13 February 2010

Limbagh was on the Maddow Show? Really?

Possibly related to the Ogletree story, but probably not.  This is just getting stupider and stupider.  Stories are getting all sorts of attention without listing sources or implying false ones.  Take a look at Casey Gane-McCalla of NewsOne For Black America

Rush Limbaugh recently discussed Professor Charles Ogletree’s statement on the Rachel Maddow Show which implied that Palin was deriding Obama by referring to him as a Professor. He went into a long discussion about Clarence Thomas and the word “uppity,” before calling Obama “uppity.”
Only one little problem with that.  Limbaugh does not appear on the show's guest list.  Ogletree does, 8 FEB 2009.  What Gane-McCalla is talking about are Limbaugh's comments from Limbaugh's own show and Gane-McCalla misrepresents them too.  Maybe just bad wording?  If you read the above enough and know Limbaugh was not on the Maddow show it reads okay.

Oh, wait, I get it! The Higher Ed story didn't attribute the Rachael Maddow Show with the quotes!  When I was going through that story I was wondering where the quotes came from.  Jack Stripling never mentions.  I had the impression that he had interviewed Professer Ogletree, but then I found out Ogletree had been on the Maddow show.

No, that's not it.

Maddow begins talking to the professor at 7:39, then they mention Palin at 10:17.  No talk of implying professors are uppity.  The talk is about Tancredo's stupid speech calling for literacy tests.

Maybe I missed it on the video.  How about the transcript?  Palin is mentioned twelve times on the page, only ten in the transcript.  Uppity does not appear.  Professor Ogletree speaks about Palin here for a bit:
What‘s important about all of this, Rachel, I think, is that the majority of Americans, black and white, see that this president is trying to do a good job. They‘re not going to play the race-baiting. They‘re not going to—and Sarah Palin on Saturday, I heard her talk about, “We don‘t want a professor of law who talks about the Constitution and rights. We want the commander in chief.

What‘s the difference? Isn‘t the law meaningful? Doesn‘t it mean something? Doesn‘t the Constitution mean something?

I think we need to go back to a 101 constitutional law test or civics test for folks who are going to talk about that, for everybody to understand that we are a society who believes in equal justice under the law, one person, one vote. And if you get more than, more votes than your opponent, you win. It‘s over. Get over it and let‘s move forward.
Still nothing like what Ogltree is implied as saying by Jack Stripling at Inside Higher Ed.

Maddow tosses the racism bomb at Palin here, when chatting with David Weigel:
MADDOW: And I am fired up about the Tom Tancredo call for the return to literacy tests thing, not so much that he would do it because he does stuff like that all the time, but that people would cheer for it. And I guess I see the choose Ron Paul versus choose Sarah Palin test as kind of a litmus test for the politics of the tea party movement. That combined with cheering Tancredo on this, I think, very racist appeal makes me feel the modern tea party movement is an outgrowth of the sort of angry people we saw frustrated during the McCain/Palin campaign, saying un-politically correct things at rallies. Not an outgrowth of the people who had done tea parties before.
So, where is Stripling getting this stuff?

Suki Series Background
Suki Series Tech
Order the paperback edition of Suki V: The Collection
Browse the series on Google:
Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki V
Fan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun

John and Suki's news and comment area, from a Libertarian perspective.

Copyright 2009, 2010, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment