"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." ~ Baltasar Gracian
Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated by The Landmark Legal Foundation, headed by Conservative lawyer and author ("Men In Black")Mark Levin.
Not surprisingly, The New York Slimes has skewered this nomination by publishing their readers reaction to the announcement. Could it be that there is no such thing as a Conservative Slimes reader or does the Slimes simply refuse to print comments from Conservatives? I don't know, but after reading all I could stomach of readers comments on the nomination, one (or both) of those explanations certainly seems to be the case.
There are the obligatory comparisons to Nazi's and the predictable slurs claiming Rush is a crack addict and infidel. Also, a racist, woman hater, and gay basher.
Oh, and let's not leave out the comments that he is apparently not worthy of a Peace prize because he doesn't believe women or doctors have a right to kill babies. Does anyone else see a disconnect here?
Here are some of the comments here:
"Hilarious, a drug addict and former welfare recipient (i.e., Rush “Blowhard” Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. This could be the basis of a new reality show."
Former welfare recipient? Just exactly how does that preclude him from being a Nobel Prize recipient? Or drug addict, for that matter? Any other time that would almost win the prize on it's own. I don't believe he was ever on welfare anyway. His Father was a Lawyer, fer Chrissake!
Here's another:
"Mr. Rush Limbaugh, a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States. Mr. Limbuagh has openly and repeatedly advocated violence against both doctors that provide legal abortion to adult women in the U.S. and against Court Judges who fail to support the minimalist interpretation of rights provided under the U.S. Constitution. The sohistry and bigotry of the thrice divorced [due to his extra-marital affairs] Limbaugh would put a necrosmile on the face of the nazi Goebbels. Mr. Limbaugh has every right to be nominated for a Nobel Peace price as long as the Committee takes into consideration the fact that Mr. Limbaugh’s remains the unapologetic mouthpiece of the Hate-4-Faith wing of the U.S. official jingoists."
— Posted by Dr. Henry McDillan
This one is singular, because this commenter managed to include every negative thing he's ever heard about Limbaugh, apparently not pausing to check his facts, while taking a further swipe at Christians and patriots.
Also, take notice that the commenter signs his name with the the prefix Dr. Perhaps he is one of the nation's abortion providers who feel their livelihood is endangered by the possible, if not probable overturning of Roe vs Wade?
One more, and then I'll bring this rant to a close. You can read the rest if you have the inclination:
"He hates blacks, he hates Mexicans, he hates liberals, he loves our involvement in Iraq, doesn’t think 3000 dead soldiers is any problem. All this in the name of world peace."
Now, I listen to Rush often. Not everyday, but often enough that if he ever expressed hatred of any of these groups (including Liberals) I would certainly have heard it. It's interesting to me that those who seem to object to him the most are the ones that obviously don't listen to him.
I am not a big fan of Rush simply because I find him a little too arrogant and egotistic. That said, he is rarely wrong. I suppose that is the reason the Libs hate him with such vigor.
It is generally seen as something of a badge of honor to be hated by your opponents, particularly in the field of politics. He has earned that badge.
He won't win, of course. The Nobel Prize committee is overwhelmingly a Liberally biased organization.
It is, however, a significant slap in the face of Rush haters everywhere. And that is worth something, at least.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
There is a reason why the New Left has so much vitriol for conservatives. That you don't see the same level of vitriol against socialist tyrants and dark age religious fanatics is telling.
Leftists believe the Grand Inquistor's argument against Christ in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. "Feed the people," he proclaimed, "then they will have virtue."
Conservatives offer a competing view of the state of the world, where man is not a helpless victim, but can choose the good or the evil. Liberals like to believe they can make people good through charity. However, government charity can make a dictator stronger. Government charity can also cause family breakdown, along with the crime, drug dependency, and juvenile delinquency that goes along with it. While conservatives see human life as an end in itself, liberals have inverted the Kantian maxim. Liberals take it as a maxim that no person shall be treated as an end, but only as a means to arrive at a general good.
