PDA

View Full Version : PEGGY NOONAN: "He's a loser."



LWW
07-29-2011, 10:30 AM
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AN986_noonan_G_20110728223545.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Republican establishment reasserted itself this week, and good thing, too, because the establishment was right. It said Republicans in the House should back and pass the Boehner bill on the debt ceiling because it goes in the right directions, contains spending cuts but not taxes, and is viable. So accept victory, avert crisis, and get it to the Senate.

The establishment was being conservative in the Burkean sense: acknowledges reality, respect it, and make the most progress possible within it. This has not always been true of them. They spent the first decade of this century backing things a truly conservative party would not have dreamed of—careless wars, huge spending and, most scandalously, a dreamy and unconservative assumption that it would all work out because life is sweet and the best thing always happens. They were mostly led by men and women who had never been foreclosed on and who assumed good luck, especially unearned good luck, would continue. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>They were fools, and they lost control of their party when the tea party rose up, rebuking and embarrassing them. Then the tea party saved them by not going third party in 2009-10.</span> And now the establishment has come forward to save the tea party, by inching it away from the cliff and reminding it the true battles are in 2012, and after. Let's hope the tea party takes the opportunity.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>As this is written the White House seems desperate to be seen as consequential. They're trotting out Press Secretary Jay Carney, who stands there looking like a ferret with flop sweat as he insists President Obama is still at the table, still manning the phones and calling shots. Much is uncertain, but the Republicans have made great strides on policy.</span> If they emerge victorious, they had better not crow. The nation is in a continuing crisis, our credit rating is not secure, and no one's interested in he-man gangster dialogue from "The Town." What might thrill America would be a little modesty: "We know we helped get America into some of this trouble, and we hope we've made some progress today in getting us out of it."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>But that actually is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton's troubles there were always people who'd say, "Look, I love the guy." They'd often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support.</span> And surely this has implications.

The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."</span>

Maybe Mr. Obama is living proof of the political maxim that they don't care what you know unless they know that you care. But the idea that he is aloof and so inspires aloofness may be too pat. No one was colder than FDR, deep down. But he loved the game and did a wonderful daily impersonation of jut-jawed joy. And people loved him.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people.</span> The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The "Analytics Department" is looking for "predictive Modeling/Data Mining" specialists to join the campaign's "multi-disciplinary team of statisticians," which will use "predictive modeling" to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. "We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions."

This wasn't the passionate, take-no-prisoners Clinton War Room of '92, it was high-tech and bloodless. Is that what politics is now? Or does the Obama re-election effort reflect the candidate and his flaws?</span>

Mr. Obama seemed brilliant at politics when he first emerged in 2004. He understood the nation's longing for unity. We're not divided into red states and blue, he said, we're Big Purple, we can solve our problems together. Four years later he read the lay of the land perfectly—really, perfectly. The nation and the Democratic Party were tired of the Clinton machine. He came from nowhere and dismantled it. It was breathtaking. He went into the 2008 general election with a miraculously unified party and took down another machine, bundling up all the accrued resentment of eight years with one message: "You know the two losing wars and the economic collapse we've been dealing with? I won't do that. I'm not Bush."

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.</span>

And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn't serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn't enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.</span> </div></div>

POOR BARRY (http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html)

Soflasnapper
07-29-2011, 06:28 PM
Aging drunken alcoholics should be kept away from keyboards, let alone national columns.

Peggy Nooner (her nickname, for her habit of starting drinking early, I think, not for being a loose woman), is a loser.

A loser who gave HW Bush his ultimate cause of loss, his reckless promise of 'read my lips, no new taxes,' which even his economic adviser team told him not to say at the time, because it was impossible, and therefore a witting LIE.

Nooner didn't care, because it was a great line, until it became his albatross, and doomed his re-election bid. Nice job, drunk lady! What could go wrong with that?

Shu, honey-- a freshman senator who became the first black president of the US is a loser. Because he was dealt a losing hand to play?

I guess in her cloistered world, she thinks Obama lacks support. However, by any prior modelling, given the economic mess the country is in, his ratings ought to have sunk into the 30%s, as did Reagan's (who I guess was a winner in her view). The man who flat out lied to the public (as did her other winners who were loved, Clinton and goofy W??? -- endearing perhaps but not to those dead, maimed and crippled because of his lies), Reagan, who had the steepest one week decline in public support ever, whose defense of his lie was that he simply didn't know what was going on (and it was a credible defense, which made it worse, actually)?

ugotda7
07-29-2011, 06:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aging drunken alcoholics should be kept away from keyboards, let alone national columns.

