-
Give Peace a Chance
February 8, 2012 | 9 comments
-
Jennifer Rubin to Endorse Santorum, Reject Romney?
February 7, 2012 | 50 comments
-
Fox: Trump for Romney
February 2, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Trump to Endorse -- Or Enter Race?
February 1, 2012 | 28 comments
-
The Fractious Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin
February 1, 2012 | 41 comments
The Spectacle Blog
So there I am yesterday in good old Mom's hospital room, the television turned to CNN. Mom, 90, was giving me an adventure in the American health care system with her small stroke, pneumonia and atrial fibrillation. She's just fine, the health care system was A-plus and were she in Massachusetts today she'd be voting for Scott Brown too.
But I digress.
As we sat there, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was holding forth on Haiti, the obvious story of the day. Suddenly, Mr. Sanchez veers off into something he calls "Rick's List," a new feature of his show. Part of this list, in Mr. Rick's own words, concerns "The List You Don't Want To Be On." According to his website, which I later checked, "This is the where people and institutions who take us for granted, who think we're stupid, who constantly pee on our legs and tell us it's raining will get called out publicly."
OK. Got it.
The problem? Mr. Rick looked the camera in the eye and proceeded to tell Mom and myself that at the top of his "List You Don't Want to Be On" was -- Rush Limbaugh. Who had beaten out number two -- Mehmet Ali Agca.
That's right. A CNN anchor was telling Mom and me that Rush was worse than the man who shot the Pope. Why might this be? Because, informed the CNN anchor Mr. Rick, Rush was opposed to sending aid to Haiti.
Now, as it happens, I had taken a hospital break earlier in the day to race home and edit the piece on Ted Olson, which appears elsewhere on this site today. As I did so, Rush was on, discussing this nonsense, thoroughly detailing what he actually said and calling out those who, yet again, were trying in deliberate fashion to claim he said something he never said. Since this happens, as Rush listeners know, with some regularity not only to Rush but to just about any conservative on the airwaves, I listened, shook my head for the umpteenth time and kept working.
So when I heard Mr. Rick…hours later…I was astonished to hear him, post-Rush, post-radio broadcast to a Rush audience of almost 20 million people…tell Mom and me and whoever the other six people were in his audience that Rush was opposed to sending aid to Haiti, I have to say I was astonished. Here was a CNN anchor reporting something about Rush -- as fact -- that he had to know was utterly false. Untrue. I knew it, because I had heard Rush's original broadcast. Twenty million Rush listeners knew it. Yet Mr. Rick was telling his CNN audience what I knew was a flat, factual untruth. And he never batted an eye.
As it happens, I was on CNN not long ago, a guest on what turned out to be Lou Dobbs' last show. In the kerfuffle surrounding the Dobbs departure, much was made by CNN flacks that Mr. Dobbs was too opinionated for CNN tastes, that CNN wanted to position itself in the cable news world as the neutral just-the-facts network.
Fair enough.
But is this really so? Based on Rick Sanchez's obviously deliberate broadcasting of an untruth -- a checkable untruth -- about Rush Limbaugh yesterday, one can only shake one's head at the notion this kind of bunk is what is causing Fox to beat the pants off CNN.
Yesterday, Rick Sanchez looked Mom and me in the eye and told us a blatant untruth. He never blinked. And shot his own network in the foot.
The last time he did this kind of thing, the Limbaugh legal team forced an on-air apology.
This time, the most appropriate apology would be to Sanchez's own bosses for taking an on-air whack at CNN's credibility.
If the whole thing weren't so junior high school, it might even be serious.
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/19/rick-sanchez-slams-rush-damage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Republic, Regained
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tim| 1.19.10 @ 11:34AM
Watching Sanchez (or anyone on CNN) attacking Rush is like watching a chihuaha trying to mount a St Bernard.
Patriot| 1.19.10 @ 4:55PM
Gross.
notmypresident2010| 1.19.10 @ 11:55AM
Rick Sanchez was a small potatoes no talent liar in South Florida for years before he went to the casting couch at CNN and went down on the program director
Liberal Reader| 1.19.10 @ 3:11PM
not --
Why that's a sensitive, thoughtful analysis. Have you ever thought of becoming a professional writer? You have all the makings of one: invention, good diction, a mastery of the language, and profound intellectual curiosity. In addition, you are clearly a man of wit. No, sir. Deny the world no longer!
