Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 1

message: The Chelsea/dog thing is still in the article. Is there a reason for this? The transcript above seems to establish that it is false.—Eloquence 04:10, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
: Nobody seemed to get around to removing it, so I just did.
: An example of a real attack on Chelsea happened during Saturday Night Live, which does a lot of political satire, during a Wayne's World segment and has since been edited out of replayed episodes.  I'm not suggesting we add it to any of those articles, though.  Daniel Quinlan 18:22, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
The attack on Chelsea Clinton was factual; Rush blamed it on a technician.  The "transcript" which has been floating around is spurious.  The idea that he'd devote any time on the show to calling Chelsea a "cute kid" is a dead giveaway. ~ Ouroboros
No, the attack on Chelsea was NOT factual. 
Yes, Rush did blame it on some behind the scenes tech (for whom apparently, was not his first on screen mistake), and I believe the guy was fired.
The transcript is NOT spurious. It has been archived on Lexis-Nexis since somewhere around the early-mid 90's. And I was an eyewitness to the show. It was only a couple months old at the time, and the transcript is word for word accurate.
He was not devoting any time on the show calling chelsea a "cute kid". He was devoting time doing a segment on in/out lists. That's what the one of in/out articles he was reading from called her. 
:Good Lord, is this still around? 
:Transcript from lexis nexis: 
:Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. 
:RUSH LIMBAUGH 
:SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) 
:November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM 
: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)
: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. 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)
: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.'
:(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. 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)
:LIMBAUGH: We'll be back with the rest of our show in a moment.
:Okay, anybody who believes that was an accident, and not a staged "bit".... Funny how the purported "segment on in/out lists" consists of just the one item; and is introduced with "it's very strange". What's very strange? Or is that just a fumbly effort to introduce the bit? And of course the apology with on air self-spanking, with applause and laughter (give the man credit, he understands the level of his audience all too well).. sincere? And the reference to Amy Carter being unattractive, followed by laughter? And we see where the myth of "a tech who did it three times and was fired" originates. Not to be NPOV here, but Limbaugh followers seem to be awfully good at embellishing little details into massive stories which get repeated all over the internet and become not just urban legends, but Articles of Urban Faith. Anyway, that "three times" reference is obviously just another dig. "Gee, three times we try to show you Chelsea and confuse her picture with the dog's". Gosh, what could he be implying there? 
:But a few days later, no more laughing boy:
:1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. 
:RUSH LIMBAUGH 
:SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) 
:November 10, 1992, Tuesday 11:15 AM 
:("Who's Sorry Now" is played and Rush points to himself) 
:(Laughter) 
:LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry. 
:LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away. 
:Not such a chucklefest any more, apparently. Meanwhile, back to the Urban Limbaugh Articles of Faith I: the Bad Technician Who Got Fired: Search for the descriptions of the event posted on Google. Click on the bottom where it says repeat the search with the omitted results included, because the point is to find similar sites. The actual list of sites found changes from time to time (obviously), but note how many are not only identically worded, spaced and punctuated, but contain, verbatim, the identical fired techie comment not found in the transcript inserted in the middle, complete with the identical separator lines: 
:__________________ 
:Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized (and the guy responsible was fired). 
:_________________________ 
:This time around it was 3/6 I found. A little over a year ago, I found 5/6 with that little editorial comment, identical. And clearly, the anonymous Limbaugh defender above has also seen this writeup and attached it to his/her "eyewitness to the show" testimony, along with "He was not devoting any time on the show calling chelsea a 'cute kid'. He was devoting time doing a segment on in/out lists." Well, at least he/she remembers that "the transcript is word for word accurate"; so read it above and make up your own mind. If you're still curious, see if you can find any other evidence for the existence of this scapegoat; then sort out for yourself what is fact, what is joke, and what is a rationalization fantasized from whole cloth. Gzuckier 21:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelsea/dog comment 

message: In response to the inclusion of Michael Moore in the Propaganda category, I added the same category tag to this article.  It was reverted.  Appropriate use of the category is being discussed at Category talk:Propaganda. JamesMLane 00:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Propaganda 

message: I reverted back to Merovingian's edits.  The latest edit describes Rush as a republican.  Limbaugh has always said that his nature is of a conservative, and he disagrees with the RNC on numerous issues.  --G3pro 02:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, not necessarily a republican 

