Limbaugh - this is getting funny
Published by Mike Stark June 15th, 2006 in Rush LimbaughI called and told the screener that I was Brian Wheeler, a Democratic candidate for the State Assembly in New York. I told him that I was tired of Rush bashing Democrats for wanting a sensible foreign policy - specifically, a Colin Powell style exit strategy.
LOL… He asked me if I ever called before. I said, “No - I hardly ever listen to Rush, but I’m on the road today and heard what he said.”
So I got on again. I’m having to get more and more creative with my subterfuge, but the challenge is a ton of fun. I can’t wait to get one of those voice changers… lol…
Anyway, it looks like I got some facts wrong. I was correct about the vast majority (I think it’s 9 out of 10) of Iraq and Afghanistan vets that are running for House or Senate seats are running on the Democratic line. But I checked my numbers about current members serving in the House and Senate that have military service and it looks like rough parity.
Sorry for the error. It’s gonna happen sometimes.
Anyway, Rush cites some crime stats… this is the article I cite in my commentary…
Oh yeah, I shoulda told you - this is another of those running commentary pieces.
25 Responses to “Limbaugh - this is getting funny”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
In Eric Hoffers’ excellent book “The True Believer”, he makes the point that every fundamentalist movement, whether Islam or Right Wing Republican (how’s THAT for a link?) must have one thing: an enemy. The Right had Communism, ethnics, women, gays…all bogeymen that they blamed for America’s problems. As these enemies were either defeated or assimilated into America’s great rainbow, they were left with…liberal Democrats and the “drive-by media” (even Rush should be getting sick of that stupid phrase soon). All of America’s problems (and they are many) are now conveniently and easily blamed on this new evil entity. And the vitriol spewed by the likes of Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh upon this diverse group of proud and loyal Americans is getting more harsh and shrill daily. The notion that “Democrats and the media hate America” is absurd on its face, but that is the Scream Machine’s main talking point these days, and it brings any reasoned argument to a screeching halt - which is their objective.
Mike, you are right: we don’t hate America…we hate Rush and his coterie of True Believers. Keep up the fight!
How is this getting funny? You didn’t get him flustered, you didn’t mention your name or the website… It sounds like a civil conversation in which you both have your own set of facts supported by various articles. Hell, you even sound mellowed. If I’d made a donation, I’d want it back!
Frank - it was funny because the screener is practically begging people to identify themselves as “Mike from Albany” before he puts them through.
I understand how one could miss the humor - I wrote the post (really) late last night and didn’t complete the story.
After the screener asked if when the last time I had been on was and I told him never, he said “Really? You’ve never called before?”
I’m certain they are trying to weed me out. And I’m certainly going to do everything I can to keep that from happening.
That’s what’s funny.
Ooookay….let’s review. You do a bunch of interviews with the likes of Talkers, Olberman, and other hosts that you’re doing this stuff. You post your strategy on this website. You know that Limbaugh reads this. You may or may not have gotten his screener fired, so the screener is a new employee. Why are his questions surprising? He obvious needs more experience. From your own list of tips, it’s easy to get past a screener. So what’s funny? You got past a screener who’s been told to look for you.
And no wonder your audio sounded so strange. Only your initial question made it to the air. My friend the dittohead said it wasn’t on the dittocam feed either. And when I listen back to your file, it sounds like you were just fading Limbaugh out and talking over him. If it doesn’t make it to air or his website, what’s the point? You’re just preaching to the converted here. Why pass off an edited aircheck as the real thing? Hell, with a little editing, anybody can sound good in an argument. Did you lose something else in Vegas besides some walkin’ around money? Like your integrity?
People like your veteran friend in Tikrit who genuinely believe we’ve neutralized some threat and it’s time to come home help focus my anger on the architects of this war. Sometimes I get angry at conservatives in general…
We could circumvent the Rush Limbaughs/Ann Coulters if we were to adopt your friend’s simple, straight forward frame of reference. We’ve secured ourselves from the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD and it’s time to come home.
This would expose any imperialists who want to stay to set up a puppet government, bases, or a giant walled “embassy”
Frank:
Ooookay….let’s review. You’re just being a douchebag, making shit up and trolling the blog. I got the entire audio from his website. You’re gonna try telling me he went to dead air for the 15-30 seconds it took for me to ask my question? Please. Don’t be a dumbass.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Boy, Mike, if you don’t hit a home run every time, some of your readers sure do get upset about it. I say nice try and good job getting past the screener. I don’t think this call was your best, but at least you are out there trying. Keep it up!
Way to go Mike!! You kicked ass!! Keep it up and smack ole Limbaugh upside the head a few more times!!
Nice post. You make some good points. One piece of advice though, maybe a chime or something between the end of the call and the start of the commentary, it was a little confusing at first.