Peggy Nooner (her nickname, for her habit of starting drinking early, I think, not for being a loose woman), is a loser.

A loser who gave HW Bush his ultimate cause of loss, his reckless promise of 'read my lips, no new taxes,' which even his economic adviser team told him not to say at the time, because it was impossible, and therefore a witting LIE.

Nooner didn't care, because it was a great line, until it became his albatross, and doomed his re-election bid. Nice job, drunk lady! What could go wrong with that?

Shu, honey-- a freshman senator who became the first black president of the US is a loser. Because he was dealt a losing hand to play?

I guess in her cloistered world, she thinks Obama lacks support. However, by any prior modelling, given the economic mess the country is in, his ratings ought to have sunk into the 30%s, as did Reagan's (who I guess was a winner in her view). The man who flat out lied to the public (as did her other winners who were loved, Clinton and goofy W??? -- endearing perhaps but not to those dead, maimed and crippled because of his lies), Reagan, who had the steepest one week decline in public support ever, whose defense of his lie was that he simply didn't know what was going on (and it was a credible defense, which made it worse, actually)? </div></div>

Good job, you really destroyed her argument....OK, not really - way to attack the source and dodge the issue.

christianshoes
07-29-2011, 07:31 PM
Women High Heels (http://www.womanhighheel.com), from stiletto to spool, spike to platform, girls love their high heels. Season after season, new patterns and styles of high heels hit the sector blazing and girls just keep purchasing these style driven shoes. So, many girls buy high heels and they are so utterly essential in a trendy wardrobe? Woman High Heels (http://www.womanhighheel.com), just like Christian Louboutin Shoe (http://www.womanhighheel.com), Chiristian Louboutin Pumps (http://www.womanhighheel.com), and other Chiristian Shoes (http://www.womanhighheel.com) are suitable for most occasions. From wedding to sultry nights, we have the heels and dreess shoes to create every night a memorable one. If you ever are searching for high heels or fetish shoes. Loboutin Sale (http://www.womanhighheel.com) store here is your place to shop.

LWW
07-30-2011, 04:52 AM
Have you ever noticed how quickly the left attacks powerful women ... and how they insist on a woman's right to choose, and then become vicious wolves when one chooses not to be a moonbat crazy leftist?

Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 01:12 PM
Has-been drunken former speechwriters are powerful, in what sense and what universe?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Peggy Noonan Loses It

July 29, 2011 1:19 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Poor Peggy Noonan. The Wall Street Journal’s knee-jerk partisan columnist has completely surrendered to Obama Derangement Syndrome and turned her weekly Journal effort into plotting out ways to express her irrational contempt for the president.

This week she calls Obama a “loser.” Last week he was a “boring” “walking headache” and Noonan suggested he just “shut up.”

Oh my.

Remember, of course, that Noonan was part of the conservative media movement that for years played defense for George W. Bush and demanded (demanded!) the office of the presidency always be treated with the utmost respect. Anything less was patently un-American. (Noonan also disdains incivility, or so we’re told.)

But now with a Democrat in the White House that respect has evaporated and has been replaced with a type of absurd personal disdain that seems to be driving Noonan to utter distraction as she searches for way to express her scorn for Barack Obama.

What’s curious is that unlike some media ideologues who relentlessly ridicule Obama’s policies, Noonan, a Beltway media favorite, seems to be fixated on the personal in a way that defies rational punditry.

What’s also embarrassing is that her juvenile bout of name-calling comes during the debt debate in which she’s been trying to depict Republicans as the grown-ups and the ones trying to solve the nation’s problems. (If Obama would just get out of the way!) But as Thursday’s late-night non-vote on Speaker of the House John Boehner’s bill indicated, that doesn't seem to match reality.

And actually, if you go back to last week’s condescending column, Noonan was sure the Senate’s so-called Gang of Six had figured out the debt logjam, and if Obama would just stop his arrogant grandstanding the bipartisan Gang of Six could find a way out of this crisis.

Oops.

Turns out it was Republican Boehner, under pressure from far-right members of his caucus, who last week walked away from the Gang of Six deal. But Noonan’s now silent on that point.

This week Noonan makes no mention that it was conservatives who torpedoed the Gang of Six plan she touted as the most promising compromise. (i.e. “It's good, it represents progress, build from it. “) Instead, Noonan simply doubles down with the Obama name-calling.

Question: Who’s the real loser here?
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 01:16 PM
She has no argument, only assertion.

If she's right, that there is no love for the man, no bedrock of support, his job approval numbers are inexplicable given the poor economy (as I actually did argue).

Even in her own account, O went from a brilliant politician to a dunce, which MUST indicate he had not prior brilliance, and is simply a loser. Really, Nooner, no other explanation is possible?

Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you ever noticed how quickly the left attacks powerful women ... and how they insist on a woman's right to choose, and then become vicious wolves when one chooses not to be a moonbat crazy leftist? </div></div>

Here's Nooner on some other actually powerful woman:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> DOES PEGGY NOONAN EVEN READ THE NEWS?

Waiting for the economic Apocalypse, I turn to Peggy Noonan, who uses today's column to essentially turn Barack Obama into Hillary Clinton, or at least Hillary as Noonan has always seen her:

I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.

It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard.... But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama....

The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people.

I really like the bit about Noonan never having seen anything like this in national politics, because she's certainly declared Hillary to be a non-human in the past:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>No one in America thinks she’s a woman. They think she's a tough little termagant in a pantsuit. They think she's something between an android and a female impersonator. She is not perceived as a big warm mommy trying to resist her constant impulse to sneak you candy. They think she has to resist her constant impulse to hit you with a bat. She lacks a deep (as opposed to quick) warmth, a genuine and almost phenomenological sense of rightness in her own skin. She seems like someone who might calculatedly go to war, or not, based on how she wanted to be perceived and look and do. She does not seem like someone who would anguish and weep over sending men into harm's way.

... Hillary is like someone who would know she should be moved but wouldn't be because she couldn't be because ... well, why? That is the question. Maybe a lifetime in politics has bled some of the human element out of her. Maybe there wasn't that much to begin with. </span>Maybe she thinks that if she wept, the wires that hold her together would short.
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-31-2011, 06:05 PM
Does anyone think it within the bounds of political discourse to say of anyone that they aren't a man (or woman), but an android, having very little that is human to start off with?

That a woman isn't a woman, but a cross between a male cross dresser and an android?

Well, YES, some people do, and they will attack minor CHILDREN in such fashion as well.

Quote:

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

Because Janet Reno was her father!

-- Sen. John McCain

Quote:

Many things are changing in the White House. Instead of a cat, we have a dog. (Video insert of the picture of an about 12-year old Chelsea Clinton)

-- Rush Limbaugh, on his failed television show

LWW
08-01-2011, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quote:

Many things are changing in the White House. Instead of a cat, we have a dog. (Video insert of the picture of an about 12-year old Chelsea Clinton)

-- Rush Limbaugh, on his failed television show </div></div>

That is an absolutely heinous thing for someone to say about another's child.

Sadly for you ... it never happened. Al Franken made it up, stuck it in a book, made a fortune ... and did it by pimping every leftist in America.

WHAT A TOOL (http://lyingliar.com/?p=17)

Sev
08-01-2011, 07:06 AM
Limbaughs show did not fail in the sense that he had low ratings.

The channel that hosted it however did.

Still many of the members of the channel such as Limbaugh and Mathews went on to even larger success.

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quote:

Many things are changing in the White House. Instead of a cat, we have a dog. (Video insert of the picture of an about 12-year old Chelsea Clinton)

-- Rush Limbaugh, on his failed television show </div></div>

That is an absolutely heinous thing for someone to say about another's child.

Sadly for you ... it never happened. Al Franken made it up, stuck it in a book, made a fortune ... and did it by pimping every leftist in America.

WHAT A TOOL (http://lyingliar.com/?p=17)
</div></div>

Quite a false assertion there. I've been watching/listening to Limbaugh since Tampa in the early '90s (after he was syndicated), even reached him once on the radio live one day.

I myself saw the incident in question live, or at least when it first ran.

Reading the apologetics you supply, I don't remember it that way, and it makes no sense.

In my view, the reviewer is taking Rush's spin to excuse himself from a grievously ugly jerk move as fact.

I'd be happy to review the clip and remind myself how this really went down, and the actual language Rush said when introducing the Chelsea picture.

