Rush Limbaugh Dead At 70

Rush Limbaugh died on February 17, 2021, at 70 from lung cancer.

Some people I knew in the early 1990s were big Rush Limbaugh fans. I ended up reading his first book, The Way Things Out To Be, but it was filled with so much misinformation that I never understood the attraction.

It’s a shame Limbaugh spent his life saying mind-numbingly stupid things like this to a mystifyingly receptive audience.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.

Did CBS Deceive Viewers about Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb Controversy?

Rush Limbaugh was complaining this week on his show that on the Friday before the Super Bowl CBS ran a hit piece about him which deceived viewers about the 2003 controversy in which he said that sports reporters overrated Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb because the reporters wanted a black quarterback to succeed.

Looking at the transcript of both the CBS broadcast and Limbaugh’s comments, its hard not to conclude that CBS ran the story with the intent to deceive its viewers.

Going back to the original comments in 2003, Limbaugh’s claim was that McNabb was not a great quarterback and that, instead, Philadelphia’s success was due largely to its defense. Because sports reporters wanted a black quarterback to be seen a successful, however, sports reporters over-emphasized McNabb’s role in the Eagle’s success and downplayed his role in its successive NFC Championship losses.

Just for the record, I agree with that anaylsis except the part about the black quarterback. I think reporters in general want to write about the next great quarterback rather than the next great NFL defense.

Regardless, this year with the Eagles in the Super Bowl, Limbaugh praised McNabb on his show and said that the quarterback had improved tremendously since 2003 and deserved the praise that was being heaped upon him. Here’s what Limbaugh said of McNabb after the NFC championship game when a caller asked if Limbaugh’s opinion of McNabb had changed,

You know, it has. Since you’ve called and brought this up: At the time (in 2003), McNabb, the Eagles were 1-3 or 1-4. McNabb couldn’t complete a pass over 20 yards. They had just come off two championship game losses and the third was coming up. But, since, yeah, there’s been a demonstrable change in McNabb’s performance, pure and simple. There’s no question there has been. I think he was motivated, inspired by a whole lot of things. There’s no question McNabb has improved and I’m happy to see it. I like quality football.

Limbaugh also told the caller that the situation in 2005 was different than in 2003, when Limbaugh made his controversial remarks, because back then, “when the defense … was propping the Eagles up, (media) were still giving McNabb credit- because there’s this social hope.”

CBS News chose to portray this exchange as nothing but one long slam against McNabb. Here’s how Jim Acosta chose to report the above remarks,

Mr. RUSH LIMBAUGH: The specific thing about Donovan McNabb was he…

ACOSTA: That is, unless, you’re Rush Limbaugh, who last week said on his talk show sports reporters give too much credit to McNabb.

Mr. LIMBAUGH: They looked the other way when the defense of the Eagles was propping the Eagles up and were still giving McNabb credit, because there’s this social hope…

ACOSTA: A social hope, Limbaugh said, for black quarterbacks.

Mr. LIMBAUGH: I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.

ACOSTA: Virtually the same remark that got him canned by ESPN in 2003. This week, McNabb fired one down Limbaugh’s throat.

Mr. DONOVAN McNABB (Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback): I don’t lower myself to anyone else because, you know, the type of person they are.

ACOSTA: For many of the sportscasters covering the Super Bowl, Limbaugh’s comments are a non-issue. The question is being raised: Do these statements say more about Donovan McNabb or Rush Limbaugh? ESPN’s Stuart Scott believes football has moved on; Limbaugh hasn’t.

What’s going on there, do you think?

Limbaugh described why he believed two years ago that Donovan McNabb was overrated — Acosta reports that as if Limbaugh still believes that way. Limbaugh praises McNabb and says he’s improved tremendously since 2003. Acosta lies and says that Limbaugh still thinks McNabb receives too much credit.

This is just like the Bill Moyers/James Watt story — “journalists” with an axe to grind simply fit the subject of their wrath into cookie cutter templates and the truth be damned.

