Did Rush Call for Riots in Denver? Uhh….No.
There’s a story being run today on the website of the ABC News affiliate in Denver that’s just plain wrong. The story accuses Rush Limbaugh of calling for riots today on his radio show. I heard that part of the show and the story is wrong in nearly every detail. Now, a story on a local TV station’s website wouldn’t be a big deal, except that this one has hit memeorandum and has gotten a couple comments from left-leaning blogs and The New Republic. That means it’s not long before Keith Olbermann and Media Matters pick it up and we start seeing it in larger MSM outlets.
Before that happens, I want to debunk the story, which could have been squashed by simply heading to Rush’s website and checking his show transcript.
Here’s how the story begins.
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
No, he didn’t. Here is what he did say today.
If you heard that call — if you didn’t, if you’re just joining us; we had a call from a woman named Lisa in Atlanta who was tarring me as a racist when she was the actual racist, because of my desire to see the Democrat convention break down exactly as it did in 1968 in Chicago with Democrats beating up on Democrats in the streets. Mayor Daley’s cops, his thugs went out there and were attacking Democrats, and the SDS was there and all the anti-war crowd — the Jerry Reubens and the Tom Haydens — they were starting fires and so forth, and the Democrats sent Mayor Daley’s thugs out there to beat ‘em upside the head! There have been countless commentators and columnists and pundits throughout the Drive-By Media, lamenting the fact that if the superdelegates don’t give this nomination to Obama that they’re going to have to a repeat of ’68 in Chicago. Now, what the hell was that? What happened in ’68 in Chicago? We all know it.
He is clearly not calling for riots. He is saying that he’d like to see Democrats pummeling each other like they did in Chicago in 1968, but that’s entirely different from telling Democrats to riot. Indeed, Rush points out here and later in the transcript that Al Sharpton and the pundits who are in the tank for Obama are the ones who are saying the riots will happen.
I’m just trying to encourage Reverend Sharpton. Now, Reverend Sharpton, I know that you have agents that listen to this program, And I want to remind you of something, sir. You said that if Obama is denied the selection of the nominee by superdelegates making back-room deals, not by the voters, well you not only — Reverend Sharpton, you better prepare yourself because that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
In other words, “Al Sharpton, you laid down a marker. You’d better be ready to make good on it when the superdelegate do what they were created to do”. How in the world is Rush Limbaugh responsible for what Al Sharpton, no stranger to inciting riots, threatened to do on national television?
The article continues:
Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that “there’s going to be trouble” if the presidency is taken from Obama.
No, that’s not what Sharpton said. Rush played his comments. He didn’t say “there’s going to be trouble”. Those words don’t appear in this transcript anywhere, nor was he talking about taking the presidency from Obama. He was talking about talking the Democratic nomination from Obama. But even that’s wrong because the superdelegates wouldn’t be taking anything from Obama. He doesn’t have the nomination until all the delegates, super and otherwise, vote. I can’t ding the reporter for making the same assertion that Big Al did, but at some point I’d expect that they’d do a teeny amount of fact-checking. Looks like I was wrong.
There’s one last really screwed up part of the story and it’s a real doozy. Here we go.
Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called “Operation Chaos,” the people on the far left would look bad.
No. No! NO!!
I’d laugh if this wasn’t so painfully easy to fact-check. Operation Chaos is not a plan for massive riots. Dear God, who out there actually believes that Rush Limbaugh is sitting in his studio, Dr. Evil-style, plotting massive riots in Denver while broadcasting all his plans to the entire world on the radio and internet? I mean, besides the person who write this story in Denver. I can’t believe someone would think that’d we’d be so gullible as to accept the left’s cartoonish characterization of Rush Limbaugh. Well, the left would, but the rest of us are a bit too clear-eyed to buy into it.
For those of you who don’t know, Operation Chaos is Rush’s plan for Republican voters to register as Democrats before their states’ primaries and vote for Hillary Clinton. The idea is that if Hillary Clinton keeps winning primaries, the nomination process will keep going right up to the convention and she’ll do the job of bloodying up the Obamessiah. Why do that, well, as Rush said again today, John McCain has two big things working against him. First, he’s shown absolutely no inclination to attack a Democrat for any reason, though his apparent political pacifism doesn’t extend to his fellow Republicans. Second, any attempt to lay a glove on Obama is met immediately with a cry of racism, whether the criticism is actually racist or not. Don’t believe me? Here’s Rush talking about Operation Chaos at length during today’s show.
Obama has gotta somehow discredit her win in Pennsylvania, and maybe here’s gone too far now that he can’t. But there was a way, and may still be a way that he could do it, and simply stand up and say, “Her victory is tainted because it was the result of a number of Republicans registering as Democrats to vote Hillary for the express purpose of creating chaos. These people have no intention of voting Hillary in November, and so her victory is somewhat tainted by voters who purposely, on the orders of someone [he doesn't even have to use my name], sabotaged the Pennsylvania primary.” If he would simply acknowledge Operation Chaos…
That’s what Operation Chaos is. It’s not riots in Denver. Rush isn’t going to do a blasted thing to make anyone riot in Denver except goad folks like Al Sharpton and the various leg-thrilled Obamamaniacs into making good on their predictions. Rush isn’t the one who first said that Denver is going to be ’68 Chicago. They did. Rush is doing not a darned thing more than reminding them of what they said.
As for his hoping there are riots, well, so do I. I very much hope that the Democratic coalition flies apart in as dramatic a fashion as possible right on national television where everyone can see it. Then, perhaps, voting America will see what lies at the core of the Democratic party. Perhaps they’ll see the seething hate that boils in the hearts of many party activists. And Democrats will see what six or seven decades of grievance politics has done to their once-noble party. Maybe it’ll cause them to change, once and for all.
That, folks, is what Rush is talking about. He wants the Democratic convention to be as violent and chaotic as it was forty years ago in the hopes that the aftermath will bring a party that is truly capable of presenting a principled and reasonable opposition to conservatism. That won’t happen if a Democrat wins the White House.
Lest you, like the reporter, think that Rush is terribly eager to see John McCain in the White House, you might want to read this bit from his show which, by the way, gives more details about Operation Chaos (which, again, isn’t a riot plan, for goodness sake!). He’s not a fan of McCain, but he is a fan of the Republican Party. He believe, rightly I think, that if the Democrats take the White House there will be no impetus for it to change at all. Why should it change with a success under its belt? The Republican party certainly didn’t change when it won in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
That’s a discussion worth having. Unfortunately, we’re not going to have it if reporters like this one in Denver can’t be bothered to visit a web site and spend a few minutes reading a transcript.
Other Posts of Interest:
Category: Hillary!, Oh, THAT liberal media., The Obamessiah
If you read the transcript from the day before, he clearly describes in detail what he wants to happen in Denver. He says he wants cars burned people fighting etc, and then says "that is the objective" I think that qualifies as calling for riots in Denver.
No, Patty, it isn't.
There's a difference between saying "I will be delighted on my birthday when I get a pony" and "Hey, someone go get me a pony". Same thing here.
Rush has been very clear that he would like to see complete bedlam in Denver, but he's also been abundantly clear that it has been the hard left and the Obama supporters who have been saying that the bedlam will happen. How is it inciting a riot to say that you'll be glad when the rioters do what they've predicted they will do?
Jimmy, he said that the final OBJECTIVE to his operation chaos is a riot in Denver 1968 style, complete with car burning etc. Those were his words and in my opinion it is a call for riots. Even if he only did "wish" it, and not call for it, it is despicable to wish for rioting and violence in an American city where there would be injured people or even worse. No one on the left has called for or threatened riots in Denver. Rush owns this notion.
You mean except for Al Sharpton, who has said he'll "demonstrate" if Obama doesn't get the nomination? You will recall that Sharpton's previous "demonstrations" weren't exactly peaceful.
Patty, again, he's been crystal clear about what Operation Chaos is. It's an effort to throw the decision on the nomination to the superdelegates – to force the Democrats to show just how elitist, anti-democratic, and closed the nomination system really is.
Jimmie
A demonstration does not equal a riot. MLK demonstrated peacefully often. Definition of demonstration : a public exhibition of the attitude of a group of persons toward a controversial issue, or other matter, made by picketing, parading, etc.
That definition does not include a riot. Those are two different terms. The notion of a riot at Denver is a Limbaugh notion and he owns it as far as Im concerned Jimmie.
Al Sharpton is not Martin Luther King. His demonstrations have a disturbing habit of becoming riots, because he incites them. Freddy's Fashion Mart is a great example. There are others.
It may be Limbaugh's notion as far as you're concerned, but Rush has shown ample evidence that Democrats were saying it before he did.
The only evidence he showed was sharpton's interview that said "demonstration" not riot. Rush said riot and he said it was the final objective to his operation. Did you listen to the Wed. Show when he first suggested the riot? I do not mean his "dreaming of a riot" explanation, I mean the very first time he made reference to the riot. He said that the final objective to his operation chaos was literal riots with protests, cars burning, fights, etc. just as in 1968. He no longer has this transcript on his website (I wonder why) but this is what he said. He later tried to back peddle and say that he wasn't calling for riots but just dreaming about them. Well, either way, it is despicable to wish violence and harm to an American city and Americans. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree Jimmie. I do appreciate the civil discussion despite our differences.
>>Well, either way, it is despicable to wish violence and harm to an American city and Americans.>>
I didn't hear the show. It seems out of character, but right or wrong, wishing doesn't make it so. Whatever Mr.Limbaugh wants or doesn't want, unless you're accusing him of planning on sending bodies to riot, the decision is entirely up to the people at the convention. Is Limbaugh offering payment for people to riot? Is he planning on being there himself? If not, what difference does it make what he "wishes" for? He can't make it happen – and if Sharpton "demonstrates" and once again it becomes a riot, it isn't Limbaugh's fault, it's on Sharpton's head. Unless you're accusing Sharpton of being a tool for Limbaugh…. Sharpton – and the various other Democrat groups – have the power and the choice to conduct themselves like good citizens or riot. Limbaugh has nothing to do with their choice.
Sharpton at his finest…
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/al-sharpton-vo…
And here's another site to check out. Please note that it is _not_ a Limbaugh site!
http://www.recreate68.org/
Its interesting to me how whether you think Rush did or did not call for riots, I find it hard to believe that Democrats who literally can't stand Rush Limbaugh would suddenly take his marching orders… Wow what a way of avoiding personal responsibility. As I recall it was Democrats beating up Democrats in 68', and if it happens in Denver, it will be Democrats beating up Democrats again… Is Rush Limbaugh that powerful that he can control Democrats now? I thought he only controled Republicans. Maybe we should start calling the Democrats Dittoheads (or StupidHeads)!
John…That was exactly what I thought also. And it was Democrats that were calling up complaining to him that he was encouraging the riots. Do they feel tempted to riot because Rush said to? If so, I'm even more confused than ever…LOL.