Autocrats like Hugo Chavez and neo-medievalists like Osama bin Laden don't challenge the liberal view. Conservatives, who believe in the Western Tradition, do. And that's why all of liberal rage is directed our way.
So what citation would you all give to demonstrate that Rush Limbaugh, more than anyone else in the world, has “done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”?
liam--
Are you saying the Peace Prize should only be reserved for terrorists like Yasser Arafat, and appeasers like Jimmy Carter?
Standing up to those who want global sharia law itself should merit a peace prize. If not Limbaugh, how about George W. Bush?
I've not listened to Rush since the late nineties. Partly because of few outlets I could tune into...partly because of what you described, Mark.
The left hates the guy. He has been such a thorn in their sides for so long that they hate him more than they do Bush.
He won't win. But I think it's great he was nominated.
I think I'll wear my "Vote for Pedro" T-shirt tomorrow!
I would not consider Rush a conservative. William Kristol is a conservative. Pat Buchannan is a conservative. George Will is a conservatvie. These people actually think and write and propose reasoned arguments for conservative thought and values.
Rush is a clown who simply blabs descriptions of what he is pulling out of his ass.
It doesn't matter whether he is left or right. He has absolutely nothing to offer that could possibly qualify him for any prestigious award, much less the Nobel Pease Prize.
I agree with Jim. Rush is not so much a conservative as a clown. I listened to him for a few weeks before I realized he was supposedly serious. I thought his show was a spoof of conservatives.
I don't think it's so much that folk on the Left hate him (I certainly don't) but rather, we just think his hypocrisy and ignorant bellowing is just a bit sad.
I did think he was at least funny at one point (I listened fairly regularly for years). But he seems to be taking himself more seriously than he used to and that is what is just a bit pathetic.
And I echo Liam's question: What in the world has he possibly done to make his nomination for a PEACE prize anything but a joke?
I know a barely adequate reporter at a small-town newspaper in Texas who nominated himself for the Pulitzer Prize. Nominations don't mean squat. I betcha a dollar that the outfit that nominated Rush for the Nobel did it to get publicity, which you gave 'em.
What part of "peace" dont'cha get?
Re, "Conservatives offer a competing view of the state of the world, where man is not a helpless victim, but can choose the good or the evil."
You're mistaking namby-pamby, touchy-feely academic-oriented political correctness for balls-out, people-first, tear-down-the-towers-of-power liberalism.
Choose good: Work for peace and for people. Choose evil: Work for war and to hell with people.
Wow. Thank you, Liberals. You have proven that Rush is right again with your inaccurate, lying, spiteful comments about him. You might try listening to him with an open mind sometime. It is painfully obvious you haven't.
I will "pull a Dan" here:
Show documentation that Rush is what you say he is. Otherwise, admit you are dead wrong about him.
For the benefit of those readers who don't care to boither with clicking the appropriate links in this blogpost, here is the reasoning behind Rush's nomination from the man who nominated him:
"Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in
the world today," explained Levin. "Everyday he gives voice to the values
of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal
application of the rule of law -- and it is fitting that the Nobel
Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful
world for future generations."
I like Rush because he tells it like it is. He does pack a punch, and liberals hate him because they believe they are the only ones on the planet to have the right to say what they think.
I wish Rush would win, but we know that he won't. It's great he was nominated though.
Yes, Rush comes across as arrogant, but he also makes fun of himself. You and I both know he doesn't really think his naked body is "glorious!" LOL! He'd have to be both blind and dumb and regardless of what some of your liberal readers think, Rush may be a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them. He didn't get where he is by being dumb. Neither do I believe he was ever on welfare.
Rant on liberals. Your moonbats with air time, both on the radio and television, outnumber our outspoken conservatives a thousand to one, but they can't outdo Rush as hard as they try. Just ask the producers of Air America. :)
If someone can nominate America hating witch Cindy Sheehan, then why not Rush Limbaugh.
In fact, I'm going to nominate Mark for the prize.
