Companion site:


Google search...


Daily Howler: Rush revives his murder claims--and liberal scribes are too comfy to care
Daily Howler logo
RUSH FROM JUDGMENT! Rush revives his murder claims—and liberal scribes are too comfy to care: // link // print // previous // next //

RUSH FROM JUDGMENT: There, again, was the Crackpot O’Reilly, repeating his nasty, false statement about former guest Jeremy Glick (click here). Two days earlier, there, again, was the Dimwit O’Reilly, reciting absurd numbers and making absurd claims about the federal budget (click here; more information below). Yes, Jeremy Glick is a minor figure—but the federal budget is a major big deal. But so what? O’Reilly gets the biggest numbers on cable. But after years of his crackpot analyses, O’Reilly is completely free to continue with his slanders—and with his nonsense. He’s free to slander Glick with baldly false statements—and he’s free to make fools of his viewers with his absurd budget claims.

“God is not mocked,” someone once said—but the public is mocked, all day long, in our modern pseudo-democracy. And major mainstream and liberal pundits are too timid, too uncaring, to complain. Why does our public democracy lie in ruins? Because major pundits have stared into air while the public is endlessly mocked. And now, once again, from Media Matters, we are handed the crowning example. Try to believe that he’s saying this again—and that no “liberal” pundit seems to care:

MEDIA MATTERS (9/21/05): On the September 19 and 20 broadcasts of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh resurrected his scurrilous suggestion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had then-deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster murdered while she was first lady.
Sure enough, there he went again! Once again, this disturbed, evil man was sliming the nation with his ugly insinuations about Clinton. To read the transcripts of what this ugly man said, you know what to do—just click here.

Of course, deranged murder claims against the Clintons were commonplace during the 90s. And when these nasty claims were presented, timid little millionaire pundits knew they must stare into air. By 1999, public crackpot Gennifer Flowers was pimping her “murder list” on TV—and a major pundit like Howard Kurtz reviewed her stupid, evil performance without a word of comment (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/26/03). Their jobs are too good; their pay is too high; and their livin’ is much too easy for them to dirty their hands about this. Kurtz said nothing, like the rest of his band. And his paycheck kept cashing quite nicely.

And now, it has been three days since Limbaugh’s new insinuation about the murders of Hillary Clinton. But go ahead—just run it on Nexis! According to our own Nexis search, not a word has been said in the mainstream press about this vile man’s latest slimings. None of your pundits has stirred to complain about his evil assault on our culture. Rush knows he can play his listeners for fools. He knows “liberal” scribes won’t complain.

God is not mocked—but your way of life is. And the gutless cowards of the millionaire pundit caste are the ones who have let this atrocity occur. Your public democracy is now a vile joke—and they just keep cashing their checks. Just how timid are these people? This morning, E. J. Dionne apologizes in the Post because he dares to say the naughty word “stupid!” But we'll say other words: “Gutless”—and “coward.” Millionaire pundit checks have been cashin’ real good—and Rush is free to keep mocking your interests. God is not mocked—but you and yours are. And those good liberal pundits let it happen.

DIMWIT O’REILLY COMES UP WITH THE FACTS: No, it doesn’t rank with insinuations of murder. But on Monday evening, O’Reilly’s review of the federal budget was public stupidity at its finest. God is mocked when men like this are allowed to proceed with such fake presentations. But this has gone on for year after year, while our good “liberal” pundits sit silent. They are such and polite little boys! No wonder their lives are so pleasant!

O’Reilly was disputing the “unbelievable propaganda” he found in Bill Clinton’s This Week appearance. Indeed, Mr. O was disturbed by the fact that George Stephanopoulos hadn’t challenged some of Clinton’s wild statements. (Mr. O: “What I am getting increasingly angry about is this misinformation that is coming out from a former president of the United States, who sits there on a national television program, and spits out garbage that we just annihilate with facts, just annihilate.”) But what are the “facts” about the economy? Here’s the ludicrous nugget presentation from Monday’s “Talking Points Memo:”

O’REILLY: (9/19/05): Stephanopoulos sat there like a mummy, challenging nothing. The whole thing's absurd.

