Rush Limbaugh made comments on his radio show (scroll down–if you find this post of great interest, you should probably read the whole three-paragraph monologue, which makes the relevant context abundantly clear) suggesting that Pres. Obama may be subtly appealing to anti-Semitism through his attack on “bankers” and “Wall Street,” and that Jewish voters, in return, may be abandoning Obama.
Abe Foxman and the ADL then issued a press release:
Limbaugh told his listeners: “To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s – if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
Rush Limbaugh reached a new low with his borderline anti-Semitic comments about Jews as bankers, their supposed influence on Wall Street, and how they vote.
Limbaugh’s references to Jews and money in a discussion of Massachusetts politics were offensive and inappropriate. While the age-old stereotype about Jews and money has a long and sordid history, it also remains one of the main pillars of anti-Semitism and is widely accepted by many Americans. His notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans, plays into the hands of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
When he comes to understand why his words were so offensive and unacceptable, Limbaugh should apologize.
Now compare the bolded “quotation” from Limbaugh’s show with what he actually said:
Look, folks, there are a lot of people who when you say “banker,” people think “Jewish.” People who have prejudice is the best way to put it. They have a little prejudice about them. So for some people, “banker” is code word for “Jewish,” and guess who Obama’s assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people, and a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.
Note that that the ADL press release intentionally cut off the italicized material above in which Limbaugh made it clear that prejudiced people associated “bankers” with Jews.
I find Limbaugh’s comments, even with the full context, to be foolish: I don’t think there is any evidence–and Limbaugh provides none–that Jews even perceive Obama to be appealing to anti-Semitism, nor that Jews in particular are, as Limbaugh suggests, abandoning Obama at a rate greater than other voters. Charitably, Limbaugh’s remarks were a lame attempt to find a topical reason to plug Norman Podhoretz’s book, Why are Jews Liberals?
But the fact that Limbaugh made a foolish comment unsupported by any evidence hardly makes his comment “borderline anti-Semitic.” How, exactly, is attacking the other side for allegedly appealing to people’s anti-Jewish prejudices anti-Semitic?
I’d like to give the ADL and Foxman the benefit of the doubt here, but the fact that their press release cuts off the relevant two lines about prejudice argues strongly against it. [I also don't see anything in Limbaugh's remarks that would support Foxman's claim that his is propounding the "notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans," beyond the obvious (and I assume uncontroversial) point that Jews are less likely to vote for someone that they perceive as exploiting prejudices against them.]
Fact is, while leftist types go on and on about the “right-wing” ADL, the core donor base of the ADL is Jewish liberals, and Foxman and company need to go after a conservative or two every once in a while, sometimes with the flimsiest of reasons, to keep their donors happy.
Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, the same left-wing bloggers (e.g.; and note the irony that this blogger accuses Limbaugh of being an anti-Semite, yet his blogging seems to attract a fair number of blatantly anti-Semitic commenters) who like to call Foxman out when they think he’s being too harsh on critics of Israel are perfectly willing to back him up on this one. How many of them actually bothered to take the approximately 45 seconds I needed to look up the full transcript of Limbaugh’s remarks (none seem to quote the “prejudiced” lines), I don’t know, but the line between reckless slander and intentional slander isn’t that fine.
Podhoretz, meanwhile, responds here.
Michael Ejercito says:
How was what Limbaugh said any different than what John Conyers said sixteen years ago?
January 22, 2010, 10:48 amstatfan says:
Who are the “buyers” in Limbaugh’s comment who are remorseful?
There are a few possible referents in the quoted segment: antisemetic people, bankers, and Jews.
Antisemetic people would not have buyer’s remorse after voting for Obama because Obama was attacking (Jewish) bankers.
Bankers might have buyer’s remorse, but then where does the Jewish bit of the whole comment come in?
That leaves Jews. The only reasonable interpretation of Limbaugh’s remarks are “a lot of bankers are Jews. A lot of Jews voted for Obama. Now that Obama is attacking bankers, Jews might have buyer’s remorse.”
Is he, then, claiming that Obama is antisemetic for attacking bankers because antisemites believe that bankers are disproportionately Jewish and are unhappy about this? This would be a wrong claim, but I think not an antisemetic claim. But it’s also incredibly inaptly phrased.
The other option is that he’s saying that in fact the connection of Jews and money is a reasonable one (despite being a prejudice), and that Jews tend to vote to advance the interests of bankers (more than others do). This would be an antisemetic claim.
I think the second reading is what the ADL has chosen. Perhaps they should have given Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt. But neither option casts Limbaugh in a particularly good light.
January 22, 2010, 10:50 amorca says:
While I can’t believe there are adults in this country who take Limbaugh seriously, good for Foxman for call out the blowhard.
Does “some people believe racist stereotype X…but not me” really fool the rubes?
January 22, 2010, 10:56 amAlanW says:
Yeah, what statfan says. This is a mug’s game. This is “When did you stop beating your wife?” I can’t imagine why you’re going to the trouble of this convoluted rationale. Limbaugh’s goal is to provoke. He doesn’t care which way the insinuations break – as long as people are talking about it, he’s won.
January 22, 2010, 10:59 amSeaDrive says:
“I have papers here in my hand that say…”
Limbaugh’s stock and trade is attributing things to other people. That’s what he does. His show is a continuing screed of “Obama says…” and “Hillary says…” and “Liberals want to..”. He puts his opinions in the mouths of others. So, until he puts names to the people who think banker is a code word for Jewish, then it’s something Limbaugh thinks or something Limbaugh made up.
January 22, 2010, 10:59 amDavid Bernstein says:
I think it’s clear Limbaugh is making the claim that Obama is appealing to anti-Jewish prejudice, or at least that Jews may perceive that he is appealing to anti-Jewish prejudice. Inartfully spoken, as extemporaneous speech often is, but clear.
If you substituted any one of a number of leaders of the Christian right for Obama, and Hollywood for Wall Street/bankers, you’d find almost the exact same charges leveled frequently by liberals. (Although it’s rather more likely that, say, Pat Robertson, would intentionally or inadvertently exploit anti-Jewish prejudices than would Obama.)
January 22, 2010, 11:02 amSteve says:
Uh, the part where he talks about there being a lot of Jewish people on Wall Street, and the part where he suggests they might be having buyer’s remorse over voting for Obama, are maybe the parts you should be focusing on.