Sources:

Rush Decision: Limbaugh Lauds McNabb. Scripps Howard, February 1, 2005.

Some reacting to comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding African-Americans in the NFL. Dan Rather and Jim Acosta, CBS News, February 4, 2005.

Dan Rather Does McNabb Hit Piece. Rush Limbaugh, February 14, 2005.

Ms. Magazine: Rush Limbaugh is “Like The Taliban”

On its web site, Ms. Magazine recently posted an article in which it bizarrely compared Rush Limbaugh to the Taliban. The author of the article, Marcia Ann Gillespie, wrote,

No, they are not the Taliban. No, our internal terrorists aren’t named Osama bin Laden. Our homegrown terrorists have names like the Lambs of God and William Pierce (author of the Turner Diaries). And then there are the Jerry Falwells who clutch their holy books while spewing hate speech, blaming and damning and demonizing feminists and homosexuals for this assault on America. Or Rush Limbaugh who routinely and obscenely labels people who believe in the social, economic, and political equality of women and men — as the dictionary describes feminism — as “feminazis” on America’s airwaves. No, they are not the Taliban, but like the Taliban, the demonization and oppression of women to save us, or purify the race, or preserve the family, or uphold patriarchy is central tot heir beliefs. And like the Taliban, many of them use religion to justify their words and actions.

First, although he holds to some utterly disgusting views, it is a bit odd for Gillespie to label William Pierce a terrorist since he has never been convicted of an act of violence to my knowledge. Pierce certainly writes racist, inflammatory books and gives speeches that advocate violence, but as far as I know he’s never engaged in an act of violence or terrorism.

It was odd that Gillespie mentioned Limbaugh after first mentioning Falwell, because her comments about the radio commentator are just as absurd as were Falwell’s nutty claims that the terrorist attacks occurred because America had turned its back on God by allowing homosexuality and abortion.

Limbaugh is quite clear that “feminazi” applies to the leaders in the pro-abortion movement. Such euphemisms are repugnant, but Gillespie herself is engaging in precisely this tactic when she compares Limbaugh to the Taliban. Or, as kids on the playground might retort, takes one to know one.

The scary thing is that Gillespie refers to Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi” as obscene, which may just be rhetoric, but may actually be meant literally given that she characterizes Falwell’s comments as “hate speech.” It’s a bit incongruous to see someone decrying the Taliban while turning around and endorsing the idea of hate speech, which is much closer in accordance with the ideals of the Taliban than is Limbaugh’s euphemisms for abortion advocates.

Source:

Ms. responds to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Marcia Ann Gillespie, Ms. Magazine, undated editorial, 2001.

Camille Paglia on NOW’s “Flush Rush” Campaign

Paglia slams NOW for “trying to shut down alternative political points of view.”

Like me, Camille Paglia is apparently still receiving letters from the National Organization for Women begging for money for their “Flush Rush!” campaign. After all of these years trying to get Limbaugh off the air waves without even a modicum of success, I would have thought NOW would have long ago moved on to something more productive, but alas such is not the case.

As Paglia recounts, the rhetoric in the NOW letters borders on hilarious.

NOW believes that Rush Limbaugh is truly a dangerous man. We need the help of every progressive person to expose the hateful, divisive fanaticism of Rush Limbaugh.

As opposed to the hateful, divisive fanaticism of an organization that rejected a resolution affirming the importance of fathers in children’s lives as being far too right wing.

As Paglia notes, whatever one thinks of Limbaugh, he is successful precisely because he has tapped a broad spirit of populism.

I don’t quite agree with her positive assessment of Limbaugh — “His daily radio show is the one reliable place ordinary citizens can turn to for a different perspective in the blizzard of propaganda and disinformation from the Northeastern media establishment” — but her description of NOW is on the money,

…a group that should be impartially devoted to the advancement of women is shamelessly whoring for the Democratic Party by trying to shut down alternative political points of view.

Source:

The peevish porcupine beats the shrill rooster. Camille Paglia, Salon.Com, December 6, 2000.