Again, here are the facts. Black home-ownership is up 2 percent under President Bush. Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms.

This tax cuts for the rich business is also blatantly dishonest. It's a ruse for the secular left to institute their income redistribution scheme. Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II. President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration.

Why? Because business is booming. That's why. Capitalism is working.
And the more money corporations and workers make, the more taxes roll in, even at the reduced rate.

So let's recap. Black home-ownership, up under Bush. Poverty entitlements up under Bush. Educational spending for the poor, up under Bush. Federal tax revenues, up under Bush. Are you taking this down, George Stephanopoulos?

In its post, Media Matters debunked some of these claims. In particular, see their analysis of O’Reilly’s absurd presentation on the poverty rate, and see their treatment of his false claim about “the tax rate climb[ing] higher than at any time in history except in World War II.” But how inane is our public discussion? Consider the claim that we have highlighted: “Federal tax revenues, up under Bush.”

How stupid is O’Reilly’s claim? Here are total federal revenues for the past ten years, straight from this basic CBO document:

1995: $1.35 trillion
1996: $1.45 trillion
1997: $1.58 trillion
1998: $1.72 trillion
1999: $1.83 trillion
2000: $2.03 trillion

2001: $1.99 trillion
2002: $1.85 trillion
2003: $1.78 trillion
2004: $1.88 trillion

It’s hard to learn a whole lot from those numbers. But for the record: By 2004, federal revenues had finally returned (under Bush) to roughly where they were in 1999 (under Clinton). They still hadn’t reached the 2000 level. This doesn’t necessarily tell you much, but it flies in the face of the pretty picture the dimwit O’Reilly was handing his viewers—and his dim-witted “analysis” left out a few basic facts. Here they is: Under normal circumstances, federal revenues will almost always go up because of inflation and population growth. Only a fool would be surprised to see revenues rise from one decade to the next—but O’Reilly was playing the public for fools, a process that has long been OK with America’s millionaire pundit class.

Will revenues in 2005 be higher than in any year under Clinton? That was O’Reilly’s carefully-parsed prediction; Media Matters showed that the claim falls apart if the current (projected) figure is simply adjusted for inflation. But the sheer stupidity of O’Reilly’s “memo” is a dagger aimed at democracy’s heart. But this has been accepted for year after year—and it leads on to evil claims like Rush Limbaugh’s.

But so what? The gut-bucket cowards who make up your “press corps” have stared into air for the past many years. Rush and Bill mock the people, democracy’s God—but millionaire pundits don’t care, won’t complain. Their lives are much too comfortable, thanks. They refuse to speak when we are all mocked. They apologize when they dare to say “stupid.”

FEDERAL REVENUES UNDER REAGAN: Here are total federal revenues for four years under Reagan. They are much lower than federal revenues under Clinton. If a fool applied O’Reilly’s “logic,” that would make Clinton better, by far:

1985: $734 billion
1986: $769 billion
1987: $854 billion
1988: $909 billion
Duh! Under Reagan, we never even broke a trillion! Only a fool would make a straight comparison between these budget numbers and Clinton’s. But on Monday night, O’Reilly was playing the public for fools—as Limbaugh has been allowed to do for decades, as he has been allowed to do, in the nastiest way, in his ugly, vile comments this week.

DUH—THEY ALWAYS GO UP: How stupid was O’Reilly’s “analysis?” Check that CBO table again. From 1962 through 2004, federal revenues went up every year except five. (They dropped in 1971, in 1983—and in 2001, 2002 and 2003.) A cruel person would say that they always go up—except in years when George Bush is president! But O’Reilly was playing his viewers for fools. He actually told unprotected viewers that the numbers prove Bush’s great genius!

How stupid is the American discourse? The fact that we have to discuss these pre-school points should be a matter of great astonishment. The gods on Olympus laugh till they cry—and “liberal” scribes take fat checks to the bank, dreaming of how they can spend them.