message: At the beginning of the article, Limbaugh is described as "right wing."  Personally, I *never* use the terms "liberal" and "left wing" interchangably, nor do I hold "conservative" and "right wing" as being synonymous.  In my opinion liberals and conservatives are both generally in touch with the views of their cultures' political moderates.  Calling someone left wing or right wing pegs them as an extremist, and to label Rush Limbaugh as right wing is not using a neutral viewpoint in desribing him.
In short, I think that "right wing" should be changed to "conservative" in this article.  There are other points that liberals and conservatives could argue about all day, but on the whole the article is farily neutral in my opinion.  Thoughts?
TJSwoboda 20:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nitpick... 

message: Is this neutral point of view?
:'..."National Association for the Advancement of LAZY Colored People." This slur, not unlike those against black NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb among others, fuels the fire for Rush’s detractors to argue that Rush’s political and ideological point of view, and that of most neo-conservatives in general, is essentially race-based.'
How is it a "slur", "race-based"? Cannot "non-colored" people be lazy? If anything, this statement makes it a "race-based" "slur".  RL 23:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, could you clarify a bit more?  If you are saying that NAALCP should not be referred to as a slur, since that betrays a certain point of view, you may have a point, but I think that clearly the term is being used in a disparaging manner.  Slur may indeed be too strong a word, and perhaps we could replace it with something else.  Is that what you are talking about?  --Cvaneg 23:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see what you are saying now.  I think that's the reason the authors included the part about Donovan McNabb, it better illustrates that detractors feel that it is not an isolated comment, but rather an indication of an overall philosophy on race.  Incidentally this section is in general very hard to judge as it deals with the point of view of Rush's critics, so even if it is unfair, it may very well be true from their viewpoint.  The question that has to be answered is whether or not the information it provides, that of perception of Rush by his detractors as at least a bit of a racist, taints the entire article, or if it is a widely enough held belief that it deserves some mention. --Cvaneg 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rush Limbaugh#Jargon|NAALCP]] 

message: Why is there a picture of him smoking with thick smoke surrounding him? It seems very negative of him. Either negative or very "cinematic". (I'm not american, am I missing something? Is there something about him and heavy smoking or something like that?)
*I imagine it's somewhat symbolic, that he'd certainly be in favor of the right to smoke a cigar in any public place and strongly against any attempts to legislate that right away. (just a guess on my part). Gzuckier 15:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His picture 

message: does anybody have proof that there isn't a Bo Snerdly?
There are two seperate days on the radio that contradict each other.
The first day which I trust much less is when he explained where Bo Snerdly came from.  In which Rush claims that Bo Snerdly is a figment of his imagination.  He is a person that always plays devils advocate, and allows Rush to point out the opposition to his point of view and then explain it.
The second day which I trust much more is when Rush got really mad at a caller and stormed away from the mic.  A man with a deap voice, sounded African American, said "This is Snerdly and we will be right back.".  (or something to that extent)  However to give credability to this argument, in the past I have also heard Rush say that Snerdly was on meet the nation.  In addition on April 192005 Rush commented about how snerdly flew off the hook at a person because the person on the other end of the line implied that the show used talking points.
Either way like many of Rush's staff which have nicknames like "Co Co" the webmaster.  Snerdly is probably just a made up name for a real person to protect the identity of this person.  So I beleive the person that Snerdly represents is real however I do not beleive that, that is the persons real name.
--Nick Berardi 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bo Snerdly" is a nickname for Rush's longtime assistant and call screener, James Golden, which Rush dubbed him with in the show's early days.  Golden left for a while to host and produce an Internet radio station (which apparently went bust duing the "dot com" crash), occassionally appearing as a caller in the interim, but has been back for a long time.  Early in the show there were other ethnic Snerdlies, including, I think, Wo Fat Snerdly or something to that effect, maybe Wu Tang Snerdley; whoever was call screening that day was "Snerdly", but this was dropped years ago.   Rlquall 01:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rlquall is correct.  The use of the pseudonym x Snerdley has been a long-standing bit on Limbaugh's show.  Bo Snerdley (or Snerdly?) is James Golden, who also had his own radio show on WABC AM in the mid-1990s.  I believe that Golden was the third person who was given a Snerdley moniker on Limbaugh's national show.  The first was "Merva Snerdley" in the late 1980s.  I don't know her real name.  The second was Tony "Vegas" Virga (a.k.a. Mario Snerdley) who left the radio business for an acting career. 68.14.90.253 18:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bo Snerdly? 