Why not? If the Norweigans gave it to Carter, it can't be that big a deal.
I would wrather see Rush get it that Al Gore anyday!
I'm glad you'd "pull a Dan," Mark, and honored to have my name associated with the simple request to back up one's claims with facts.
I'm not exactly sure which claims you'd like us to support, though. That he's not qualified to be a serious nominee for a Peace Prize?
Insofar as the nomination of Rush is just a fluke, a joke made by those who don't have much respect for the Nobel, well, it is what it is.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks Rush is someone to be talked of in the same sentence as Gandhi, King, Jesus or other real peacemakers. Rush just talks and jokes for a living, not really what one normally considers peace work. While I like Al Franken, I wouldn't think a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize is in order.
Do you really need support for this claim or are you talking about others? As to your quotes in your original essay, where someone accused him of hating various people, I don't make that claim.
I think he's merely an entertainer: If he makes outrageous claims and demonizes certain folk out there, then his base thinks that's entertaining and he "succeeds." His show stays on the air and he gets rich.
That's all I think he's about - entertaining. He's said as much himself (and again, I used to listen to him quite regularly).
Do you need some support for that?
Well, Dan, let's start with your own statement:
" we just think his hypocrisy and ignorant bellowing is just a bit sad."
Hypocrisy? ignorant? A Clown?Documentation, please.
Do you realize that a recent study proved that Rush is right 97.4% of the time when he makes predictions about what the left will say or do, and of how the media will slant stories? This is Clownish ignorance and hypocrisy in your book?
Listen when you so vehemently reject the notion that Rush should win a peace prize, remember that Yassar Arafat was an actual winner.
Geeeez, talk about hypocrisy!
HYPOCRISY:
Do I really need to point to the hypocrisy of his repeated condemnation of drug abusers and how they ought to be jailed and his response when HE was one of these self-same drug abusers?
Wouldn't a non-hypocritical response be to say, "I've always said that drug abusers should be jailed and therefore, I will admit my guilt and gladly serve my time. I'll not ask for mercy because, as I've said, drug abusers are lawbreakers and ought to go to jail."
Okay, a quote:
"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
source:
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/rush.html
Do you need others?
IGNORANT:
On this point, I may have to back off. I don't think he's usually ignorant. I believe he probably knows better and deliberately makes false statements.
But if one thinks it ignorant to make false statements, then here are some examples of ignorant statements:
"Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth"
"The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe"
"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."
source:
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/rush.html
Other sources for mistakes or lies (depending upon whether he spoke in ignorance or deliberately misspoke):
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/
Limbaugh_lies_about_Iraq_Al_queda.htm
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/
search_results?qstring=limbaugh
How many misstatements do you want?
I've never heard Rush say any of those things either, and I've been listening for a long time now... since before Clinton was elected.
He won't win... even HE admits that... Hell! LIBERALS should KNOW that, but they operate from a position of fear, self-loathing, and hatred. I'm not surprised. You're not surprised. Rush is not surprised.
Thanks for posting. Oh, I like Jason's use of 'neo-medievalist'... I'll have to remember that one.
CLOWN:
This claim is more subjective. Rush is, by his own admission, an entertainer.
“I am not an ideologue. I do not want to be the leader of a movement. I am an entertainer and I just want to attract and hold as large a listening audience as I can.”
(New American Magazine, 1992)
He is a comic, he makes jokes, he plays gag songs and has his little skit-like segments of his show (or at least he used to, I haven't listened in a few years). I find him to be a clown.
And that's why I used to listen to him, he used to be a bit funny (if mean-spirited and crude). But the problem is when people start taking a clown seriously, and even worse, when the clown himself starts taking himself seriously.
I've no problem with Limbaugh doing his comic bit for the entertainment of his right-ish (and some left-ish) followers. But when they start treating statements such as found below seriously, then that's problematic:
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
"Fine, just blow the place up." [on the Middle East]
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/
rushlimbau131573.html
"This is not as serious as everybody is making it out to be." [On the torture at Abu Gihraib]
He strikes me as a clown that's being taken seriously. But I'll grant that this is a matter of opinion.