As for the part you chose to emphasize, making bogus accusations of anti-semitism (or the closely related “I’m not saying Obama is an anti-semite, just that he’s trying to appeal to anti-semites”) is not a lot better than making anti-semitic statements oneself.
Rush is actually employing what is usually a left-wing tactic here (although I will need one of our resident wingers to tell me which one of Alinsky’s Rules is in play, since I have no idea). Just like there are people who will try to deflect any criticism of Obama by charging racism, Rush is trying to insulate Wall Street from criticism by saying that you can’t attack the bankers without it being automatically anti-semitic. As Jon Stewart might say, “You know who else attacked the bankers? Hitler!”
January 22, 2010, 11:05 amDavid Chesler says:
I take Rush’s remarks as making sense at face value.
If someone I’d voted for were pandering to anti-Semites, I’d have buyer’s remorse for having voted for him. It goes like this: “A lot of anti-Semites think a lot of bankers are Jews, and that an attack on bankers is an attack on Jews. I don’t support someone who curries the support of anti-Semites. Politics makes strange bedfellows, so I can’t help it if anti-Semites and I agree from time to time, but if he is actively courting them, it gives them strength, and leads the way that they become a core constituency and and he will act in ways that are good for them but bad for me.”
January 22, 2010, 11:12 amSteve says:
It goes like this: “A lot of anti-Semites think a lot of bankers are Jews, and that an attack on bankers is an attack on Jews.
But Rush, himself, says he thinks a lot of bankers are Jews: “He’s assaulting money people, and a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish.”
January 22, 2010, 11:15 amhugh says:
Limbaugh was just making one of his regular attacks. It was foolish.
I am a Jew and I assign almost no credibility to the ADL when it accuses someone of anti-semitism. When I was a pre-teen I read a book from the ADL and I thought their examples of anti-semitism were not convincing.
As for Pat Robertson, I used to work for him; I don’t believe anyone who claims he is appealing to anti-semitism. Of course, Robertson is frequently careless with his choice of words and can make a good argument sound bad.
January 22, 2010, 11:17 amGordo says:
Well, Professor Bernstein, at least you had the common sense and forthrightness to point out that Limbaugh’s original statement makes no sense at all.
Podhoretz, on the other hand, has become such a Republican shill and a prisoner to his own thesis that he won’t say a word of criticism against Limbaugh.
January 22, 2010, 11:17 amDavid Bernstein says:
That’s certainly a plausible explanation. But again, the charitable explanation is that he decided to give Podhoretz’s book a plug, and found a lame and foolish “hook” to Scott Brown’s election. I’m not saying that one has to be charitable, however,
January 22, 2010, 11:17 amJB says:
“How, exactly, is attacking the other side for allegedly appealing to people’s anti-Jewish prejudices anti-Semitic?”
How, exactly, is saying that people in America like Obama better because he has light skin and talks like white people racist?
Defend Limbaugh here and you have to defend Reid last week.
January 22, 2010, 11:18 amDavid Bernstein says:
I should add that I didn’t want to reprint the whole Limbaugh monologue here, but the full context makes it clear that the “buyers’ remorse” is among Jews in general, not “Wall Street Jews.”
January 22, 2010, 11:24 amRodger Lodger says:
Foxman gets up every morning, takes his lantern, and searches for anti-semitism. Had there not been the ADL in the old days anti-semitism in ‘respectable’ public circles might have continued longer than it has, e.g., in newspapers. While there is still some anti-semitism here and there, Foxman must justify the continuing importance of his organization. Meanwhile once again Rush Limbaugh makes himself the talking point, and he is a sly fox — not a Foxman.
January 22, 2010, 11:25 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
What, no one thought to dig up a quote showing Limbaugh’s support for James Earl Ray?
This one is a whiff for Limbaugh, no doubt, and I hate to be in the position of defending someone I don’t support, but in a week where you have other “hosts” overtly claiming racism, sexism etc. or straight up calling for voter fraud, this is a bit of a tempest in a tea kettle. No, the jewish vote hasn’t turned on Obama, no, “banker” isn’t liberal code for “jewish”, and no, no sane person is going to take the allegation seriously. That said, it’s just another bit of poo that didn’t stick to the wall, and it’s well qualified enough to bait people into charges of racism, which is the only thing that will vindicate Limbaugh at this point. We get it, leftists hate Limbaugh, it doesn’t mean you have to scream racism every time he mentions a race. It just makes you look insane….you know, like Olbermannnnn.
January 22, 2010, 11:25 amAdam J says:
Steve- interesting theory, except I don’t think Limbaugh cares the slightest about “insulating bankers”, I think he’s more interested in scoring political points arguing Obama is trying to appeal to antisemites. Which is a little hypocritical, as he often complains about getting charged with trying to appeal to racists on similiarly thin logic. Problem is his opponents are dumb- they give him more ammunition by incorrectly accusing this of being antisemitic.
January 22, 2010, 11:26 amjosh bornstein says:
I’m so glad to read that others had the exact same response to Rush’s comment as I did.
My opinion of Rush has really changed since the Haiti earthquake. Since he acted in a deliberate way that was designed to result in the deaths of more Haitians, I now see him less as a sometimes-entertaining and sometimes annoying performer, and more as a performer who is also a tiny bit evil.) I will pray for Rush to regain some measure of his soul . . . I think he lost his way some time ago.
January 22, 2010, 11:30 amCato The Elder says:
What a bunch of nonsense. Making the observation that Jews disproportionately make up the finance industry (how exactly is an observation “prejudice”?) and as Obama’s policies are attacking Jewish financial interests, they should be less supportive of him, strikes me as simplistic thinking perhaps but nowhere near “anti-Semitism.” True, Limbaugh’s reasoning is in conflict with decades of research showing people generally don’t vote on the basis of financial considerations, but, nevertheless, leftists reason this way about lots of things: Politician A doesn’t support Program B that aims to aid the poor, so minority C (Blacks, of course) are likely, and justified in voting against him — do those ideas make those commentators “racist”?
January 22, 2010, 11:32 amDavid Bernstein says:
In fact, when Eugene posted his defense of Reid last week, I wrote the first comment, heartily agreeing.
January 22, 2010, 11:34 amDavid Bernstein says:
How many of us would attack Limbaugh if he was promoting our book to 20 million listeners, gratis?
