Saturday, July 14, 2007

More Lying Liberals

This is an old post (Dec. 2000), I know. But I just love exposing lying liberals. I have written about this in a previous post. Why Do Liberals Lie?


Rush Limbaugh was incredibly vicious about Chelsea. I used to watch his TV show while working a graveyard shift in 1992-93, and on one program, he pulled out a photo and called her "the White House dog." What kind of person does that to a kid in her early teens?

As for Jenna (not Janna not Jeena) Bush, I don't see where people are getting the idea that she's a dim bulb based on this fairy tale.
posted by rcade at 6:27 AM on December 22


The idiot liberal doesnt know that he gave himself away as the liar he is. Giving a phony description of events (a description he no doubt saw somewhere on the internet) and then lying about having watched it himself.

By the way, I believe that "rcade" at metafilter is Rogers Cadenhead who has in 2003 made the same claim again on his site:


Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, Limbaugh had a short-lived syndicated TV show. In a widely reported incident that I viewed personally, he talked about Socks the cat and then asked his audience, "did you know there's a White House dog?" For his punchline, Limbaugh showed a photo of a 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton.

It takes a special breed of jerk to go after the under-age child of a politician who was new to the national spotlight and not participating publicly in any political events. To expose her to ridicule for her looks, at what is easily the most awkward stage of adolescence, is completely indefensible.

Although the remark was immediately condemned, it took Limbaugh 10 years to have the decency to apologize, telling Hillary Clinton in December 2002 that he regretted making "a personal attack upon an innocent girl."


Of course, had he seen it as he claimed, he would have seen that Rush did apologize for the incident in question.

And "rcade" changes the details within the story:

March 2001:

I don't think it's reasonable for the Bushes to expect their daughters to receive the same hands-off treatment Chelsea did from everyone but the unctious Rush Limbaugh, who called her "the White House dog" in 1992 on his TV show.

Chelsea was 12 in 1992. These women are adults in college. If Chelsea was photographed falling down drunk today (or just falling down), I think the tabloid press would have a field day with it.

posted by rcade at 10:46 AM on March 9


But then in July 2001 he says:

Limbaugh once described a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton as "the family dog." Any abuse he gets as a result of being horizontally disproportionate is well-deserved.

posted to MetaFilter by rcade at 10:23 AM on July 16, 2001

Amazing how Chelsea was 12, then 13.

And this from Lionel Rolfe on "The American Reporter" (cached on google):


Limbaugh never was a very appetizing guy. He started out in radio as a "shock jock" - in the tree-heavy small-town environment of California's state capital, Sacramento. That was way back in the '80s. He would trade insults with his listeners - nothing overtly political, in those days. All very hokey and small town. He was a very mean spirited guy - the kind of guy who you'd expect to kick a cripple, and a lot of his political spiel is the equivalent of that. Nonetheless, his blustery style proved a perfect match for his Right-wing politics. So much so that he got rich when his spiel hit national radio in the 1990s. He adopted the politics of greed and mean.

He got off to a good start by calling Amy Carter, daughter of President Jimmy Carter, "the most unattractive presidential daughter" in the history of the country. But that was just a warmup. When Chelsea Clinton came along, he turned into some strange sort of stalker and he really outdid himself. When Chelsea was 16, he did a gag on his television show with the Clinton's White House dog, clearly meant to say what a dog she was. Ha. Ha.


And this:


Now, my dear neo-conservatives, how about recalling the truly disgusting things said about Chelsea Clinton when she was just beginning her adolescent years? (Rush Limbaugh called her "The White House Dog" on November 6, 1992, when she was TWELVE) Are you willing to take ownership for that, just as you are demanding liberals take ownership for cheap shots against the Bush children?


How about recalling something that did happen?

And this:

"Limbaugh plays hardball partisan politics, and like so many of his fellow pundits, he sticks pretty close to the conservative party line, hacking it up with the best of em. He played a particularly dirty game during the Clinton years, taking aim not only at Bill Clinton, but at the entire Clinton family.
Apparently, as vicious as his smear campaign was, it wasn't vicious enough unless he attacked a unwitting child, showing a picture of 13-year-old Chelsea on his television show, and announcing it was a photograph of "the White House dog."

OOPS!

Now I suppose if I hadn't called them drunken sluts (which is untrue because they are) and instead called them the "white house dogs" you would have been all fine with that!

Posted by Redneckville at 2007-07-02 02:33 PM

"Oops" is right. Try reading the transcript of what really happened.

website statistics


Comments:
Here is what the Washington Post says happened:

Rush Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm

Now, which is more believable, an unsourced "Lexis-Nexis" transcript repeated from The Free Republic, or The Washington Post.

You decide.
 
I'm well aware of that particular article in the Washington Post. Have been for years. Doesnt mean its accurate.

"Now, which is more believable, an unsourced "Lexis-Nexis" transcript repeated from The Free Republic, or The Washington Post."

"Unsourced Lexis Nexis transcript"? What the hell is that? If something, an article, a transcript, exists on Lexis Nexis, then ipso facto, it is sourced! And whats more, the transcript predates the Washington Post article. Lexis Nexis is a non-partisan archival resource. Whereas the Washinton Post is a liberally biased newspaper. Lexis Nexis beats your Washington Post article hands down. The only thing better than that transcript, that is archived on Lexis, is a video of the incident. Which in 15 years, your side has failed to provide!
 
"Now, which is more believable, an unsourced "Lexis-Nexis" transcript repeated from The Free Republic, or The Washington Post.

You decide."

The Lexis Nexis of course! Silly liberal. Dont you realize that Lexis Nexis is a better source than The Washington Post???
 
The Lexis-Nexis transcript is from a 1992 episode of Rush's show. The "White House dog" crack was made on a 1993 episode of the show. There were two such incidents. The 1992 incident may have been an error; the 1993 "joke" was clearly intended.

Rush fans have tried to claim the 1993 incident didn't happen by distributing the transcript of the 1992 incident, hoping that nobody would be able to tell the difference.
 
"The Lexis-Nexis transcript is from a 1992 episode of Rush's show. The "White House dog" crack was made on a 1993 episode of the show. There were two such incidents. The 1992 incident may have been an error; the 1993 "joke" was clearly intended."

This is a total falsehood. There are no two incidents. There is only the one. The one cited in the 1992 transcript.

"Rush fans have tried to claim the 1993 incident didn't happen by distributing the transcript of the 1992 incident, hoping that nobody would be able to tell the difference."

No. The Rush fans are trying to set the record straight on what really happened.

Whenever the false incident got told, the Rush fans would simply pull out the transcript to prove what really happend. So Rush's critic invented this fiction of the incident occuring in 1993.

There is NO 1993 incident. Period.

But hey, if we're wrong, then prove us wrong. Give us the 1993 transcript, or better yet, a video. It hasnt happend and never will happen. Know why? Because the so called 1993 incident never happened.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?