TALK BACK LIVE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Silent About Rush:
The lack of support for Rush is just part of a bigger trend in “conservative” talk radio. I have heard “conservative” radio programs blast Rush for his drug abuse. This has become a popular trend with the Rush wannabes, “…the contrarian conservatives.” They think that they can differentiate themselves from Rush by being “hard core” conservatives. These obvious wannabes are deathly afraid of the label “Rush wannabes” so they think if they savage Rush, they will, somehow, show they are “independent” or “unique” in their own right. They have also taken to bashing Bush on every little non-conservative item Bush presents. Many are now claiming, “I will never vote for Bush because of immigration, deficit, etc., etc.” Others, by ignoring Rush altogether, pretend that they don’t even know who he is — that they became talk radio show hosts on their own, as if Rush didn’t create the entire market that they now make a living on. These hosts are like the French, total ingrates.
— John Nerz
Rush, like Clinton, at the onset of this story told me (his listener) that he would tell us the whole story sooner rather than later. But, like Clinton, he cannot “talk” about it because he is being investigated. Well, if he has broken no laws, he should tell us all now. But, if he has broken laws, then I can see why he has not. I have listened to him since 1992 and he used to say “words have meaning” and that people are responsible for their actions. Now that he is under scrutiny he is taking the “I am a victim” approach and “I am not being treated like others have in my circumstance,” it is a cry that falls on deaf ears. I do not buy it for now he says he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for his actions and it is painful to listen to him dance around it.
Now if he has broken no laws he has nothing to fear from prosecutors or his listeners. But, as with Clinton, we will have to wait another 6 to 9 months until the truth comes out in court for he has no morals or ethics regarding the truth in this matter. That is why I think the conservative press is mostly silent. I still listen to him every day to see if he has any dignity left to tell his listeners who made him very rich the whole story. I guess when you are sitting on $250+ million from 16 years of work you think that the law no longer applies to you for you are now one of the beautiful people. He always used to say, “no one is above the law” and that “words have meaning”. You know he does not say that anymore.
Thank You,
— Jeff Brownell
Herndon, Virginia
Thank you, R. Emmett Tyrrell, for your recent column regarding Rush Limbaugh. You properly call attention to a prosecution that is fundamentally predicated not on jurisprudential equity but on opposition to the political opinions of the prosecution’s target. In other words, the First Amendment is again under attack. Your criticism of quiescent conservative media and pundits is regrettably well-founded; those who avert their eyes now are the ones who were likewise elsewhere when you and TAS were under attack for identical reasons. They need to add their voices, and more loudly, to yours.
— Leighton Anderson
Fortunately, there is some light in the dark. Have you seen Sean
Hannity’s interview with Rush’s attorney, Roy Black? Factual, right on the money about what the law is and what is actually happening.
— Ellen Lopez
Everything you say is true. I haven’t seen much in the media to defend Rush and it is indicative as to why we all need to consider his view of things. I have loved Rush as a brother for a long time and have never disagreed with any thing that he has said, ever.…
— Gene Hauber
Meshoppen, Pennsylvania
Your point is well made as to the issue of Mr. Limbaugh’s lack of defense by the mainstream press. I must point out that twice this week Hannity and Colmes on Fox has been speaking out. O’Reilly had a piece on his show with Limbaugh’s attorney.
I suspect that what is going to happen is that a either a Florida state probe is in the works or Limbaugh will initiate a civil case under Florida statute for three breaches:
1) Unauthorized disclosure of medial records, a felony in that state.
2) Witness tampering, as the housekeeper it appears has been coerced by Palm Beach DA’s.
3) Political manipulation of a case is hard to prove of course, but it is a felony as well in Florida.
The true irony is that the ACLU has inserted itself into the situation. It has to be one of the bitterest ironies that a ultra-liberal organization is coming to his defense as the mainstream media sit on their pens.
— John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas
NOTHING BUT NET
Re: Tracy Robinson’s Clinton Connectivity:
Regarding “Clinton Connectivity,” I was unaware of but am not surprised by the Clintons’ technophobia. Good points, well put.
— David Shoup
Dublin, Georgia
Come on. Mr. Bill may have only written two emails, one with great assistance from his staff, but he could surf the Web for PORN like no other, I am sure of that!
— Jeff Brownell
KHARTOUM CHARACTER
Re: Brandon Crocker’s Enjoying a Little Unrectified History:
Saw Khartoum last summer on TCM and enjoyed it. Of course I love Charlton Heston in any movie.
— Lila West
You write in this article:
“Even the French historian Amin Maalouf, author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, comments: “It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side, but on all.”
Why “even”? Do you believe that French historians are generally in
favor of distorting history? Or just French historians with Arabic
names?
— James McCollum
Brandon Crocker replies:
Sorry to disappoint, but my meaning is that even the author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, whose view of this question is presumably not tainted by Christian, white, Western bias, agrees that the interpretations in Ridley Scott’s film are not just a matter of perspective but of distortion. If you’re looking for examples of racial or nationalistic arrogance, you’ll have to look elsewhere. I suggest you start in France.
OPPO RESEARCH
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Unsettling Old Scores (Deserter Lines):
It seems to me that if an Enlisted person is missing or “AWOL” from duty, as per UCMJ codes, he or she is considered “dropped from roll” but not a deserter until tried and convicted in a military court. Although the President was AWOL for months he was not tried. Since there was no trial, technically Mr. Bush is not a deserter. Michael Moore may have the missed this particular point.
— GS
Oregon
Dude, you got your facts wrong on the Bush stuff.
You say, “In the past, campaign staffers for both Clinton and Gore had tried to make hay of the rumors that Bush had somehow taken advantage of his family name during that period. Despite of months of effort, they failed to develop anything substantive.”
“… somehow taken advantage”? “… they failed to develop anything substantive”?
I won’t barrage you with lots of quotes from stories, just one. He clearly and unambiguously took advantage of his family name to get a coveted slot in the Guard in 1968, the height of the draft.
NYTimes Sept. 27, 1999: “A former Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives said today that during the Vietnam War he contacted a general in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush attain a pilot’s slot in a Guard unit upon his graduation from college. In a telephone interview this afternoon, the former Speaker, Ben Barnes, confirmed that he had acted on Mr. Bush’s behalf more than 30 years ago after he was asked to do so by a wealthy Houston oilman, Sidney A. Adger, who was also a friend of Mr. Bush’s father, George Bush, then a Congressman from Houston.”
Also, don’t forget this gem of a quote from Bush in 1988 defending Dan Quayle on the floor of the GOP Convention. “It’s hard to say just how insulting it is for a man who avoided service to claim that if they had let him fight, we would have done better in Nam.” Contrast it with the following:
Connie Chung: “The problem, though, would be is if, indeed, he made several phone calls or some people made phone calls on his behalf to get him into the National Guard. I mean, did that happen to you? Were you… “
George W. Bush: “No. I don’t think so. But in those days, people were going into the service all different branches. And if you want to go into the National Guard, I guess sometimes people make calls. I don’t see anything wrong with the kind — as a matter of fact, I’m glad he served his country. And serving in the National Guard is serving in the military. They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we would have done better in Vietnam.” (From NBC, 8/17/88, shown on Meet the Press, 7/4/99)
— unsigned
RINO VIRUS
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Specter Gadgetry:
I can’t help but remember Arlen Specter’s remarks, regarding Bill Clinton’s impeachment “trial”. He couldn’t even be a man, and say “not guilty.” He said “unproven” instead, proving himself to be the fool that he is.
WHAT A WORM!!
— Robert E. Mitchell Jr.
Eaton, New York