January 22, 2010, 11:38 amAF says:
Two possibilities:
(1) Rush is saying that Jews have buyer’s remorse because Obama is attacking bankers, and some people anti-semitically associate Jews with bankers, so Jews think that Obama is anti-semitic.
(2) Rush is saying that Jews have buyer’s remorse because Obama is attacking bankers and that is contrary to the interests of Jews, many of whom are bankers or have interests aligned with bankers.
I think it’s reasonably clear that Rush means (2) rather than (1). Notably, the whole segment is about the Podhoretz book, and Podhoretz’s argument is (2) rather than (1):
January 22, 2010, 11:39 amPer Son says:
In many circles “banker” or more specifically “international banker” is code for Jewish. I agree with that. Now, I do not know what the hell Limbaugh was talking about (nor do I ever really). What was the purpose of that statement? Why is he concerned what prejudiced people believe? The real question for me is why do I care what this inflated drug addict has to say anyways (and to quote Limbaugh – “there, I said it.” I believe that he will always say something to stir up folks – and it usually works.
Is he really a racist? I do not know, although I believe he has made racist comments. That being said, I believe the ADL is often a bit quick to call something anti-Semetic. They tend to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semetic, which is a problem.
January 22, 2010, 11:39 amManju says:
Its hard to judge without hearing it, but when I used to listen to Limbaugh I thought he was often a brilliant parodist.
Its sounds to me like he’s using leftist dog whistle theories against the left itself. Michael Ejercito gives us a good one (“lets cut taxes” as code word for n—-r). “ACORN’ is the new ‘N’ word” blared one liberal blog. David Gergen thought “messiah” was code for “uppity.”
dogwhitles exist (the makers of the willie horton ad intentionally changed hortons first name to “Wilie”–to blacken him up), but the inherent subjectivity of the theory is lost on partisan hacks.
Limbaugh’s doing a turn around. if lowering taxes sends a racist signal then its unclear why raising taxes doesn’t send a anti-semitc one.
January 22, 2010, 11:40 amjosh bornstein says:
Upon looking at my prior post, I think I should have given a bit of explanation. I don’t usually throw out a hand grenade like that.
If you accept the premise that our donations do help out (to some extent, at least) the relief effort–and I think that’s a reasonable assumption–I am appalled that anyone would specifically instruct his followers to NOT donate. If a commentator wished to remain silent . . . of course that would be his or her right. If one wanted to warn listeners to carefully screen charities, to avoid scams, that of course would be great. But from what have read about the situation, Rush told his listeners not to donate for purely political reasons. If that money could have saved 10 or 200 or 1,000 Haitian lives . . . well, as long as Obama was prevented from making that much more political hay; so it’s all okay.
I don’t think anything in the last 20 years has angered me as much. It gives, by proxy, a bad name to conservatives. And that’s totally unfair; my conservative friends have contributed as much or more to Haiti than my liberal friends.
January 22, 2010, 11:41 amRPT says:
Interesting to see this, as I noted this Limbaugh comment in one of the Citizen’s United threads. There is no degree to which conservatives will not go to defend Limbaugh; now that he has the right to spend his fortune on attack ads one can expect his power to grow.
January 22, 2010, 11:43 amDavid Schwartz says:
Rush is saying that a lot of Jews may perceive Obama’s attack on bankers as an attack on Jews, and therefore some Jews who voted for Obama (particularly Jewish bankers, perhaps) would see this as a betrayal.
The idea is that mainstream politicians with radical bases sometimes use “code words” to appeal to their base without giving away to the mainstream that they are doing so. For example, the argument the Republicans talk about “vertical” thinking because some religious leaders do too (with God at the top, of course).
He’s saying that Obama may at least be perceived by some Jews as using “banker” as a code word to appeal to the anti-semites in his support base. Those Jews would therefore be unhappy, especially if they voted for Obama.
I think it’s a dumb argument and probably largely false. But I don’t see anything offensive in it. Obama’s attacking bankers because bankers are very unpopular and attacking the bonuses resonates with almost anyone who’s not a banker.
Heck, even most Jewish bankers (especially those who lost their retirement savings, saw their house prices fall, and are worried they’ll lose their jobs) probably hate the bankers who got the bonuses.
January 22, 2010, 11:44 amMichael Ejercito says:
That is a good point.
By the way, the Democratic congressman who made the quote about tax cuts was not John Conyers, as I had previously posted, but Charlie Rangel.
January 22, 2010, 11:55 amJust Dropping By says:
Question: How often does Obama even say “bankers,” period? The speech Obama gave yesterday on financial reform doesn’t include the word once. Claiming “bankers” is a code word is kind of irrelevant if the speaker doesn’t even use it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-financial-reform
January 22, 2010, 11:56 amorca says:
Limabuagh has a weekly audience of maybe 15 million a week.
Which makes his daily audience around 3 million.
And from what I’ve seen, many of them just have him on as background noise.
January 22, 2010, 11:59 amSteve says:
Steve– interesting theory, except I don’t think Limbaugh cares the slightest about “insulating bankers”, I think he’s more interested in scoring political points arguing Obama is trying to appeal to antisemites.
I completely disagree, because I think a routine part of Rush’s schtick involves defending corporate America, Wall Street, outfits like Wal-Mart, and the like. Whether this makes him a shill for big business or a passionate defender of free-market capitalism depends on your point of view, I suppose. Either way, his position is that business creates jobs, Wall Street is the engine of our economy, and if you get in their way then you’re hurting America.
Of course Rush wants to score points about Obama, but I think he is also using this tactic to push back against the demonization of Wall Street because he very much wants to defend Wall Street, too.
January 22, 2010, 12:00 pmStrict says:
“And that’s totally unfair; my conservative friends have contributed as much or more to Haiti than my liberal friends.”
Your conservative friends also voted for George W. Bush, who sent the US military in 2004 to kidnap the Haitian President Aristide, who had done (and would have done) more for the poor and suffering in Haiti than any other leader there in about the past 200 years…
January 22, 2010, 12:00 pmSeamus says:
Funny, I was just getting ready to say that calling Limbaugh an anti-semite on the basis of this statement is as foolish as calling Reid a racist on the basis of the statement quoted in Game Change.
January 22, 2010, 12:03 pmDangerMouse says:
Its hard to judge without hearing it, but when I used to listen to Limbaugh I thought he was often a brilliant parodist.