We do find THIS, from the linked apologetics:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In today’s New York Daily News right here… it’s the obligatory in-out list. Every time there’s a massive change somewhere, people are in, people are out. I’m now out. It says about me on here, Rush Limbaugh, loud-mouthed conservative and Bush favorite. He’s out.

Rush commented that most of the other things on the days’ list were not funny, but that “one of them in particular” was. Rush quoted from the David Hinckley article

”In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.”

Could– could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at– see who is the cute kid in the White House.

A picture of the “cute dog” (Millie) appeared on the screen instead of the “cute kid” (Chelsea).</div></div>

What did Rush mean, when he said most were not funny, but “one of them in particular” was, just before he did this bit?

Is there anything potentially funny in this bit, unless he mixes up the dog and Chelsea picture? And then pretends to protest?

LWW
08-01-2011, 02:07 PM
Either link to the video ... which if it actually existed would be displayed on every moonbat crazy leftist network hourly for the last 20 years ... or retract your shameless lie.

I can excuse you for believing the lie when it was spoon fed to you ... there is no excuse for your actions once you have been shown the truth.

As my good friend Q says:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOW you should provide a link moron</span>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>

hippiepool
08-01-2011, 04:12 PM
Unfortunately for you Dubster .........I'm here to destroy all of your stupid ramblings ..........

hippiepool
08-01-2011, 04:15 PM
Having an articulate Black ( Mulato ) pretend President instead of an inarticulate White moron pretend President does tend to rub some hillbillies the wrong way doesn't it .........?

ugotda7
08-01-2011, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hippiepool</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having an articulate Black ( Mulato ) pretend President instead of an inarticulate White moron pretend President does tend to rub some hillbillies the wrong way doesn't it .........?
</div></div>


How do you know it rubs Hondo the wrong way?

LWW
08-02-2011, 01:13 AM
One does attend to appear more frequently when the other is on sabbatical.

LWW
08-02-2011, 01:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either link to the video ... which if it actually existed would be displayed on every moonbat crazy leftist network hourly for the last 20 years ... or retract your shameless lie.

I can excuse you for believing the lie when it was spoon fed to you ... there is no excuse for your actions once you have been shown the truth.

As my good friend Q says:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOW you should provide a link moron</span>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>
</div></div>

Link?

LWW
08-02-2011, 01:16 AM
Guess what ... YOUTUBE has tons of clips from Limbaugh's show, but not that one?

LWW
08-02-2011, 01:23 AM
HERE (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5863476#5864281) is a thread on the topic from DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND where many people swear they must have seen it ... after all Al Franken personally spoon fed it to them ... yet nobody can find a link to it?

Man up for once ... just ONCE ... and admit that you made the whole thing up about witnessing it yourself.

hippiepool
08-02-2011, 04:05 PM
Hondo resembles that .......;)

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 01:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> HERE (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5863476#5864281) is a thread on the topic from DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND where many people swear they must have seen it ... after all Al Franken personally spoon fed it to them ... yet nobody can find a link to it?

Man up for once ... just ONCE ... and admit that you made the whole thing up about witnessing it yourself. </div></div>

I went looking, as perhaps you did as well. Found the same thing you say-- some clips of some shows, not of this alleged one.

However, what do you NOW claim about this?

That it happened differently than said, or that it didn't happen at all? Before you said the details were wrong. Are you now claiming that your own debunking link was false, and it never happened at all whatsoever, and the debunker made up his defense version? Please try to stick to one story line in your defense here, and tell me which it is.

As you may have read (as it is in your DU link), there's apparently a Nexis/Lexis transcript for a Rush tv show that aired in later '08 that is close to the supposed story, and that is provided. Did you read it?

I read it as Limbaugh making the same joke several times, saying his staff kept getting it wrong. Then when he supposedly began apologizing, referring to a prior slam on a minor child of a president in that case that upset his mother, he gratuitously and purposefully, in my view, unnecessarily said the same insult he'd said before, that Amy Carter was the worst looking child of any president, adding 'she can't help how she looks,' attributing it to his mother's admonishing him.

Then, in mock contrition, he slapped his own hand to prove his apology was sincere? The whole thing reeks of the guy DEFINITELY taking license to slam a minor child's looks in a vicious fashion, and then celebrating his PRIOR insults (mentioning the whole thing was simply another vicious attack), and then mocking those who would criticize him, with slapping his own wrist (a noted non-punishment). To howls by his appreciative audience, who got the joke completely.

