Harry Reid raises $851,000 for US Marines in Iraq!

[dude1394]

Funny....Very funny..
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...ush-earns.html

Rush Limbaugh gets the last laugh:

"Dingy Harry has got to be livid over this. It's a letter with his signature. Its got $851,100 on it in terms of somebody wanting to buy it. He must have never expected that this would be made so public even though he read it on the Senate Floor and even though he released a press release about it. He's got to be livid this has gotten out! He's got to be livid this is happening. And, look at all of their failures from the S-CHIP Program, they failed to override the veto, all of their failures when they talk about the FISA Program. They totally caved. With 55 Resolutions to get us out of Iraq. They don't have the guts to take away funding for the war. These two, Reid and Pelosi are two of the most ineffective leaders in the House and Senate in my lifetime. They have to be fuming over this!"

[Maringa]

It's over $2 million as of today....

[FishForLunch]

Harry Reid was happy to make this all happen. Listen to his speech on the Senate floor. I doubt the evening news will carry this story though. Thou Shall not talk ill of a fellow .Democract

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6938.html

[Usually Lurkin]

well, ABCNews Blog has an entry on the credit taking, along with repeated reminders of how to properly interpret the original comment:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...g-over-2m.html

For their part, Democrats sent a letter calling for Rush Limbaugh to be reprimanded for calling soldiers who opposed the war "phony soldiers.". . .

Back on October 1st, Harry Reid brought the letter to the Senate floor and asked Republicans to join him condemning Limbaugh for saying that soldiers who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers.". . .

Democrats wrote to Mark Mays, President of Clear Channel, asking him to condemn Rush Limbaugh for the "phony soldiers" comment.. . .

No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.

[kg_veteran]

Amazing that ABC still can't get Limbaugh's original comment right.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Amazing that ABC still can't get Limbaugh's original comment right.

You really think so? It's obvious to anyone who's got an open mind.

[Usually Lurkin]

Ah, the Washington Post. I had cut a bit of slack for the ABC piece, cause it was filed as a blog post and all. The Washington Post, though, is willing to be up front with things. They don't need a blog to relay the club narrative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902667.html

Like all good narratives, this starts by setting the scene. Here, a description of Limbaugh's comments concerning phony soldiers:

The letter in question is an Oct. 2 two-pager from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting the syndicate's Rush Limbaugh, who had recently criticized U.S. troops who were against the war in Iraq.
"Phony soldiers," blasted Limbaugh.
"Beyond the pale," Reid blasted back. "Unpatriotic," he added.

Hmm. That's very balanced. Quotes from both sides and everything. What tension! But a real narrative should involve a hero and villain, right? Maybe the authors' commentary can help us read between the lines so we can sort out good from bad.

Forty-one Democratic senators signed the thing, put it in the mail and, really, that should have been the end.
But Limbaugh decided he had been "smeared" by left-wing evildoers. He put the letter up for auction on eBay,

Scare quotes around "smeared". "Left-wing evildoers," and "that should have been the end." Ok. Now we can sort it out.

They also characterize Limbaugh's framing very nicely:

he graciously poked Reid in the eye:

"It got this kind of money because it represents one of the most outrageous abuses of federal power in modern American history, and that is what makes it a collector's item. This letter that Senator Reid wrote will forever memorialize him as a demagogue."

We have only a few hours, but you get the idea.

"We have only a few hours?" are they saying Rush is a blowhard? I wouldn't want to root for a blowhard. Well, maybe this is one of those cool post modern pieces where there is no traditional good or bad guys (only slimy politicians), and in which the author's comments let the audience know that true objectivity can raise us to a vantage point where we see that all of the principle players are self-absorbed politicos.

Here's how they characterize Reid's recent attempt to claim credit:

Yesterday on the Senate floor, Reid said Limbaugh had "very, very constructively" raised more than $2 million with a letter "signed by this senator and my friends."

Oh, so it's not one of those cool pomo pieces. Maybe if I go back and read Reid's comments with WaPo glasses, he will sound like he's graciously giving all the credit to Limbaugh. That's a very accurate characterization, I guess, if perception is what determines accuracy. At least we have a sympathetic figure.

But what about the charity in all this? As a matter of denouement, the piece closes with what seems to be a shot at the charity:

The foundation has awarded more than $27 million in scholarships to children of slain troops and law enforcement officers, Kallstrom said, as well as support money for disabled veterans and their families.

"But we're not political at all," he said.

What, is that a sarcastic use of a quote? This IS pomo!

[kg_veteran]

UL, it seems that the WaPo is even more self-absorbed and myopic than the Democratic senators are. They still don't get it!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

UL, it seems that the WaPo is even more self-absorbed and myopic than the Democratic senators are. They still don't get it!

It's amazing. They only way to write something that bad is on purpose. You have to purposefully ignore information, and present what is essentially a piece of political propaganda. And you're right, KG. Even the politicians themselves aren't selling spin this extreme. The Washington Post: less honest than a politician bickering about patriotism.

Unfortunately, I think they do "get it" in some sense. If you read through the comments at the WaPo piece, you'll find quite a few who are willing to pick up and run with whatever they are presented with. "Rush Limbaugh is a traitor" and "I read the transcript and Rush the liar was talking about all soldiers who disagree with him" are fairly common viewpoints. This isn't a great big story, so I think the Post feels they have room to score cheap (very cheap) political points, and they do.

[dude1394]

Ain't it great when the media has your back!