And I agree with ER... "Nominations don't mean squat"
While I personally wouldn't have nominated Rush for the Nobel Appeasement Prize, his nomination is not so entirely farfetched considering the people that actually win these days. And I'm not at all surprised by Jim and Dan's reaction to his nomination. I'm equally appalled by Mother Sheehan's nomination.
The Nobel committee has made some stupendous blunders in recent years, in their choice of winners
1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin. Okay, Peres and Rabin, I can see for the sacrifices they made toward peace... I can see them, but Arafat? What did he sacrifice? Did the onslaught of suicide bombers cease?
2001: The United Nations AND Kofi Annan...... LOLOLOLOLOLAROFLSM!!!!!!!!!!!!
2002: Jimmy Carter.... Huh!? What did HE do to deserve that?
Here's a short list...
Under Carter's Watch:
1. The Cuban Army was leased wholesale by the Soviets to prop up a murderous regime in Angola.
2. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
3. America stood idly by while thugs with prayer rugs took over the most important nation in the middle east.
4. Stood idly by while those same thugs took American hostages.
5. Iraq ivaded Iran.
6. The US did nothing in solidarity with Poland's Solidarity, the group that did as much as anyone to end the Cold War.
7. OPEC screwed the world. Again.
8. Soviet diplomats marched unimpeded through Africa.
9. The Panama Canal, built with American blood and money, was turned over to the thuggish rulers of Panama.
10. Nicaragua's friendly (if brutal) dictator was replaced by the even more brutal -- and Soviet-sponsored -- Sandinistas.
11. Revolution was exported from Nicaragua throughout Central America.
"About the only "peace" brought about under Carter was the Cold Peace between Israel and Egypt, which, despite billions of dollars in bribes -- er, aid -- Egypt could turn back from in a heartbeat.
"Perhaps the Nobel Prize committee was thinking of Carter's post-president activities. Such as cozying up to dictators in Cuba and North Korea, and openly siding with and praising terrorist Yasser Arafat." --Vodka Pundit
And allow me to add that Carter has managed to praise the election of thugs and dictators while decrying our own and Iraq's. Employees of The Carter Center have resigned because of his false statements and plagiarism in his most recent book, which, I might add, proudly praises the Palestinians and Hamas, while being openly scornful of Israel.
Perhaps the only DECENT thing Carter did was to align himself with Habitat for Humanity. I guess there is some truth to the old saying, "Good fences make good neighbors". I reckon that was enough to warrant the Nobel Peace Prize.
Carter received his Nobel, according to their website:
"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
And Carter HAS been an outspoken advocate of peace and peacemaking. He HAS advanced democracy and human rights through his Carter Center, which has overseen elections in countries struggling towards democracy.
While president (1978), he negotiated The Camp David Accords, which led to a peace between Egypt and Israel that has lasted to the present. No mean feat, that.
Then there is, as you note, all his work with Habitat.
If nothing else, I'd think that one could objectively say that Carter is easily the best, most Christian, most humanitarian EX-president in this century, given the competition in that category. Where most presidents retire to give speeches and get wealthier, Carter has been about the business of peace and justice.
Don't let your bitterness towards the man blind you to what he's done.
As to EL's list of complaints against Carter, let me address this one:
"Nicaragua's friendly (if brutal) dictator was replaced by the even more brutal -- and Soviet-sponsored -- Sandinistas."
This would be hilarious if it weren't so woefully and deadly wrong.
The US supported for years the US-friendly Somoza regime in Nicaragua, but it was a brutal and wholly corrupt regime. In the end, the US wasn't even gladly supporting Somoza anymore, so deadly and corrupt he had become.
The people of Nicaragua, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this dictator, as the people of a nation SHOULD do to a brutal dictator. Then, the Sandinistas were elected into office.