That’s true. Sometimes, to really understand what he’s saying, you have to listen because otherwise a transcript doesn’t show that he’s speaking in a “character” voice. Anyway, the ADL here is probably just engaged in more bluster and their complaints can be ignored.
January 22, 2010, 12:10 pmMichael Ejercito says:
What would he have done for the poor and sauffering?
January 22, 2010, 12:10 pmRecovering Law Grad says:
Rush is literally incapable of analyzing Obama without applying a racial or ethnic spin to his analysis. His continual injection of racial and ethnic politics into even the most racially neutral topics – like banking regulation – leads one to believe that he is simply trying to stir racial animus and exploit distrust. And there is ample evidence of this: (a) Colin Powell supports Obama because of race; (2) Obama is an “angry black guy” or, alternatively, a “little black man-child”; (3) Obama wouldn’t have acted against the Somali pirates had he known them to be “black Muslim teenagers”; and so on.
How can anyone listen to this and not be disgusted? (Other than DB, who wants to be “charitable” to Limbaugh because he speaks “extemporaneous[ly].”)
January 22, 2010, 12:11 pmIsaac says:
According to this piece in the WSJ, the next target of Tea Party ire may be Wall Street. The last thing Jews in the US need is for any part of that ire to also be directed at all Jews by association. Regardless of what he meant, and what Clintonian parsing can be used after-the-fact to justify them in logical terms, Rush’s words unfortunately served to strengthen that association. On the margin, this is not good for the Jews, and marginal effects can be dangerous when you’re dealing with populist movements.
January 22, 2010, 12:17 pmzuch says:
You know, a lot of people think those people — the blacks, you know — play a lot of basketball and are real good at it, but who can’t talk English right….
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 12:22 pmArthurKirkland says:
Only those with scruples.
January 22, 2010, 12:23 pmzuch says:
Prof. Bernstein quotes Limbaugh (with my emphasis):
QED.
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 12:26 pmArthurKirkland says:
How many smart, sensible, productive Americans are paying attention to a radio show at 2 p.m. on a given day?
January 22, 2010, 12:31 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No, I don’t think that’s right, I think that’s referring to how many unique individuals listen to some part of the program during the week. Apparently at any given time, he has just over 3 million listeners, so mea culpa.
January 22, 2010, 12:32 pmzuch says:
Prof. Bernstein:
Joshua Micah Marshall attracts “a fair number of blatantly anti-Semitic commenters”?!?!? Your evidence for this? Does he attract more that appear at Freeperville or Redstate? Even if so, why would that be, according to your theory? And what significance?
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 12:33 pmCan't find a good name says:
I’m not sure what you mean. Limbaugh would normally be considered the opponent of Obama, Hillary Clinton, liberals, and everything they stand for.
So if Limbaugh says that Obama is attacking bankers and Jews who work on Wall Street, that would normally signify that Limbaugh supports bankers and Jews who work on Wall Street, at least for the time being that they are under attack by Obama.
January 22, 2010, 12:34 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Remember you are not allowed to make factual observations about any non-white non-Christian, non-male group (either in a negative or positive way) if you are on the Right of the political spectrum. Thus pointing out that a higher percentage of minorities are in jail is racist and that a higher percentage of Jews are bankers in anti-Semitic. The predictable faux outrage by the Left to any such comment made by someone on the Right of the political spectrum always amuses me. I would suggest that all those who are horrified by the “anti-Semitic” Rush Limbaugh comment stop listening to him.
January 22, 2010, 12:36 pmDavid Bernstein says:
The link is to a post by M.J. Rosenberg, and there are blatantly anti-Semitic comments to this post. If you’re not even going to bother to glance at the link, please don’t comment.
January 22, 2010, 12:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
Rush Limbaugh (and the conservative/Republican reliance on Limbaugh) is the Southern Strategy broadcast nationwide. I doubt Jews fare any better with Southern Strategerists now than they did when Nixon and Haldeman were yucking it up (while Fred Malek was counting Jewish heads and preparing the memo) in the Oval Office.
January 22, 2010, 12:37 pmStrict says:
Michael: “What would he have done for the poor and sauffering?”
You can read about Aristide for yourself.
Aristide’s own book “Eyes of the Heart.”
January 22, 2010, 12:37 pmRandall Robinson’s book “An Unbroken Agony.”
Peter Hallward’s book “Damming the Flood
Alex Dupuy’s book “The Prophet and Power”
AND Hallward’s extensive critique of Dupuy’s book.
zuch says:
There may be a more fundamental error here: Putting ‘logic’ and Rush Limbaugh’s blatherings in the same post may be a category error of the first order.
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 12:41 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Imagine a critique on a liberal blog of Pat Robertson, who has been criticizing “Hollywood producers.”
Are you telling me with a straight face that left-wing bloggers would accuse the blogger who wrote those lines of anti-Semitism? If so, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn…
January 22, 2010, 12:41 pmStrict says:
Richard,
“Thus pointing out that a higher percentage of minorities are in jail is racist”
Not at all. Left-wing sociologists point that out all the time.
What may or may not be racist is the context in which such statements are made. If the general point is “minorities have an inherently criminal nature,” that might be racist. If the general point is “police stop and frisk minorities more often than whites” or “juries tend to mete out harsher punishments for minorities than for whites for identical crimes,” that might not be racist.
January 22, 2010, 12:42 pmzuch says:
For that matter, hypocrisy, contradiction, and shallow thinking are rife amongst RW “talking heads” (including politicians) [Stephen Colbert nails this here]. What is distressing is how popular and effective this nonetheless is….
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 12:46 pmsteve s says:
Rush’s genius is his understanding of plausible deniability. He is good at saying things that are almost racist, but not quite. Those in his audience who really are racist hear what they want to hear. Those who arent, hear something else. He is always able to deny as he leaves himself an out most every time.
Steve
January 22, 2010, 12:52 pmzuch says:
OK.
What about:
Evil or stoopid? Evil or stoopid? Lesseeeee … I vote “both”. See above.
Cheers,
P.S.: Of course he’s laughing all the way to the bank. And hoping no one catches on any time soon.
January 22, 2010, 12:53 pmSeaDrive says:
What I mean is that Limbaugh attributes words and intentions to people who would deny them. Examples: Liberals want to take your money and control your life. Obama’s actions on Haiti are designed to burnish his image domestically. (I say a video clip of him saying approximately this, but I don’t remember the words.)