Democrats should be trying to convince people that the mission is accomplished. It would put Bush in a terrible position with no way out.
Wow, somebody’s touchy. Look, your initial question got on. He probably took you off the air while he answered. You want the transcript and the audio file?
Frank:
You may have missed it, but for as long as I’ve had this post up, it has said this: “Oh yeah, I shoulda told you - this is another of those running commentary pieces.”
Now I’m starting to get where you are coming from. I think you may not have known what I was referencing.
A coupla weeks ago, I did a similar thing with a Rush call. I call him, ask my question, he mutes me and goes on for about 10 minutes with his distortions. Since I don’t get an opportunity to rebut while he has me on the air, I do more of a podcast style (running commentary) post.
I asked people what they thought of it when I did it the first time. They indicated that thye liked it. So I’ve done one or two more since then. And even though it should be readily apparent in the audio (did you listen to the whole thing?), I let people know in the text post as well…
touchy? Maybe… but you basically accused me of trying to con the readers of this blog. To the contrary, I took the time to research an assertion I made in the call, realized I made a mistake, and pointed it out to y’all… Since I, like most other progressive bloggers I know, am actually concerned about my credibility (unlike Rush, Hannity and right bloggers), I had a problem with my forthrightness being questioned. Especially in the snarky tone that you used.
Finally, I know the humor I find in the cat and mouse game I play with the screener may not translate well to written word. But when you make these calls every day and hear the plaintive cries in the screeners voice - especially since this very screener once said “Blow me,” to yours truly… well, I find it very funny every time I sneak past his dumb ass…
Mike
What got you started on this? I am new to this site and want to know the inspiration behind this operation you have put together.
http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html http://www.iwilltryit.com/rush1.htm (Limbaugh as he really is!) http://limbaugh.ytmnd.com/
This is what I think of Rush.
Ah….the running commentary. I must have missed that post. I apologize profusely for implying that you were trying to con us. My assertation that your file, in total as presented on this blog, was not a total, accurate transcription of what was broadcast is then, correct. You stated your question, he cut you off, and you provided running commentary for us, the readers of this blog. I’m sure that everybody knew this but me, so the joke’s on me, I’m sorry. My point is that you’re still just preaching to us - the converted. The minute you’re off the air, your audience of millions (provided his audience numbers are true) dwindles down to the several thousand readers you have here. Readers who are already on your side. So…what exactly have we gained?
As for the screener - so a screener said “Blow me” to you. He’s the one who’s gone, right? Now you’ve got a new pimply-faced weasel to intimidate and get fired. First guy might have deserved it, but losing some poor stooge his job ain’t my idea of fun. Be a real man and go after the big fish.
I like how he completely, completely ignored your point that more than 90% of Iraq and Afghan war veterans that are running for office are running on the Democratic ticket. Apparently he couldn’t accept facts.
Then he goes on to mention 45 thousand murders in the US. I’m fairly sure the amount was 16 thousand, least according to 2003 and 2004 reports by the FBI. He’s right that it appears that murder surpassed vehicular deaths due to drinking.
So, since we’re fine and dandy about killing each other, we shouldn’t bitch about Iraqi insurgents killing our military members? I had thought he’d compare the death rate in Iraq to the death rate in the US, but I guess he got the memo and knew that’ll be a losing fact (180 thousand stationed troops, 2500 deaths in 3 years).
Your connection sounded bad though. It was very hard to hear the question you asked. Almost as if you were on a cell phone.
For my vote, I like the running commentary. Wing nuts (even left wing nuts like Rhandi Rhodes) enjoy going off on a rant with little to no feedback from anyone. It can be abuse, but I’m sure comments will call you on it if you try to.
Is it possible that the reason 90% of the vets running for congress are dems is because all the republicans are reenlisting and hence arent running for congress? just a thought.
I’d say RxUSH got a little flustered from Mike’s phonecall, just listen to his tone of voice as he rants on, how on earth can people take that idiot seriously?
“Any chance the Democrats can blame the military……”
Hey dumbass RxUSH, name when the media or Democrats have blamed the military? It’s the Democrats who see lives lost for nothing and that drug addict and RxUSH went absolutely apoplectic with his rant on how Democrats “hate America”, and someone said that RxUSH was not flustered?
A few more calls like this Mike and RxUSH’s head will explode. Keep up the great work!
rush obviously has unresolved issues from his childhood. did you hear him digressing to baby talk with a lisp during moments of stress? this is truly sad and freightening - listening to a abuse victim under the influence of hard narcotics who strongly influences 20% of our populace .