Yes, he's a vicious prick. There's ample evidence to show it.

Dollars to doughnuts, the video of that show is unavailable because the original copyright holder objected. That would be Rush or whoever owned that show.

If that video backed up Limbaugh's story, he'd make it available himself to show the lie of the false attacks, and the sincerity of his immediate contrition and apology. If the video showed instead what the Lexis/Nexis transcript says, a MOCK contrition and apology while he again slandered Amy Carter on her looks (as he admits he did), his ENEMIES would have posted it. They were on his every utterance, and surely would have recorded it, and put it up. I used to subscribe to the Flush Limbaugh newsletter. He had many monitors' eyes on him, ears on him, at all times by then. They would have recorded it, and posted it as of when YouTube or Google video were created, only to see it taken down under the protest of the copyright holder.

That it doesn't exist as a clip on the web proves something, all right, but something other than you think, or argued before. Not that the show didn't happen (Rush definitely apologized about something substantially identical to these reports), as you now change your claim, but that it does not back up Rush's story made up to defend the execrable display of his true bad character, which even Dittoheads could recognize when it got so low down in the gutter as to attack TWO minor children of Democratic presidents in obviously wholly distasteful and condemnable fashion.

LWW
08-03-2011, 03:57 AM
I claim that:

- Franken twisted a real event into something entirely different than what actually happened, just as the debunking site stated.

- The moonbat crazy left accepted it as being every bit as true as the word of God brought down from the mountain by Moses.

- This belief in the lie has become so entrenched that many across the country swear that they ... and this includes you ... saw something which didn't happen.

- Nobody on the lkeft wants to post such a clip because it would expose the lie.

- Franken's books are full of such vile character assassinations like this one.

- The moonbat crazy left also accepts each of this lies as being "TRUTH" without ever questioning him.

Am I clear enough yet, or should I continue?

LWW
08-03-2011, 04:00 AM
Oh ... yes, I read the transcript. It's even included in my link. In fact ... it's even the complete transcript, which you obviously didn't read or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Soflasnapper
08-04-2011, 09:51 AM
For the people who didn't click through to the alleged transcript:

(Note, this would be just after the other quotation, that Rush was already talking about one particular in/out column, mentioned that he himself was 'out,' that the list wasn't particularly funny, except one thing.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [This is the DU commentator:]

I researched this on Lexis Nexis . . .

Apparently the tale grew in the telling a little bit.

Here's what the transcript shows from Nov 6, 1992. I could find nothing from 1993 as Franken claims.

He's doing an "in out" list of things that are "in" or "out".[end DU commentator comment]

[start transcript, Rush speaking:] David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog (actually Gore's dog))

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting [should be 'kidding'?].

[transcript continues without this break, but my commentary is, EITHER Limbaugh's joke is what is funny, or calling Chelsea the 'cute kid' is what he finds funny. He first admits he's joking, and I'd guess twice in a row. What is he kidding about? If not the wrongly juxtaposed pictures?]

Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'

(Laughter)

[which he now repeats, gratuitously, because as he says, he dislikes Amy Carter, so although it was wrong, and he apologized and took it back, he now puts it back out there to ridicule her for his audience's laughter, which he got]

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'

[so now he amplifies that she really looks ugly, but it would be wrong to mention it. And then takes another righteous swipe at another Democratic president's daughter, just for giggles. No, Limbaugh would never do what he just did, again, according to his fevered defenders. How dare anyone suggest he was doing what he admitted he did, once again x 2, while again not doing it another time?]

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: But I--I apologize...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story.

[all a mistake I'm sure, even as it allows him to re-attack Amy Carter, several times, although he's SO SORRY he did it the first time, allows him to squeeze in an insult to Margaret Truman, and now, he's lamely backtracking to provide some defense against doing it again, 3 times, regarding Chelsea]

I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. I'm fatigued. I'm tired. I really don't--in fact, you know what I'll do? Let's pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I'm a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)

I'll do it with my left hand. I--I'm right-handed, so it won't hurt as much. Do it with my left hand.

(Rush spanks himself, screaming and crying; written on screen, Ouch!!!')

LIMBAUGH: There.

(Applause)
</div></div>

Then he makes a joke of his penance, pretending to be apologetic, when his undercurrent of ugly attacks on the children of Democratic presidents is on display, HOW MANY TIMES in a couple of minutes?