This was promptly followed by a war by proxy sponsored by the US and carried out by the Contras who were objectively terrorists. That is, they raided villages in Nicaragua, killing and raping and "disappearing" farming families whose sin was being supportive of their duly elected gov't.
Was the Sandinista gov't perfect? No way. Very flawed. But they were not more brutal than the thuggish dictator they overthrew and they were popularly supported. They would likely have been in power still (of course, Ortega and the Sandinistas ARE back in power now) if the US had not sponsored an illegal war to overthrow the gov't.
Please Eric, don't spread disinformation. This is all easily verified. It does damage to your credibility in trying to denigrate Carter when you get basic information like this wrong.
Myself, I know it to be the case because I have friends who live in Nicaragua and have been there myself. I've heard from the villagers about the terrorism of the Contras and the wickedness of the Somozas (often one in the same) and the relatively better years of the Sandinistan gov't.
These people are nuts. There is something mentally wrong with someone who truly, emotionally hates someone simply because they believe differently. I have contempt for liberal politicians. I think they're a pack of power-hungry crooks. But I don't hate any of them.
Mark, glad to see the line (never to be crossed) between ideologies is still in tact. I believe Mark Levin is highlighting the insignificance and obscurity which now overshadow the NPP.
I noticed that Cindy Sheehan's nomination escaped comment regarding her deservedness.
When people like Winston Churchill, FDR and some of the great generals of WWII are excluded from the "winner's circle" one can conclude that the Nobel has little to do with "peace" and much ado about nothing.
Old soldier, do you not recognize the irony in suggesting that war-makers - even if you think them necessary and highly important and valuable - receive a PEACEmaking prize?
I mean, would you nominate Gandhi for a Medal of Honor or a Purple Heart?
Lone Ranger, who has said that they "hate" anyone? I believe the only ones mentioning hatred of Rush is Mark and you, interpreting what some folk have said.
Now, some have said that Rush is a hateful person, but that isn't saying that they hate him.
Just for the record.
Read Dr. Henry McDillan's comment again. That is hatred. Don't split hairs with me, dan. Just because someone doesn't actually use the word doesn't mean he isn't experiencing the emotion. Maintaining otherwise is pure, intellectual dishonesty.
I re-read the Doctor's comments. It sounds like someone who is responding to Rush in kind.
Rush calls some women "feminazis," this fella called Rush a neo-nazi. Rush rants against liberals or perceived liberals of all stripes, this fella is ranting against Rush.
I don't suspect that Rush hates all the people he maligns, just that it's all a joke to him and a way to get ratings. With this fella - this ONE fella, Dr. McDillan - I don't know what his motives are.
But you all here are defending Rush, saying that when he calls people names and mocks them viciously, it's not out of hatred. But when this one fella does the same thing, it must be hatred.
Which is it? You gonna try to have it both ways? It's playful fun when my guy does it but vicious hatred when this other guy does it?
You just want to have your cake and eat it too, Dan... you're whining because these folks are asking you to pay per mouthful.
Truth is, you don't like Rush because of what he believes about the Left, and you're unwilling to objectively look into the mirror. Perhaps you're afraid you'll have to own up to your own inner Neo-Nazi. After all, wasn't George Soros, billionaire-Liberal donor who said, "We need to de-Nazify this nation"? Dems and Libs won't distance themselves from that kind of rhetoric, which makes them little more than political whores.
"Truth is, you don't like Rush because of what he believes about the Left, and you're unwilling to objectively look into the mirror."
Again Eric, you know better than I what I think. I bow to your bigger head.
But what exactly is it that I'm whining about? And what exactly are you talking about, "have my cake and eat it, too"??
What are you talking about?
Dan--
Release your hate, young Jedi!
erudite--
The armies of Grant and Eisenhower have done more for human freedom than your feel-good international committees ever will.
old soldier--
"When people like Winston Churchill, FDR and some of the great generals of WWII are excluded from the "winner's circle" one can conclude that the Nobel has little to do with "peace" and much ado about nothing."