“My point is that you’re still just preaching to us - the converted. The minute you’re off the air, your audience of millions (provided his audience numbers are true) dwindles down to the several thousand readers you have here. Readers who are already on your side. So…what exactly have we gained?”
the gain is in planting seeds. a lot of rush’s listeners are probably too far gone to be reached, but some may be willing to engage in critical thought. mike hardly ever stands a chance at winning an argument, but if he can make a quick point, then a gain has been made.
about the actual call- id like to see conservatives state more clearly what their goal is in iraq. overthrow saddam? done. hold elections? done. neutralize al qaeda? i think thats pretty well done, as the sunni insurgency seems to no longer like al qaeda much, and al qaeda wasnt ever a large segment of the insurgency anyways. so whats left?
make iraq a viable and stable democracy? i think this is what they mean by “win”, but they are purposefully vague about the goal, because if they admit that, then they have to admit, its gonna take a much bigger sacrifice than we’ve given, and americans dont seem to be ready for another vietnam. if we’re fed up after 3 years, i doubt we’re gonna last ten (who knows how long). and i doubt most americans want to. they have to merely urge patience and say we are making progress. i dont think we are making progress, but assuming we are, i think democrats should emphasize what sort of sacrifice (especially future sacrifice) we’re talking about here.
another option is the goal is to defeat the insurgency, but that troubles me, because i dont think we should be fighting in an ethnic civil war. i dunno if we should pull out.
I like the commentary which is probably the way to go unless you actually get more airtime. I have to disagree with you on most everything you said though and without links to boot. Sorry, it’s always late when I do the blog roundup.
First off, Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were helping us to overthrow him in the first Gulf War. He exacted revenge on them for plotting against him. Gas attacks and mass graves resulted. Kurds are the most “westernized” and are not fundamentalists. For that see Wahabis and fundamentalist Sunnis & Shiites.
From my vantage point, we’re there for a myriad of reasons. Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers to encourage attacks against Israel. Saddam helped fund his son-in-law to setup Al-Qaeda in the Phillipines; Iraqi Al-Qaeda members have been arrested there before. Zawahiri (I just butchered his name) was supposedly there before 9-11. NY Times ran an article in 97 or 98 about Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Saddam met with Osama in 92 or so and a couple of times after. Zarqawi, the dead guy who’s pocket thumbdrive and info we just used to capture some 700 insurgents and conduct hundreds of raids in a short time, was probably trailed to Iraq after leaving the battefields of Afganistan (and it’s not like he was traveling alone).
Basically all the intelligence agencies in the world said Saddam had WMD, UN basically said the same thing by issuing a 17th resolution (making military action legal), Clinton and the Congress said it numerous times throughout their 8 years, and Congress voted as a whole to use force and continues to vote to fund the effort.
Yeah, yeah. Spelling mistakes, fuzzy time/date references, I’m stupid, don’t know what I’m talking about, right-wing nut, imperialist, nazi, etc. That’s for your followers, Mike. You do much better with making your case than the average partisan.
There’s more in your commentary I disagree with but just on petty points. Here’s my plea: the Republicans are fat and happy right now and the Democrats look to me like they are flapping their arms and blabbing the first inane things that come into their heads. (As a general statement; obviously there are exceptions.) They are acting like Hannitys.
I tend to like conservative principles so I go with the Republicans, but they need some goddamn competent competition. Your elected leaders need to get their act together and start behaving like grownups in their debates. A strong debate and resolutions strengthen the country by keeping both sides relatively even. There’s no need for this imbalance of parties with Republicans controlling basically all the federal government; they take the blame for bipartisan problems which encourages bickering and lets solutions slip by, local leaders run lazy campaigns by pointing to federal issues, and we all stay uninformed and they suck us dry. I like alot of Republicans, but they have been getting stupid as a party because they are allowed to act stupid. Put up some Democrat people who can take issues and make them shine, not these babbling and inane actors. Find some concrete points and set a clear agenda. It doesn’t matter if Democrats actually are blaming the military and raising taxes right now, that’s how they are perceived. (I would argue that there are some bad apples who literally do have this agenda. It’s not a good way to run, period.)
R’s bolster the industrial and military end, and D’s bolster the humanitarian and entertainment end - this is very important for our economic and social progress. For the time being, war against radical Islam is needed just as books celebrating humanity are needed. We can have our cake and eat it too. We cannot afford to lose America’s battles materially and spiritually. Education and better media is the key, tear down these monopolies and bloated conglomerates. Sloth and incompetence seems to be the rule, not the exception.
I apologize for the length of this deranged screed and it’s discursive nature. I’ll try to make something coherent and pithy next time. The point was lost somewhere back there. I crave for some real debates with people on the other side who disagree on principles and tactics, not all this absurd screaming and empty caterwauling….