Patriot| 1.19.10 @ 5:00PM
Jeff, glad your mom's okay-- best wishes to her.
Didn't Sanchez run a man over and kill him? A hit and run in Florida, as I recall. A typical scofflaw liberal; someone Liberal Screeder loves to defend.
Hey, Screeder; keeping an eye on Massachusetts today?
Liberal Reader| 1.19.10 @ 2:00PM
Mr Lord,
I heard Limbaugh's original comments and his defense of them.
While he clearly did NOT say some of the things people are claiming he said, his overall tone and approach to the disaster in Haiti has been somewhat cynical and callous.
One of Rush's points (to call them that) seemed to be that Obama cares more for Haiti than he does for the United States because he spoke publicly about this disaster more quickly than he did the attempted bombing on Christas Day. This criticism was offered in such bad faith it scarcely merits response. The two situations were very different and demanded different kinds of responses.
But Limbaugh continued, speculating about Obama's inner most secret motives.
Now to assert -- with NO evidence -- that Obama's "real" motives for offering aid to Haiti are exclusively political and somehow related to domestic power plays is debased.
In general, attacking people for what one believes are their true, secret motives is a debased form of discourse. It's probably hard to avoid sometimes, but by its nature it invites claims that cannot be supported or reasonably argued.
"Dick Cheney only ran for president to aggrandize his own insatiable desire for power."
Well, O.K. I can say this. But what's the point? What evidence do I have? Isn't it better simply to critique the things Cheney says and does and try to offer an explanation of my reasoning?
Leave it to God to read men's hearts.
By the way, Limbaugh's real motive in all this is to inflame racial anxiety in the United States.
How do I know?
I just pulled it out of my beHIND, that's how I know, and that's the ultimate origin of most such claims.
All the same, I wish you mother goodhealth and long life.
Flee| 1.19.10 @ 3:48PM
Didn't you just do what you claim Rush did in trying to make assumptions about motives? I too thought Obama was far too quick to respond to a natural disaster in a foreign land. I would think his disaster management team could be seen as the first responders rather than the COC. It was indeed curious that he was extremely cautious in his response to the Christmas day attack when most Americans were looking for leadership. Obama committed millions in aid as if he was pulling out a $20 from his wallet. To this day, no one has been terminated for the vast failure that was the Christmas day attack. Can such failure to perform the most basic duty of protecting the country be treated as such a minor incident that no one gets cut? The different levels of urgency for both episodes is what is striking. I too won't be donating any of my cash to Haiti since the government decided to do so on my behalf. I wish I could get the tax deduction for it.
Liberal Reader| 1.19.10 @ 4:41PM
Flee --
News organizations are now reporting that the death toll may exceed TWO hundred thousand in Haiti. This is a disaster, in our hemisphere, of tremendous proportions. Our current president, together with George W Bush and Bill Clinton have responded admirably. Your jaundiced view of anything whatsoever Obama does is utterly weird.
The Christmas Day bombing called for a a different kind of urgency. It was an intelligence failure. Sending in the troops with water and first aid kits was not merited. I find I cannot understand the basis of your criticism. It's simply illogical.
Now, I wish someone would be fired for Christmas Day. But who? Do you choose the people with the most experience -- often lifetimes of related experience -- who occupy the highest levels of the intelligence community? Accountability has many forms. Someone may still yet get fired and satisfy us all, but I hope cooler heads are prevailing in Washington. No one should be fired just because it would make us feel better.
And no, if you read my post, I did NOT do what I accused Rush of doing. No one will ever accuse you of being hypersensitive to irony, that's for sure.
Patriot| 1.19.10 @ 5:13PM
Rush just wants to make sure our donations actually do some good for the average Haitian, rather than just line the pockets of the corrupt Haitian leaders.
We have given billions of dollars to Haiti over the years--Clinton made Haiti a special priority during his presidency-- and the people are worse off than ever.
It makes absolutely NO SENSE to keep pouring money down a sink hole: It's way past time to hold the Haitian leadership accountable.
As, usual, Rush is right.
Liberal Reader| 1.19.10 @ 2:02PM
Before some gleeful commenter says it, I will: I meant to write "vice president," not "president," for the office Cheney sought.
Pax.