Pure gold my friend.
Mark, no need to address the moonbats, good post. I prefer Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved to Rush, hands down. He is a conservative icon though a dottering one, frankly, I do not like his show and believe it undermines American conservatism as it stands today.
Just a tip for all who may not know: Rush's ego and arrogance are for fun and show. It's so freakin' over the top that I can't believe anyone buys into it. Certainly, like many in the public eye, there is some level of ego or else he'd never have the stones to be on the air, but for the most part, it's the joke. His insights into liberalism and Dem strategies is right on the money and he knows full well the problems plaguing the GOP. No genius required, just objective observation.
Speaking of lies and distortions, this crap about Carter brokering peace between Egypt and Israel is a heavy and smelly load. All he did was provide the hotel room. Sadat took the high road when he became tired of the deaths and went to the Israel and said, "Hey, this ain't happenin'" and became the first Arab to appear before the Israeli government. He was cheered by the Israeli people like he was a hero. Carter was insignificant to the process. Nell Carter could have done what Jimma did. She probably wouldn't have acted like it was her idea.
Back to Rush. The women he refers to as "femi-nazis" are nazi-like in their ideas and goals. And really, how many of them are hot? But seriously....
"You Judge Rush based on a pain pill addiction, he acquired after a few surgeries?"
Actually, Rush is the one who made judgements about drug abusers. I'm just saying he should stand by his words.
"You call him names like a frustrated child."
What names? I said he's hypocritical because he was at least in that one regard, I refered to him as a clown because he's a comic, I called his words ignorant because they are based upon falsehoods. I acknowledged that it may well be that he's deliberately making misstatements, in which case he'd be deceptive, not ignorant.
I've called no names, just holding Rush to his words.
Don't mistake calls for integrity for hatred, friends.
Dan...your passion for hating Rush shows...whther you admit it or not!
Yes, we have already acknowledged that our right-ish friends here know better what we think than we do.
To paraphrase Ben Parker:
With great pride comes great stupidity.
Why are libs so bent out of shape over Rush's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize?
I think it's the same reason that they're bent out of shape when it comes to Rush in general.
He's a threat.
He's powerful, so powerful that the libs have poured their resources into copying him. They have been desperately seeking a Leftist "Rush" for years. Of course, they've failed.
Why are the libs afraid of a little balance?
Instead of terrorists (Yasser Arafat) and terrorist appeasers (Jimmy Carter), a conservative has been suggested as an appropriate Nobel laureate for a change. What's the problem? Why not show a little tolerance?
In short, libs need to get a grip.
I think the libs' outrage over the Rush nomination stems from the fact that it mocks the Left's idolatry for the Nobel Peace Prize.
One of their gods, the Prize, has come under attack. It's been exposed for what it is -- a joke.
Dan...in truth...with a pacifist idologue who only comments in opposition of one's points...EVER...even when he agrees with a portion of one's point, and who has commented a baziilion times in that manner....one tends to get into the mind of a pacifist ideologue.
A pacifist ideologue who ignores the valid points of others. A pacifist ideologue who claims to be fair-minded yet NEVER writes a post in condemnation of the shmucks he agrees with on a few minor points like Michael Moore or Mommy Sheehan. A pacifist ideologue who clearly believes he is enlightened above all of us lowly flat-earth,close-minded, greedy, war-loving, hypocritical, prejudiced, Christ-denying, bible idoalter, theocratic., oppressive conservatives.
Yeah, Dan. Some of us are qualified to give opinions on the workings of your one-track mind. We have the evidence we base our analysis on...in our archives.
Hi Mark,
I heard that he had been nominated, although I would hope he would turn it down. The prize isn't worth the effort, simply because they have given it to so many terrorists and idiots. I wouldn't want Rush lumped in with that crowd.
Blessings
Well, if we can nominate anyone, I would nominiate Mike at Mike's America and Dee over at Little Miss Chatterbox... but then again, I like them too much to do that.
Post a Comment