It’s a variant of a straw man. For example, he might say liberals want to pass healthcare in order to increase the size and power of the federal government, then rails against this vision that he has himself created, ignoring or perhaps denying that liberals might actually want to get more people covered by health insurance.
January 22, 2010, 12:54 pmzuch says:
If the moon were made of swiss cheese and pi equaled 3.0000 exactly, I might. But I haven’t sold my soul to the De’el as of now.
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 12:57 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Thus pointing out that a higher percentage of minorities are in jail is racist”
Not at all. Left-wing sociologists point that out all the time.
But what I said Strict was “Remember you are not allowed to make factual observations about any non-white non-Christian, non-male group (either in a negative or positive way) if you are on the Right of the political spectrum. Thus pointing out that a higher percentage of minorities are in jail is racist and that a higher percentage of Jews are bankers in anti-Semitic.
In other words if you include my complete quote, your comment is exactly the point I was making. Thanks for agreeing with me.
January 22, 2010, 12:59 pmStrict says:
Richard: “if you are on the Right of the political spectrum. ”
No, who you are or where you are on the spectrum has NOTHING to do with whether that statement will be considered racist.
What will determine that is the CONTEXT in which the statement is made, as I pointed out.
I didn’t prove your point at all. Everyone is free to state that “a higher percentage of minorities is in jail.” But if you say it to prove the point that minorities are inherently criminal, that might be racist. But if you say it to prove a point about police conduct or jury attitudes, that might not be racist. It has nothing to do with WHO is saying the statement or that person’s political beliefs, see? It has to do with the point behind the statement.
January 22, 2010, 1:04 pmDavid Chesler says:
Anti-semites think a lot of bankers are Jews.
January 22, 2010, 1:12 pmRush thinks a lot of bankers are Jews.
Therefore Rush is an anti-semite.
Harry Eagar says:
Professor Bernstein, if you are going to waste time on Limbaugh, I’d rather you have spent it fisking his assertion that Obama rushed to commiserate with the Haitians because he was pandering to black voters.
The moral problem of Limbaughism, his brand of Republioanism and some varieties of liberarianism isn’t racism; it’s the indecent complacency — in Limbaugh’s case, spilling over into glee — about the misery of helpless people.
It boils down to telling barefoot people to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.
January 22, 2010, 1:15 pmRichard Nieporent says:
But if you say it to prove a point about police conduct or jury attitudes, that might not be racist.
So as long as a person on the Right agrees with Leftist social commentary his comments might not be racist. You are funny Strict.
January 22, 2010, 1:20 pmStrict says:
“So as long as a person on the Right agrees with Leftist social commentary his comments might not be racist.”
You don’t get it. It has nothing to do with Left or Right. It has to do with the underlying point of the comment. If the underlying point of the comment is racist, then the comment will be seen as racist. If the underlying point of the comment is not racist, then the comment will not be seen as racist.
January 22, 2010, 1:27 pmTatil says:
Do you seriously think adding a few more sentences to begin the quote changes the meaning in any way? One has to start the quote somewhere and I think where they started is quite fine. By saying “Some people…” Limbaugh already distances himself from “Jewish” and “banker” connection enough to avoid racism charge as much as he can. Adding a few more sentences about these “some people” does not change anything.
Unfortunately, Limbaugh is right that those kinds of “some people” exist. Of course, whether his proposal that Obama is trying to appeal to anti-semites and Jewish voters should punish him for it is another matter. People hate the fact that even the best run bank would lie in ruins if the government did not rescue AIG or pump trillions into TARP to put a floor on assets, but the taxpayer money somehow ended up rewarding the bankers through huge bonuses. I doubt anyone reads a code word when somebody says bankers. People hates bankers in general regardless of their race or religion at the moment. They made tons of money through taxpayers after the crisis. Sure, the injection of these funds are supposed to be good for all of us, but why is that it works so much better for those who got us into this mess to begin with?
January 22, 2010, 1:30 pmYankev says:
No, another reasonable interpretation is “A lot of anti-Jewish bigots say “bankers” when they mean Jews, and think “Jews” when they hear “bankers.” Now that Obama seems to be playing to these bigots with his attack on bankers, are the Jews who voted for him in record numbers going to start thinking they made a mistake by supporting someone who is willing to stir up hatred against Jews if he thinks it will boost his popularity?
January 22, 2010, 1:32 pmzuch says:
Josh Marshall is the blogger there (it’s his blog), even if it was a post by Rosenberg on Marshall’s blog. If you’d meant Rosenberg specifically, you should have said so, and not “left-wing bloggers“.
But FWIW, with your clarification, I went and read all the comments. Which ones do you think were “blatantly anti-Semitic”?
And a subsidiary (and general) question: Why should any commenters’ opinions be attributed to the poster? Can we do this for any and all of your posts?
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 1:33 pmYankev says:
Most long-time VC’ers did,including some VC hosts, remember?
January 22, 2010, 1:35 pmTatil says:
Worst case scenario, if the person does not get into trouble for his comments, you can call him a lefty and move on to using it as a supporting case for your theory, so that you can keep viewing yourself as some sort of victim. :)
January 22, 2010, 1:35 pmYankev says:
By telling people to route their donations through private charities? One might argue that would have saved lives.
January 22, 2010, 1:37 pmzuch says:
Robertson suffers from the same failings as does El Rushbo. My answer is here.
Cheers,
[EDITOR: That's not an answer at all. The question is whether a liberal who criticized Robertson using the same language L. used to attack Obama would be accused of anti-Semitism.]
January 22, 2010, 1:38 pmDangerMouse says:
You don’t get it. It has nothing to do with Left or Right. It has to do with the underlying point of the comment. If the underlying point of the comment is racist, then the comment will be seen as racist. If the underlying point of the comment is not racist, then the comment will not be seen as racist.
Are you dense? Political ideology of the speaker has everything to do with it. Conservatives are routinely denounced for purely factual statements that when made by libs are seen as acceptable. Libs make racist, sexist comments all the time and they’re never called on it. The point you’re avoiding is by whom “the comment will be seen as racist.” A comment by a conservative will be seen as racist by a lib, because a lib has an ideological/political objective in smearing all conservatives as racists. You are wrong in stating that if the underlying point of the comment is not racist that it won’t be seen as racist.
January 22, 2010, 1:39 pmDavid Bernstein says:
You must have missed the e.g.
There were at least two, but I’m not going to go back and read them all. One was some weird rant about “Ashkenazim.”
I didn’t say that we should attribute the comments to R. I said there was an irony there. The irony is Rosenberg trumping up anti-Semitism charges vs. Limbaugh based on innocent remars, while Rosenberg is consistently attacking Israel, the Jewish establishment etc. to the extent that he attracts blatantly anti-Semitic readers. I don’t think this makes R. an anti-Semite, but you know what they say about people in glass houses…
January 22, 2010, 1:39 pmYankev says:
Hi-lited the wrong part of JB’s post; meant to hi-lite the part about defending Reid.
January 22, 2010, 1:45 pmStrict says:
Dangermouse,
Political ideology has nothing to do with it. A purely factual statement by itself is simply a purely factual statement.
But a purely factual statement to support a racist point (e.g. “minorities are inherently criminal) will be probably be racist, regardless of who says it. A purely factual statement to support a non-racist point (e.g. In 53 less-than-1-gram crack cocaine possession cases, Judge X sentenced each of the 50 black defendants to 2 years in prison, while Judge X sentenced the 3 white defendants to only probation) won’t be racist.
Do you see how the the first point is racist while the latter point is non-racist (it’s merely describing objective sentencing disparities; it’s not making generalizations about race)?
So an purely objective statement in the service of the racist point might be racist, while that same statement in the service of the non-racist point isn’t. It doesn’t matter who is saying that statement. It could be an anonymous person whose political ideology is completely unknown.
No on criticizes anyone for making a purely objective statement. The criticism is of the point that statement purports to serve. There’s the difference.
January 22, 2010, 1:54 pmMike McDougal says:
The ADL has cried wolf so many times that I’m not sure anyone really takes them seriously.
January 22, 2010, 2:00 pmegd says:
I thought it was pretty clear myself, above is the interpretation I got. Obama is attacking bankers (Jews) and money people on Wall Street (who are mostly Jews).
Of course, given the precedent that accusing the sports media of being racist makes one a racist, I am not surprised by the statements by the ADL.
January 22, 2010, 2:02 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I would have to agree.
For the longest time, they have done a report on anti-Jewish cartoons in the Middle Easat, cartoons that either feature a stereotypical Jewish caricature or asserts that Jews control the U.S., U.N., and the banks. But they also label any cartoon featuring the Star of David as anti-Jewish. A cartoon featuring the Star of David is not necessarily anti-Jewish, since Israel uses that symbol and any cartoon critical of Israel would show the Star of David.
Did the ADL ever criticize Charlie Rangel’s statement?
January 22, 2010, 2:06 pmzuch says:
My answer was that you don’t need to (and shouldn’t) look to a single purpose (or any purpose at all) in what these people say. What they say may be a reflection of inner biases and prejudices, whether intentional or not. There, the evidence is inconclusive (neither is as overt and honest as is, say, Pat Buchanan), but you might consider cumulative, circumstantial evidence in making your own judgement. I’d note that Robertson is hardly pristine when it comes to past behaviour, if that helps the inquiry as to whether someone who criticised Robertson with that language were themselves anti-Semitic. But you’d have to look elsewhere to see if the claim: “a lot of those people in Beverly Hills are Jewish” was an indication of underlying anti-Semitism or just inartful “poo”.
But the succinct answer to a counter-factual is properly: “It’s a counter-factual”.
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 2:10 pmzuch says:
Oh. So what else did I miss? Do you have cites or links for the others?
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 2:13 pmDavid Bernstein says:
What am I, your R.A.? Just google blogsearch Limbaugh and Foxman, and you’ll find plenty.
January 22, 2010, 2:17 pmzuch says:
One wonders who read the comments. If you’re referring to this comment, I’d note that the admittedly hysterical commenter there seems not to be anti-Semitic, but rather strongly anti-Islamic. Maybe your other comment supports your claim better … or maybe not; I don’t see it. Care to reconsider your claim?
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 2:23 pmzuch says:
Given your performance on the other sub-thread, pardon me if I ask for more that a “go look it up yourself” (along with an explanation for whatever is not self-evident there which is needed to support your claim).
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 2:27 pmGilbert says:
The omitted portion of the quote does not make Limbaugh’s statement as a whole ANY less offensive. The point is exactly the same — Obama is appealing to prejudice. If you are offended by the part quoted by Foxman, you would be offended by the portion cited here.
January 22, 2010, 5:22 pmSwan Trumpet says:
Nonsense. Willie Horton was called Willie Horton until he wound up as a defendant. Courts frown on the use of nicknames in official documents.
And the famous ‘Willie” of the time was the very White-skinned Willie Nelson, who had a series of big hit songs in the 1980s and had embarked on an acting career. If one were trying to “blacken him up” as you so inanely suggest, the choice of ‘Willie’ in the late 80s would not have achieved that objective.
January 22, 2010, 5:38 pmklohy says:
zuch,
What about this comment:
“Contemporary Likud Zionism has turned into an effective cover for racists, nativists and xenophobes in the United States and Europe to push their agenda.”
Admittedly, it is hard to make head or tail of it as it seems to be lacking any linkage to logic or reality, but if RL’s comment is even vaguely anti-semitic then this one certainly would qualify. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so definitive.
January 22, 2010, 6:16 pmJacob Malcolm says:
Please tell me this is sarcasm. If not, then it’s horrible logic (which, I guess makes it illogical).
January 22, 2010, 7:08 pmzuch says:
What’s anti-Semitic about that? Here’s the remainder of that comment:
The commenter is suggesting that Likud Zionism is being used as cover by “racists, nativists and xenophobes in the United States and Europe”, and that these racists and such have other items on the agenda besides making common cause with the more extreme Likudnik Israelis on their trashing of Arabs. At least that’s what I get from it. You may disagree with this assertion, but how is it anti-Semitic?
But still waiting to hear from Prof. Bernstein on his “iron[ic]” comment by an “anti-Semite” who seems to have a passionate hatred … for all things Islamic….
Does that comment affect the truth value of Prof. Bernstein’s assertion/insinuation WRT Rosenberg’s blog post on TPM?
Cheers,
January 22, 2010, 7:11 pmHarry Eagar says:
‘The ADL has cried wolf so many times that I’m not sure anyone really takes them seriously.’
Nevertheless, there are wolves.
January 22, 2010, 7:38 pmMichael Mahoney says:
Laid alongside your post on Buchanan, I find both post laughable.
January 22, 2010, 7:39 pmManju says:
How do you know?
January 22, 2010, 7:51 pmDr. Weevil says:
Manju:
How you do know that Horton went by ‘William’, not ‘Willie’? You brought it up. Wikipedia says so, and references Hope and Sparks, Crime, Risk, and Insecurity, but Amazon’s ‘search inside’ function took me to note 13 on page 266, which simply says that he “goes by” William, not Willie. If you have any evidence at all that Horton went by William, not Willie, in everyday life at the time of his crimes, please present it.
Of course, the idea that ‘Willie’ is a black name, though often repeated, is ridiculous. Swan Trumpet has already mentioned Willie Nelson as a counterexample, and I would add Boxcar Willie, Groundskeeper Willie on the Simpsons, Willie Wonka, and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton. I suspect there are others. It is to some extent (3 of my 5 examples) a southern name, like Jesse (think Jackson and Helms), but that doesn’t make it a black name. Anyone who automatically assumes that a criminal named ‘Willie’ is black is in no position to accuse others of racism.
January 22, 2010, 8:22 pmmariner says:
SeaDrive:
Bullshit.
Limbaugh doesn’t put words in peoples’ mouths. He plays the words that actually came out of their mouths, then mercilessly ridicules them for what they said.
January 22, 2010, 9:06 pmwhit says:
JB says: “How, exactly, is saying that people in America like Obama better because he has light skin and talks like white people racist?”
JB … hmmm.
Joe Biden! got it. is this a new variation on your “clean and articulate” thing?
January 22, 2010, 10:23 pmwhit says:
“I didn’t prove your point at all. Everyone is free to state that “a higher percentage of minorities is in jail.” But if you say it to prove the point that minorities are inherently criminal, that might be racist. But if you say it to prove a point about police conduct or jury attitudes, that might not be racist.”
you are leaving out the third option, and the one supported by the evidence. here’s a hint. different groups commit crime at different rates.
i don’t see anybody accusing me of sexism if i say “men are more likely than women to commit bank robbery”.
some ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to commit crime, and others are MORE likely.
that’s not an issue of police conduct or jury conduct (primarily).
if you doubt this, note that the disproportionate rate that cops arrest/stop/frisk various minorities is EERILY close to the disproportionate rate that CRIME VICTIMS identify their victimizers as.
iow, crime VICTIMS (see the NCVS) say that some racial minorities (and men fwiw) commit certain crimes much more commonly than other groups. that’s what VICTIMS say. and here’s another hint, some racial minorities are disproportionately VICTIMS (blacks, for instance). are they being racist and fabricating the race of those who victimize them?
this says nothing about “inherent criminality”. it at least suggests a cultural factor, what thomas sowell would call “cultural capital”. one aspect of culture is whether one grows up in a two parent household or a one parent household (which is disproportionate amongst various groups), or the value one’s culture places on education (jews and episcopalians place relatively more emphasis on education for instance than many other groups), etc.
if somebody believes a given racial (or ethnic or religious) minority is INHERENTLY more prone to crime, that’s racist.
if one believes there are a host of cultural factors, that is not at all racist.
January 22, 2010, 10:29 pmneurodoc says:
You are saying that in the United States a disproportionately high percentage of Jews are bankers? That’s interesting, since I was under the impression that historically at least banking was a field in which few jobs were open to Jews. Am I mistaken? Do you have any data to support your contention that Jews are “overrepresented” in the banking industry, that is at Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, etc.?
January 22, 2010, 11:27 pmneurodoc says:
How about pointing us to some of those cartoons you think were not anti-Jewish. Those I have seen singled out impressed me as antisemitic.
January 22, 2010, 11:37 pmleo marvin says:
I have nothing to add. The comment is just worth repeating.
January 22, 2010, 11:58 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Do you have any data to support your contention that Jews are “overrepresented” in the banking industry, that is at Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, etc.?
Neurodoc, do you have data to show they are not? It was just an example to demonstrate my point. If you don’t like it choose another example such as the profession you are in. By the way, why did you use the word “overrepresented”? That has a negative connotation that certainly was not in my post. And to preclude you making an embarrassing comment, yes I am Jewish.
January 23, 2010, 12:36 amManju says:
Well, you provided some evidence. Besides that, Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the The Annenberg Public Policy Center which runs FactCheck, “a nonprofit devoted to examining the factual accuracy of US political campaign advertisement” according to wiki, reports this:
“Although his given name is William, he calls himself William, court records cite him as William, a July 1988 Reader’s Digest article identifies him as William J. Horton, Jr.,and press reports prior to the Republican ad and speech blitz name him “William,” the Bush campaign and its supporting PACs identified the furloughed convict as “Willie” Horton. Even the crusading anti-Dukakis newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for its expose on the furlough program consistently identifies Horton as William Horton or William Horton, Jr. When the Maryland man who was stabbed by the furloughed convict contacted the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, he too referred to Horton as William Horton. In his account of the attack in the PAC ad, however, that man, Clifford Barnes, instead identifies the convict as “Willie” Horton.”
January 23, 2010, 1:41 amRicardo says:
Investment banking was historically very segregated between WASP banks (like J.P. Morgan who didn’t do business with Jews) and predominantly Jewish banks like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers (who did business with the Jewish firms J.P. Morgan didn’t want to touch). Things have been changing, naturally, as Wall Street has embraced the rhetoric of diversity in the workplace along with the rest of corporate America. And it can hardly afford any more bad press.
I can’t find any numbers but having worked in the financial world myself, I would bet that Jews as well as East Asians and South Asians are disproportionately represented in finance. The head of research at my former firm was Jewish and loved making sarcastic comments about the Jewish conspiracy to control finance. These jokes tended to get laughed at the most by the Jewish employees.
January 23, 2010, 2:03 amManju says:
This is true BUT…Jews responded to this situation by creating their own firms (at least ibanking firms where the barrier to entry is rather low, ie you don’t need much capital…because it’s brokerage when practiced in its its purist form, ie not including prop trading.) i believe, a similar situation existed with law firms, ie clear dividing line between the white shoes (which at one time meant top wasp firms) like cravath and the jewish firms like paul, weiss.
