• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Limbaugh gets sick of Beck getting all the attention, so...

Upchurch said:
First of all, that claim doesn't even make sense. The show wasn't live. It was pre-recorded. If there had been an innocent mistake during taping, it would have been rectified in editing. Plus, what Limbaugh said, if intended for the dog, would have had absolutely no point.

Second of all, is there anything you would actually accept as proof that it was intentional and not a mistake (assuming the illogical nature of the claim, as I pointed out above, didn't do the trick)?
Click to expand...


I remember the incident from 1992, when Clinton was President-Elect. I didn't see it on TV, but I heard discussion about it after.

That incident was nothing like the one that Franken referred to in his book. It didn't refer to a "White House cat", much less a comparison to an additional "White House dog".

So, either there were two separate incidents, or someone is lying. (Hmmm....wonder if snopes can come to the rescue on this one.)


ETA: I did some googling, and the only transcript I could come up with was the incident I remember. That one was the one with the Out: Cute Dogs, In: Cute Kid. I'm absolutely certain that that incident happened. If the Socks/Chelsea, cats/dogs incident ever happened, I can't find any reference to it earlier than the Molly Ivins column that was published many months later. In the absence of further evidence, I'm going to have to assume that the cats/dogs incident was an urban legend that grew out of the real incident that involved the cute kids/cute dogs incident.
 
Last edited:
easycruise said:
Well, I have to challenge you on the authenticity of this one, especially since you keep bringing it up. Please provide a source for your claim. After spending some time researching your claim, it seems you are a victim of left-wing propaganda. It seems clear this is a vicious attempt by Molly Ivins and Al Franken to smear Rush because of an innocent mistake by a technician for which Rush immediately apologized for.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Rush's TV show was not live and was taped, correct? Knowing that it was taped, why didn't Rush Limbaugh edit out the slur? It would have been easy to do.
 
easycruise said:
Yea, having kids of your own gives you a new perspective on topics such as abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, and other vile left-wing dogma.
Click to expand...

FYI, I am a father of five. I am pro-abortion. On the fence for partial-birth abortion.

Such as...want to help protect your kids from a home invasion by having a firearm? Many places where the lefties won't let you.
Click to expand...
The odds of my home being invaded are so slim I don't see any reason to alter my lifestyle to include gun ownership. Sorry, I just don't live my life in fear of improbable events. If you want to follow that line of illogic go right ahead.
 
Lurker said:
FYI, I am a father of five. I am pro-abortion. On the fence for partial-birth abortion.
Click to expand...

Given that "partial-birth abortions" basically only occur when there is a seriously developmental issue that has been discovered, I really don't judge people on that, either.
 
pgwenthold said:
Given that "partial-birth abortions" basically only occur when there is a seriously developmental issue that has been discovered, I really don't judge people on that, either.
Click to expand...


See, I agree with you except that I read a news report a while back that intimated that its use was a bit wider than detailed above.
 
Upchurch said:
First of all, that claim doesn't even make sense. The show wasn't live. It was pre-recorded. If there had been an innocent mistake during taping, it would have been rectified in editing. Plus, what Limbaugh said, if intended for the dog, would have had absolutely no point.

Second of all, is there anything you would actually accept as proof that it was intentional and not a mistake (assuming the illogical nature of the claim, as I pointed out above, didn't do the trick)?
Click to expand...

The claim makes perfect sense if you would examine it without bias. Can you? It seems clear by many accounts that Rush..

"A picture of the “cute dog” (Millie) appeared on the screen instead of the “cute kid” (Chelsea).

Rush immediately said

No, no, no. That’s not the kid.

Then a picture of Chelsea Clinton came on the screen and Rush said

That’s– that’s the kid.

Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance. He then apologized again and said

I’m– I hope you will forgive me. I’m fatigued. I’m tired…

Before breaking to a commercial, Rush asked the audience what he could do to make amends for the incident and, in an odd, spontaneous joke, proceeded to spank himself.""
 
Lurker said:
You are aware that Rush's TV show was not live and was taped, correct? Knowing that it was taped, why didn't Rush Limbaugh edit out the slur? It would have been easy to do.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the link..Rush apologized during the show..and a subsequent show as well. Can you examine this without bias??

"Rush has always maintained the incident was an accident. On his show four days later, Rush offered an explanation to his audience. First, the show played, “Who’s sorry now” in the background and Limbaugh pointed to himself. Then he said:

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. I don’t–look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don’t need to get laughs by commenting on people’s looks, especially a young child who’s done nothing wrong. I mean, she can’t control the way she looks. And we really–we do not–we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.

They then showed the picture of Chelsea Clinton. She had a displeased look on her face, as if to show that she was not too happy with the mistake.

Rush continued:

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.

This apology offers considerable insight into what happened. Rush indicates that he had asked to see the “cute dog”. That is not what happened on the show, but is probably what had been planned–which explains why Rush has it backward. If Rush was supposed to ask to see the “cute dog” first, that would explain why the technician put up the picture. They had it cued first. In addition, if they had the pictures cued according to the names “Chelsea” and “Millie,” it is even easier to see how a mistake could have happened. Both are female names and like most of America at the time, the technician probably did not know Chelsea by name.

As for Franken’s question of why, if it was an accident, Rush did not fix the problem, the actual context again has the answer. Rush corrected the initial error right away and apologized several times– thereby fixing the problem. There was no need to go back and re-tape a different sequence of events. Mistakes that don’t violate FCC regulations are routinely left in TV talk shows, most notably late-night shows like Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien or Rush Limbaugh’s show.""
-----------------------------------------------

Cute kid in, cute dog is out and the tech guy posted the wrong picture and Rush caught it immediately.
 
Lurker said:
The odds of my home being invaded are so slim I don't see any reason to alter my lifestyle to include gun ownership. Sorry, I just don't live my life in fear of improbable events. If you want to follow that line of illogic go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Illogic? Come now. That's ridiculous. Many other people don't live in safe neighborhoods and they have kids. Probably much less safe than your neighborhood. Other people like to cover themselves against all contingencies and don't like to whistle past the graveyard as much as you do. Why do the liberals prevent them from having a gun? For them, the dogma of abortion rights, gay rights and other rights clearly stops when it comes to gun rights. Now THAT seems illogical.
 
easycruise said:
You obviously didn't read the link..Rush apologized during the show..and a subsequent show as well. Can you examine this without bias??
Click to expand...
Oh, rush apologized? How grand of him. And then he proceeded to spank himself? Hmm, I wonder how sincere his apology was considering he was joking about it mere minutes later?

As for Franken’s question of why, if it was an accident, Rush did not fix the problem, the actual context again has the answer. Rush corrected the initial error right away and apologized several times– thereby fixing the problem. There was no need to go back and re-tape a different sequence of events. Mistakes that don’t violate FCC regulations are routinely left in TV talk shows, most notably late-night shows like Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien or Rush Limbaugh’s show.""
Click to expand...

Sure no FCC regulations were violated. Wonderful. That does not mean that Rush could not have edited it out anyway. Your defense of Rush is along these lines:

1. Rush saw he made a mistake where what he said could be construed as calling Chelsea, a 13 year old girl) a dog.

2. There was no need to edit the mistake out because it did not violate FCC rules and Rush apologized on air.

Hmm, if Rush did that to your 13 year old daughter would you be laughing and accept Rush's apology or would you be wondering why he just didn't edit it out before it went to air?
 
Upchurch said:
Second of all, is there anything you would actually accept as proof that it was intentional and not a mistake (assuming the illogical nature of the claim, as I pointed out above, didn't do the trick)?
Click to expand...

Yes, seeing the videotape. I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim and you have yet to do so. Either provide evidence or retract your claim.
 
easycruise said:
Illogic? Come now. That's ridiculous. Many other people don't live in safe neighborhoods and they have kids. Probably much less safe than your neighborhood. Other people like to cover themselves against all contingencies and don't like to whistle past the graveyard as much as you do. Why do the liberals prevent them from having a gun? For them, the dogma of abortion rights, gay rights and other rights clearly stops when it comes to gun rights. Now THAT seems illogical.
Click to expand...


Well, you were speaking to me and using the second form of the verbs. If others want to have guns to protect themselves that is their business.
 