Patriot| 1.19.10 @ 5:14PM
Nah, we don't care--we're not as petty as you.
martin j smith| 1.19.10 @ 2:10PM
i do not watch CNN --on a voluntary basis anyway. When it is on in a public place I say to myself-"what do you expect ? Usually though I avoid it because it is one piece of garbage among many. Any way, my perspective is this: Who the hell cares who Rick Sanchez is & what he says. ?
Ilike Rush Limbaugh--doesn.t mean I agree with everything he says. But I like his challenging PC
and "conventional wisdom. In addition he is smart and has insights that others do not or are afraid to state. CNN and their ilk "hate" Rush Limbaugh because he is successful and they are not. He is smarter than they are and they are simple minded robots following the Party Line.
The reason that Democrats and the fellow travelers "hate " Rush is because he is a threat to them. He is a threat because at least a good portion of what he says is true and resonates with voters.
WJ| 1.19.10 @ 3:01PM
To Liberal Reader:
While I may not agree with you, your post here is a good one. Appreciate your point of view.
Liberal Reader| 1.19.10 @ 3:07PM
Thanks, WJ. Kind of you to say.
Oldefarte| 1.19.10 @ 3:06PM
Considering that I did not listen to the Limbaugh comments, I do believe that I have an idea as to his meaning concerning Haiti. Liberals [including Obama, and especially the Hollywood morons] begin jumping up and down whenever there's a Haiti or Katrina, simply because their bleeding-heart liberalism is only POLITICALLY motivated by disasters that effect minorities [their constituents of choice]. Shamfully, you never hear a peep out of them when some deranged Muslim psychiatrist walks into a military staging room with a gun and mows down innocent veterans to the tune of 23 [or when same commendeers four civilian aircraft and use them as guided missles to anilate 3000+ innocents in NY, DC and Pennsylvania]. At times such as the latter, the silence coming from liberals is deafening. I think that maybe that is what Limbaugh may have been referring to; certainly not that his hard working, taxpaying, church-attending listerners should not be concerned with the human devastation of Haiti!!!!!
Ron| 1.19.10 @ 3:28PM
Oldefarte - Agreed. Also it would be surprising if more than twenty cents of every dollar goes to help those who need it and not stolen.
John J| 1.19.10 @ 5:30PM
Flee| 1.19.10 @ 3:48PM
'I too won't be donating any of my cash to Haiti '
On the basis of what you imagine the government is improperly doing? Why not go through Red Cross directly or some other affiliate? I think your response is a sham, a petticoat you wish to hide behind.
Limbaugh comments on a regular basis are vile beyond comprehension. Some say he's an entertainer , some say he's a good ol' fashioned boy!'
He's a polarizer of the worst kind. Bush, Clinton and Obama came together for the greater good and that's what I want from leaders.
Unfortunately there's a power vacuum in the GOP party, which is being filled by Limbaugh, a bigoted moron with 14m listeners on the radio.
Jeremiah| 1.20.10 @ 2:54PM
C'mon, John J--you libs just got your butts handed to you big time last night. Where's your humility?
Lay off Rush, he's here to stay; don't know if I can say the same for you fascist losers.
John J| 1.20.10 @ 6:44PM
'C'mon, John J--you libs just got your butts handed to you big time last night. Where's your humility?'
Exactly the type of idiotic partisan comment I'd expect. I'm an independent and choose to vote on issues, in one of those swing states you may have heard about?? Maybe not!
You might also like to consider the fact, No One is here to stay, as you put it.
I do believe the main issue is about Haiti and the earthquake and subsequent tremors. Fortunately the great US public have a different and largely sympathetic held view to offer aid, that's in opposition to some moronic commentators.
'fascist losers!' Hmmn, If you say so. I bow to your deep well of political knowledge.
Jeremiah| 1.24.10 @ 2:50AM
You morons don't even listen to Rush and then you accuse him of vile language. Hypocrites!
Conservatives are by far more generous than liberals and everyone knows it. You are a fascist loser, bonehead.
John J| 1.24.10 @ 6:51PM
Oh dear...Jeremiah,
I accuse Limbaugh of using foul language?
I take it, you mean like the following as an example from Limbaugh...
“This'll play right into Obama's hands, humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community in, both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.”
You're right that's particularly generous of Limbaugh. In fact, I would say that's Limbaugh at his best!!! Congratulations you must be proud of what he represents. He'll have to do until the GOP decides to get a real leader. Lets all hope that people have 'short memories' for this in some of those important states.