Indeed, probably the most important insitution responsable for creating america thats not really taught in high school is the house of moragan: JPMoragan and the firm that emerged from it due to glass steigal, morgan stanley, as well as its sister firm drexel. This house built america but you pretty much couldn’t make partner there if you were a jew. in fact, as late as the 1990s, when sandy weil tried to buy an bank to merge with his brokerage firm (smith barney) he first approached JPMOrgan, and reported back that “morgan would never sell to a Jew.” (he eventually bought salomon bros). When he first started out on wall street, sandy was told he’d never make patner at drexel. He started his own frm that would eventully become citi, after a series of mergers.
Anyway, the response to this discrimination was goldman sachs, bear sterns, lehman bros, and salomon…firms set up in part to avoid the glass ceiling. by the 1980s they not only dominated the street but of their wasp rivals, only morgan stanley and first boston remained in the bulge bracket (along with merill who was neither wasp or jew.) kidder peabody and drexel imploded, and former wasp powerhouses like jpmorgan, Brown Brothers Harriman, white weld, haydon stone, dillon reed were reduced to minor players.
The free market is a great anecdote to discrimination.
January 23, 2010, 2:13 amGary says:
If Limbaugh is so anti-Semitic, why is he such a strong supporter of Israel? And would it be anti-Semitic to point out that there are “a lot of Jews” in Israel?
January 23, 2010, 3:45 amwhit says:
“Neurodoc, do you have data to show they are not? It was just an example to demonstrate my point. If you don’t like it choose another example such as the profession you are in. By the way, why did you use the word “overrepresented”? That has a negative connotation that certainly was not in my post. And to preclude you making an embarrassing comment, yes I am Jewish.”
I don’t think “overrepresented” has a negative connotation.
look, let’s deal with reality. in almost ANYTHING in society, some groups are overrepresented, and others are underrepresented.
japanese americans are much less likely to bear children out of wedlock than whites. again, so what?
facts are facts.
fwiw, i have no idea whether jews are over or under represented among bankers, though
let’s look at sports.
blacks are overrepresented in basketball and underrepresented in hockey
west african origin blacks are so overrepresented in sprinting that no white or asian male has even broken 10 seconds, but it’s been done dozens of times.
men are overrepresented in most violent crimes – bank robbery, murder, etc.
in boston, irish are overrepresented in the police force. i recall doing a ride-along and it is not an exaggeration that everywhere i looked were cops whose names started with “O’” or “Mc”.
ashkenazic jews are overrepresented amongst high IQ populations vs. sephardic jews (source: ethnic america by thomas sowell)
jews are overrepresented in urban populations, and underrepresented in rural populations.
in the middle of the last century, more than 25% of jewish males had 4 or more years of college, whereas only 10% of the populationas a whole did.
about 1/4 of nobel prizes won by americans were by jews, who are obviously much less than 25% of the population.
thus, christians are disproportionately underrepresnted in nobel prizes vs. jews. is this a “negative connotation?”
facts are facts. different groups (ethnicities, genders, religions, etc.) perform differently in different areas, disproportionately seek differnt career paths, disproportionately value education, disproportionately raise multiple children,etc.
those are simply facts.
January 23, 2010, 6:32 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
No. This has been covered. If the COMMENTER supports affirmative action and the liberal social construct that mandates all minorities suffer at the hands of the evil whites in our country (lets not discuss asians etc.) then the comments will not be seen as racist. If the commenter disagrees with the left politically on any point, he/she will have “racist” trumpeted from the rooftops.
Ok, you’ve established that “Willie” had been referred to as “William” prior. Now how is that racist again? Do you have any idea how desperate to find racism it makes you seem to use a common name shortener as proof of racism? Would it have been racist to call him “Dick Horton”? “ooh now they’re playing on racial fears of African sexual prowess klgfskldbjwlugejkfj.”
I find that your use of the internet handle “Manju” since it is a racial slur in Pashtun. Racist. See how easy that is? EVERYTHING is racist! I find your use of standard english to be racist against ebonics users! Racist! Remember when you said this?:
No? Doesn’t matter, sounds like something you would say! I call that “Limbaughing”! Now look how big a racist you are! Everyone’s a racist! Or at least can be claimed to be a racist by someone with no sense of logic or scruples.
January 23, 2010, 9:07 amOwen H. says:
As he commonly does, this is Rush expressing is own prejudices by accusing someone else of them.
Supporting the government of Israel often has little to do with supporting the Jewish people. Nor does opposing Israeli government policies automatically mean anti-Semitism.
January 23, 2010, 9:10 amDr. Weevil says:
Manju:
Finally, some evidence that ‘Willie Horton’ was not the man’s preferred name. Of course, it is far from probative. Newspapers and magazines often refer to people by the names on their birth certificates, even if they do not use those names in everyday life. For example, the man who came in third in the Massachusetts Senate race calls himself ‘Joe Kennedy’ on his website, but plenty of newspaper articles called him ‘Joseph L. Kennedy’, no doubt to avoid confusion with all the other Joe Kennedys in the country. And court records always use formal names, don’t they? It looks to me like FactCheck is stretching and padding what little evidence they have to try to prove what they want to prove.
If the famous Horton “calls himself William” in the present tense, so what? I’m roughly the same age as Horton, and have gone by ‘Michael’ for 20+ years, but everyone called me ‘Mike’ in the ’70s and ’80s. Someone whose name has become notorious for multiple felonies might be all the more likely to want to change his name.
Of course, you have also completely ignored my point that ‘Willie’ is not the sort of name that implies that someone is black. Now if his name were Malcolm Louis Horton and political campaigns called him ‘Malcolm X Horton’ instead, that would be racist.
January 23, 2010, 9:11 amGary says:
WTF? You cannot support Israel while being anti-Jewish.
January 23, 2010, 3:25 pmChrisTS says:
Agreed.
January 23, 2010, 7:04 pmsean mccray says:
I am very slow to use words like racist, but…. Limbaugh’s history and recent comments are just out of bounds. He uses race and ethnicity as a hammer. His ignorance cannot just be simply ignored as “entertainment” he is irresponsible.
January 23, 2010, 7:49 pmzuch says:
Yes. I remember him playing all those cuts of the various FemiNazis….
Seriously, I think you’re confoozing Limbaugh with people like Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow…..
Cheers,
January 25, 2010, 1:30 am