Lurker said:
Oh, rush apologized? How grand of him. And then he proceeded to spank himself? Hmm, I wonder how sincere his apology was considering he was joking about it mere minutes later?



Sure no FCC regulations were violated. Wonderful. That does not mean that Rush could not have edited it out anyway. Your defense of Rush is along these lines:

1. Rush saw he made a mistake where what he said could be construed as calling Chelsea, a 13 year old girl) a dog.

2. There was no need to edit the mistake out because it did not violate FCC rules and Rush apologized on air.

Hmm, if Rush did that to your 13 year old daughter would you be laughing and accept Rush's apology or would you be wondering why he just didn't edit it out before it went to air?
Click to expand...

Boy, your bias shows right through. Again...

""Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance. He then apologized again and said

I’m– I hope you will forgive me. I’m fatigued. I’m tired…

Before breaking to a commercial, Rush asked the audience what he could do to make amends for the incident and, in an odd, spontaneous joke, proceeded to spank himself.""

Obviously Lurker, you don't forgive innocent mistakes of people who don't think like you.
 
Lurker said:
Oh, rush apologized? How grand of him. And then he proceeded to spank himself? Hmm, I wonder how sincere his apology was considering he was joking about it mere minutes later?
Click to expand...

Exactly how was he "joking about it", in your view? By spanking himself? That's more self-deprecating than anything else.

Hmm, if Rush did that to your 13 year old daughter would you be laughing and accept Rush's apology or would you be wondering why he just didn't edit it out before it went to air?
Click to expand...

I'm not as much of a stickler as you. I would have let it go, since he apologized immediately. In addition, you can only edit out so much because you still have to fill the entire time slot and can't have dead air. With the incident and the apology and the self-deprecation spanking, I feel it is safe to assume that it ended up to be too big a time slice to edit it all out without having time slot issues.
 
easycruise said:
Boy, your bias shows right through. Again...

""Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance. He then apologized again and said

I’m– I hope you will forgive me. I’m fatigued. I’m tired…

Before breaking to a commercial, Rush asked the audience what he could do to make amends for the incident and, in an odd, spontaneous joke, proceeded to spank himself.""

Obviously Lurker, you don't forgive innocent mistakes of people who don't think like you.
Click to expand...

Easycruise, you did not answer. Why didn't Rush just edit it out? Also, if you were the father, I presume you would be A-OK with Rush not editing it out, right?

ETA: OK, you addressed it above. We can see what sort of father you are. I guess I am a bit more defensive of mine as knowing that Rush could have edited out a slur against my teenage daughter and he chose not to because it would be too much trouble just does not cut it in my book. I guess in your book it does and having your daughter insulted on national TV is ok as long as an apology is offered. Funny, the daughter still has to go to school the next day where everyone would be talking about it. Good thing he apologized though. ;)

Also, I would like to point out the event you describe happened in 1992. The other attack by Rush on Chelsea happened a year later in 1993.
 
Last edited:
easycruise said:
Yes, seeing the videotape. I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim and you have yet to do so.
Click to expand...
...because I didn't know what you would consider evidence. You just answered that question.

You'll have to be patient. It's almost a 20 year clip from before youtube. This may take some digging.

easycruise said:
Either provide evidence or retract your claim.
Click to expand...
I could say the same to you. Happy hunting.
 
I despise Rush Limbaugh.

However, I find either version of the Chelsea Clinton controversy plausible as much as I acknowledge the sources for each version have their reasons and the capacity to perhaps fudge the details.

That being said, the big red flag I see in Rush's version is this statement:
easycruise said:
Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, utter hogwash. To wit.

Considering that, Rush's recounting of an overly fawning apology strikes me as a tad disingenuous.
 
johnny karate said:
However, I find either version of the Chelsea Clinton controversy plausible as much as I acknowledge the sources for each version have their reasons and the capacity to perhaps fudge the details.
Click to expand...

Both are plausible because both happened. One in 1992, the other in 1993. Some conservatives attempt to obfuscate this by saying the slightly more innocuous event in 1992 happened and liberals are misquoting what happened when they quote the 1993 event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom