admit you neither know me nor pay much attention to what I write.
I judge people (especially in the political arena) by their actions and by their character, not by their labels.
Too bad Mr. Limbaugh can't say the same.
-Jeremy
Sorry Jeremy, but once again, you are wrong...very wrong.
To be precise, I am a daily reader of:
1) your newspaper
2) the daily editorial
3) Ira's blog
4) Your blog
and an occasional reader of Ivan's bloggings.
Your claimed "criticism" of Democrats is virtually non-existent compared to the constant beating of the drums against BUSH, Cheney, Rove, and now, Rush Limbaugh.
Like most, I have ignored your offensive and frankly, boring continuous rantings against Republicans/Conservatives. I only finally responded because of your blatant lies about what you claimed to have heard on Rush's program.
I have no problem with you having complete distain for Reps & Conservs; that is truly your constitutional right. All I ask, and it apparently seems to be asking too much, is to keep it honest and based upon facts.
I never said you, "favor all liberals and oppose all conservatives;" re-read my comments above, if your memory is that flawed.
Furthermore, I certainly do pay attention to what you write! How else would you explain remembering your severely flawed grammar in last month's article I referenced?
Perhaps it is YOU, sir, who needs to read the City Editor's previous bloggings. I challenge you to go back through the past 6 months of what you've written and give me examples of good things you've said about Republicans and Conservatives, and bad things you've said about Democrats. Do the math, and then tell me how balanced and impartial you have been.
While you're at it, read Ira's spewings, when he isn't devoting the daily editorials and/or his bloggings to what other newspapers around the world have published, as if we need him to enlighten us with the rest of the world's opinions. He especially gushes like a love-stricken schoolgirl over Obama, and after years of condemning Republicans for bloating the deficit, apparently has no problem whatsoever with "O" increasing it exponentially to a degree never dreamed of before. Not one of your ilk has called attention to the fact that your beloved "O" is spending like a drunken sailor, indebting generations of Americans like never before, and not caring one bit. His constant mention of what the results will be 10 years from now is completely disingenuous, since the maximum time he can serve is 8 years, so he will pass on the detrimental results of his outrageous and irresponsible spending to future presidents.
Your response has quite nicely proven my point, and demonstrates your consistency I mentioned previously. You spew hatred and animosity toward anyone who is not of like mind with you folks, and then condemn the hatred and animosity you claim to find in the speech of others.
Even when caught in blatant lies, as you were in this case, you simply resort to righteous indignation, which is s-o-o-o predictable. But hey--there's something to be said of those who are consistent, right??
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home