Fuck it. Nevermind, that’s a pipe-dream. Liberals are faggots. Rush is King. Coulter is God. Let’s fight to the finish; Shaolin Shadowboxing versus Wu-Tang Swordstyle. We shall kill the ones who eat us and eat the ones we kill; headless corpses will be raped for profit and children will laugh like hyenas beneath their rags. Republicans will either win in 06 or we’ll be attacked again anyway. No one will learn anything outside of their own oily fleshtraps and rotten brain tumors.
Schadenfreude is the national hobby, second only to masturbation.
There was no world wide consensus on Iraq. Even our own intelligence agencies couldn’t agree if Iraq had WMD.
As for the terrorist threat from Iraq, here’s Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism specialist) and John McLaughlin (deputy CIA director) fighting with Wolfowitz at a cabinet meeting: “We have no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorst threat against the U.S.”
To which Wolfowitz replies “Just because the FBI and the CIA have failed to find the linkages doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The 17th Resolution does not authorize military forse so our action illegal. You must be referring to part I.34 ” [the UN] decides to remain seized of the matter and to take further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.” This language is very carefully chosen in that it doesn’t mention use of force. “Further steps” would be defined at a later date if necessary, like if the inspectors found some nukes then the UN might say “get rid of these or we’ll attack.”
I also apologize for my misspellings above Iriseon as I am right now banging your girlfriend and, without checking to see if this thing was even finished, sent my screed prematurely.
“From my vantage point, we’re there for a myriad of reasons. Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers to encourage attacks against Israel. Saddam helped fund his son-in-law to setup Al-Qaeda in the Phillipines; Iraqi Al-Qaeda members have been arrested there before. Zawahiri (I just butchered his name) was supposedly there before 9-11. NY Times ran an article in 97 or 98 about Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Saddam met with Osama in 92 or so and a couple of times after. Zarqawi, the dead guy who’s pocket thumbdrive and info we just used to capture some 700 insurgents and conduct hundreds of raids in a short time, was probably trailed to Iraq after leaving the battefields of Afganistan (and it’s not like he was traveling alone).”
———————————-
All these reasons you list are easily debunked, in fact, in the commentary Mike provided he debunks some of them already. To try and rationalize a war that the neocons from the PNAC asked Clinton to launch in 1998 and wrap it around your rationale for this invasion is hopelessly naive on your part. I’m sorry you want to justify this invasion but you’re grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to legitimze the illegitimate.
All your reasoning can be deconstructed with little effort, and none of that was a factor in our decision to invade Iraq. The truth is it was a foregone conclusion, and the neocons invented the reasons that Saddam posed a “threat” by continually blathering about “WMD” that Saddam never had. The intelligence was faked.
If Clinton and company spoke of ‘WMD’ then it could have been to merely legitimize the reasons we enforced a no fly zone and kept Saddam in check, which we were doing quite nicely. But then Dumbya came along and, like a bull in china shop, threw diplomacy out the window, completely smashed the delicate vase of enthnicity that was Iraq and now we send soldiers out as moving targets to get killed daily while the designers of this ‘debacle in the desert’ can’t find their ass with both hands.
American soldiers deserve better than to die on the account of the ignorance and arrogance of the neocons. I hope the Democrats can find it within themselves to hammer out a plan to stop the bloodletting and end this foreign policy disaster of the highest order.
You people need to all get a life!!!!!!
Thank God for our Troops…
odanny,
saddam did have wmds, we know this for a fact. however he didnt have any at the time we decided to invade (unless our invading caused him to give them away in an act of desperation), and he posed virtually no threat, and certainly not the biggest. probably some of his weapons lasted into the clinton era.
iriseon,
saddam had no operational ties to al qaeda (and other forms of terrorism we dont care about as much, otherwise we wouldve invaded palestine, and other places, so you’re “he supported palestinian suicide bombers” is true, but a non-sequitor). ive read a few different stories by conservatives attempting to show that he did, but none of them were impressive in the slightest. the story usually goes “one of saddam’s officers knew someone who met someone in al qaeda once” or something like that. im sure such links exist, but they fall far far short of saying saddam had operational ties, or that they were working together, or some such thing. i’d look at a link if you have one with an argument less flimsy than that.
and by the way, i’d like to remind you that cheney was the secretary of defense during the first gulf war. he was vocally opposed to invading and deposing saddam back then, even though saddam had just committed his genocide, and just invaded neighbors. since then, we decided to ignore a local iraqi uprising after promising support (indirectly causing a massacre), starved millions of iraqis through sanctions, and now our current/recent war crimes (including torture, and the use of white phosphorous as a weapon).
tell me, iriseon, what changed in those intervening years that our policy required invading? was it worth all the millions of iraqis dead in the intervening years? what has saddam done since then? something must have occured to change cheney’s mind. i wonder if it had anything to do with the business dealings halliburton had with iraq (illegaly) during the 90s (though i dont think cheney was ceo of halliburton at the time).