message: I am new to this, but I noticed some misspelled words in the article.  Also, there were a few mentions of "now" and "as of today" remarks that seem out of place since there is no clear date on the remark.  I verified that the items are still true "today" (4/25/2005) and updated the sentences to refer to specific dates.
I apologize if this was the wrong thing to do. - sgartner 4/25/2005
: Nope, it was exactly the right thing to do.  See Wikipedia:as of, Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, and Wikipedia:Time-resistant grammatical forms for some idea of how little the "now" and "as of today" remarks are liked by the Wikipedia admins.  — DLJessup 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the confirmation and also thank you for fixing up the dates properly, I'll make sure I do that in the future.  Also, I realize now that I should not have marked all of those changes as minor, I'll be more careful about that as well. — Sgartner 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes to fix typos and relative dates 

message: can't someone find a regular photo. not one with him smoking?! I found one. But, someone changed it back to the smoking one. --Justy329 22:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo 

message: why was the link to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels removed? Rush's techniques of bombastically repeating the Big Lie are so derivative of Goebbels, that a link is warranted.
:Rush's job is to be POV, but Wikipedia's job is to be NPOV.  That's why.  And please, in the future, sign your talk page entries. Rogerd 21:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joseph Goebbels]] link needed 

message: Limbaugh as an exemplar of the Chickenhawk syndrome definitely needs some attention in this article, e.g. , as it is in important aspect to his influence in American politics.  Perhaps a page devoted to List of Chickenhawks is needed.
My understanding of the term is that "Chickenhawk" is a pejorative intended to insult or suggest incompetance or lack of expertise on the topic of war or war-waging due to the personal inexperience of the person advocating it.  Given that the overwhelming majority of people have never served in the military, to say nothing of actually experiencing combat duty, it strikes me as a little unfair to genericize the term as some kind of psychological disorder and selectively apply it to outspoken political figures.  It may be more fair and more helpful to indicate in a general "Criticism" section that Limbaugh has been characterized by his critics as a chickenhawk, and offer quotes or references supporting this accusation. --Bjsiders 20:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chickenhawk]] links needed 

message: If he's claiming its innacurate, someone care to explain to him that he can edit it? --Kiand 00:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innacurate, eh? 

message: I edited the statement that 2 ESPN commentators "are themselves former African-American football players" to "are African-American former football players." Obviously they cannot be former African-Americans. Also, since McNabb was not a "former" football player, then the comparative word "themselves" is out of place. Josephconklin 4 August 2005
:Word order Yoda not wise men using correct sometimes. Gzuckier 21:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited difficult clause 

message: Much of the biographical information in this article is listed under a heading of "Controversies". While I can see how sections on his political leanings (3.3 Libertarianism, 3.4 Views on homosexuality)  might go under a broad heading like that, the actual things that happened in his life should be part of his biography, not "controversies". That includes: 3.1 ESPN controversy, 3.2 Drug use and investigation, 3.5 Divorce, 3.6 AFRTS controversy. Calling something a "controversy" makes the issue about the controversy, not what Limbaugh did and said. Yes, controversies resulted and should be mentioned, but we should endeavor to simply describe Limbaugh's life in chronological order, with a separate section on his views. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 21:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Hear, hear! HKT talk</font> 22:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, user:DLJessup, for reorganizing it. That's much better (and I wasn't looking forward to doing it myself). Cheers, -Willmcw 18:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome.  Thanks for the suggestion.  — DLJessup 04:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography vs list of controversies 

message: Anyone know the explanation of Limbaugh's feud with John McCain, seems he's the most fiscally conservative (at least on the spending side of things)member of the Senate...Does Limbaugh have a strong tie to the Bushes or is it something else with McCain66.72.215.225 21:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: McCain is a ranting liberal. I'm from Arizona, and I've been watching McCain and aware of his record on social issues for a long time. Describing him as a fiscal conservative is a stretch, and as for social matters, he's as liberal as many democrats. Rush is calling this one like he sees it. I don't believe there's anything else at play here.  Gregmg 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John McCain