This is interesting:
Could there be any odder couple than Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton?
Not if I have anything to do with it.Last week – after Matrix Media announced a deal for Sharpton to host a “Limbaugh of the Left”-type talk radio show – the conservative radio star said he’ll think about mentoring the minister in the finer points of the medium.
Yesterday, Sharpton contacted me to say he’s eager to accept the sort-of offer to (as Limbaugh put it on his own show Friday) “let [Sharpton] guest-host the program for, like, 30 minutes at a time while I am sitting here critiquing him.”
Sharpton told me: “I was a little surprised, but I’m willing to take him up on his speculative offer. I think it would be interesting. It would be something that both of us can learn from. He can learn some of the thoughts of the left, and I can learn some of the techniques of the right. Let’s see if he’s serious.”
Yesterday Limbaugh’s producer, Kit Carson, assured me that he’s in earnest.
“At this point, Rush is still undecided,” Carson said. “He’s very flattered that Rev. Sharpton is interested in doing this. Rush is still considering giving him some pointers, some tutoring.
“Rush also believes that Rev. Sharpton has the best shot of anyone to be the Limbaugh of the Left. He is also very impressed that he has the humility to admit he has something to learn. … So we’ll see.”
For my part, I will do anything I can to make it happen.
Whatever you think about either one, it would be interesting.
James Emerson
Interesting indeed…
I’ve always thought of Rush as being more of an opportunist than a committed idealogue. Is his consideration of tutoring a major pariah and total whipping boy of the rightwing nutters an indication that he sees a coming political tsunami? I mean really, here’s a guy who spent years running down and stomping all over the moral degeneracy of feralized drug addicts only to find himself stumbling around radioland in a pair of drug addled shoes bottle of OC tightly gripped by a very red hand. Rush not only survived his brush with addiction, but he also survived the near nonexistent outrage and moral turpitude of his loyal fans, becoming even more popular and more outrageous than before.
I would think that Rush being interested mainly in the survival of Rush is preparing to ride the coming wave that is swelling up from the hinterlands, and Rush is just be astute enough to see it building before anyone else does. Afterall…Rush has always been about Rush. There is nothing much more to him than that.
M. Scott Eiland
Are you kidding? Having Sharpton on the air regularly is like a license for Rush to print money–he’ll have a “Sharpton Moment” feature on his show before that coiffed thug’s seat has a chance to get warm.
Shawn
My first reaction to reading this was literally LOL. Sharpton thinks he can guest-host and convert all the Limbots and make Limbaugh look like an ass. Limbaugh thinks he can make Sharpton look like an ass and increase his audience.
It seems like a pretty smart move. I would imagine a lot more people would listen in to the show rooting for their side, hoping for a smackdown.
Kimmitt
Rush is an entertainer first and a politico second; this would be good radio.
Rick
But shouldn’t we be concerned that another cleric gets to impose his values on the masses?
Gotta contain those religious nutters, after all.
Cordially…
ape
No way to all of the above: Rush is a total GOP partisan. (“A wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party”). The notion that he is ‘primarily an entertainer’ is just something that’s wheeled out when he comes out with anything really unjustifiable.
My prediction is that, of course, this will not happen. Secondly, that, whatever reason there is for this, Rush will claim it was because Sharpton chickened out in some way, if this is at all possible.
The concept of Limbaugh ‘giving lessons to the left’ is a regular part of his decades-old bombastic schtick (“with half my brain tied behind my back” ect..). In truth, the format of his show relies on the Maha never being questioned.
Kimmitt
Rush is primarily an entertainer; this does not excuse his relentless lying.
ppgaz
Two loud, egocentric know-it-all manipulators going mano-a-mano.
This is a great country. Really, I’m serious.
It’s Crossfire on steroids.
Weapons of Mass Distraction.
I can’t wait for the great blurbs to start showing up on the blogs.
carpeicthus
I’m still waiting for Ann Coulter and Castro.
willyb
“Rush is primarily an entertainer; this does not excuse his relentless lying.”
This sounds like fun . . . How about listing a couple of his relentless lies?
ppgaz
Google the terms Rush Limbaugh lies.
The search results should keep you busy for a while.
This is one of the better examples:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
Enjoy.
Rick
Media Matters? Isn’t that run by an acknowledged liar? I believe so.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Hey, wow, stopped clock.
Rick
And hello to you, my blind squirrel.
:)
Cordially…
AWJ
How about listing a couple of his relentless lies?
The Rush Limbaugh Show, June 17, 2004:
LIMBAUGH: The [9-11 Commission] report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001. We’ve known this for a long time.
9-11 Commission Staff Statement 16:
We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred.
The Rush Limbaugh Show, June 18, 2004:
CALLER: I’m just talking about the false claim of uranium from Niger, that one that was very specific and stated —
LIMBAUGH: That was a British government claim, and Bush disowned it in a State of the Union speech.
2003 State of the Union address:
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
(All emphasis added)
There’s a couple right there. I can dig up more if you like.
willyb
AWJ:
Wow, impressive. He passed on intelligence information, that may or may not have been incorrect. Note that the comment “we do not believe that such a meeting occurred” is different from “the meeting did not occur.” In any event, passing along mainstream information can hardly be viewed as a relentless lie.
ppgaz
Limbaugh is a buffoon, and entertainer, a huckster, and a mouthpiece for a particular power structure.
This is not exactly news, or even interesting, any more.
As for lies? Anyone who thinks that most talk radio is not 90% bullshit …. good for you. It’s a great country, you can think whatever you like. But the fact remains, it is 90% bullshit.
All politics is theater. did I mention … all? Okay. Limbaugh is the perennial warmup act. He’s the clown that gets the audience loosened up.
Aside from that, he is an awful, awful person, he is pompous, he is a drug addict, he is arrogant, he is mean, he’s a gay-baiter, he is a misogynist, he’s a bully, and he is a millionaire many, many times over thanks to brilliant marketing and a gullible but very appreciative audience.
So, having said all that, let me say, who gives a flying fig?
Do you really want to live in a country where discourse, reason, and information are the purview of people like Limbaugh, or Sharpton?
Yes, obviously, many of you do.
I don’t. So my suggestion is, when you get tired of being manipulated, turn off your goddam radios and use your energy for something constructive.
AWJ
Comprehension test:
A: I do not believe that the water in this bottle is salt water.
B: A believes that the water in his bottle is salt water.
In this example, did B “pass on” A’s statement? Or did B lie about A’s statement? For a bonus point, is the answer related in any way to whether A’s bottle actually contains salt or fresh water?
ppgaz
I used to do a seminar in which I employed an exercise called “Two Men in a Tub of Water.”
A says the water is warm.
B says it is cold.
We can take the temperature of the water, and get data.
But how to deal with Mr. A, and Mr. B? Suppose our agenda is warmer water? Do we browbeat Mr. A? Do we impeach Mr. A? Do we give Mr. B authority?
Etc.
Question: Is 70 degree (f) water warm, or cool?
If you are running a business, what lessons can we take away from the Two Men in the Tub?
willyb
AWJ:
Cute little test., but how is it analogous to the two statements regarding the alleged meeting between Atta and the Iraqi agent? I noticed you inserted
willyb
“If you are running a business, what lessons can we take away from the Two Men in the Tub?”
That they are likely to be in favor of gay marriage? That they are in touch with their feelings, but aren’t sure what those feelings are? I give up, what lesson are we supposed to take away?.
willyb
“As for lies? Anyone who thinks that most talk radio is not 90% bullshit …. good for you. It’s a great country, you can think whatever you like. But the fact remains, it is 90% bullshit.”
Where did you get the “fact” (i.e., something that has actual existence) that talk radio is 90% bullshit? I’m thinking it has something to do with the koolaid you’re sippin’.
ppgaz
It’s a free country, believe what you want. If you think that talk radio is where it’s at … what are you doing here? Isn’t some loudmouth jerk on right now telling you what to think?
As for what lesson you should take from the men in the tub, since you’ve exposed yourself as the kind of moron who would turn it into a gay joke, take whatever lesson you please.
If you want mine, you have to pay for the seminar.
willyb
“It’s a free country, believe what you want.”
Hey, thanks for the permission to do what I already can do without your permission! Just because I don’t embrace some wild-eyed rhetoric by you, I’m letting “some loudmouth jerk on right now telling you what to think?” Frankly, you seem to be the one coming across as the “loudmouth jerk.”
You whole rant is nothing but an ad hominem attack.
If your seminars are anything like your vacuous comments, you couldn’t pay me to go.
willyb
“As for what lesson you should take from the men in the tub, since you’ve exposed yourself as the kind of moron who would turn it into a gay joke”
Is there something wrong with gay jokes? What is so offensive about suggesting that two men in a tub might be gay? Do you have a problem with gay folks?
YOU are calling me a MORON??? Don’t tell me, let me guess. Your seminars are on showing respect for people that have mental handicaps? Or maybe respecting diverse viewpoints?
Get a clue ppgaz!
AWJ
willyb:
No, Limbaugh wasn’t referring to “the” 9-11 Commission Report (as in the final public report, which wasn’t published until July) He was referring to the Commission’s Staff Statement 16, which was presented on June 16, the day before the broadcast in question. And what he claimed the statement said about Atta in Prague was the exact, 180-degree opposite of what it actually did say.
This statement was on public record; anyone capable of reading a newspaper could have found out what it had to say, and someone with access to the Internet could have even gotten a word-for-word transcript, e.g., here. So Limbaugh, having full knowledge that the Commission staff had just reported that they did not believe Atta met with any Iraqi agent in Prague, went and told his thousands of listeners that the Commission reported that they did believe Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague. Where I come from we call that lying.
willyb
AWJ:
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT LIMBAUGH WAS REFERRING TO? Where can I find the transcript of Limbaugh’s entire discussion of this subject? For all I know, he could have been talking about the underlying Czech intelligence report. In any event, the Staff Report is PRELIMINARY, and therefore subject to revision… “We remain ready to revise our understanding of this subject as our work continues.” In the final report the Commission states that “These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001.”
It appears to me that calling someone a liar on the basis of a preliminary report that contradicts the initial eyewitness testimony of a Czech agent, is a bit over the top. Especially if it turns out that Limbaugh was referring to that intelligence. But I may be persuaded otherwise after reading the transcript.
willyb
AWJ:
Your second example of a relentless lie suffers from the same problem as the first. What is the context? Maybe you could explain what the lie was?
Based on what you’ve quoted, it seems to me that Limbaugh is attributing the source (ownership) of the intelligence on the African uranium to the British. This tracks with your quote from the SOTU address. Does Limbaugh clarify what he means by “disowned” in the next few sentences of his discussion?
AWJ
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT LIMBAUGH WAS REFERRING TO? Where can I find the transcript of Limbaugh’s entire discussion of this subject?
Right here. The relevant part is at the very beginning of the transcript, on pages 1 and 2:
[“]The other relevant information’s included on page 8 of Staff Statement number 16. In the Statement, which exhaustively discusses the 9/11 plot, we address the movements of hijackers in the years leading up to the attacks. This paragraph addresses reports that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency in Prague on April 9th, 2001.
[“]While some have criticized the questioning during public hearings, I’ve seen few quibbles with our Staff Statements. I urge you to look over all of the Statements.” And I got the link to the
Rick
Likely because of this.
Cordially…
willyb
Rick
What is the “this” of which you speak? The link you posted doesn’t work.
AWJ
willyb:
It’s an (attempted) link to a website about Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Ha, ha.