Carlson attacks ACLU for not "standing up for Rush Limbaugh" (they DID)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Carlson attacks ACLU for not "standing up for Rush Limbaugh" -- but ACLU took Limbaugh's side

Summary: Tucker Carlson attacked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for "not standing up for Rush Limbaugh" while he was being investigated for allegations of committing fraud to obtain prescription painkillers. But in January 2004, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Limbaugh's case protesting the state of Florida's seizure of Limbaugh's medical records as a violation of his right to privacy.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020013

From the May 1 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson:

RACHEL MADDOW (co-host): If you want to have a debate about whether or not it should be illegal to doctor-shop and gets tons of OxyContin in Florida, if you want to have a debate about whether or not the drug laws are right, I'll have that debate with you. But the question of whether or not Rush Limbaugh was selectively targeted and got nailed here in a way he wouldn't have if he wasn't a right-winger is ridiculous. He's getting off with nothing when there was so much evidence against him. This is a case of great American lawyering.

CARLSON: I'm telling you he wouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place, but I am saying this is a perfect example for liberals to stand up. Most liberals aren't standing on principle, I guess, is the point I'm making.

MADDOW: Come on.

CARLSON: Where's all the -- I'm dead serious. Where is the ACLU? Where is all the -- the chorus of the anti-drug people, and I'm on their side, the anti-drug-law people, because I actually don't like drug laws that much.

MADDOW: Fair enough.

CARLSON: But why aren't they standing up for Rush Limbaugh? They're not standing up for him because they think he's a right-wing creep. That's why.

[Jacobin]

1. Purposefully ill informed and ignorant, even without the bowtie

[Chimichurri]

5. is he now sans bowtie? I noticed he'd been wearing untied

what a doofus.

[blondeatlast]

10. He has kept his pretty, pretty hair.... nt

[Bluesplayer]

22. the Breck girl

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Its all the rage these days ......

Likud Chic

I hear Holy Joe's thinking about it, too.

[wtmusic]

2. He was smarter with his bow-tie on nt

[tsuki]

3. Liar. Carlson is a liar. nt

[bullimiami]

4. i wish rachel had the aclu info correct. we all cant know everything.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense: From Fox News of all places.

ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense
Monday, January 12, 2004
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans


Raw Data: Rush Limbaugh's Statement
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (search) probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union (search) to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

The ACLU contends that state law enforcement officers violated Limbaugh's privacy rights by taking possession of his medical records as part of their criminal investigation into the commentator's alleged "doctor-shopping" to feed his prescription-drug addiction.

"While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida," Simon said in his statement.
<snip>
More....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

[LisaM]

7. He barely let her get a word in edgewise - I saw it

though she should have known about the ACLU.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Here is Maddow's response from her blog. It includes an apology to the

ACLU.

The ACLU, Media Matters, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and a Wheelbarrow Full of Oxycontin

by Rachel Maddow on May 3, 2006 - 3:08pm.

Media Matters has an item posted now about Rush Limbaugh that quotes this excerpt of a conversation Monday night between Tucker Carlson and I on MSNBC.
<snip>

First things first: I’m not a co-host. If I were, I’d probably get more than oh, say 3 minutes on-air three nights a week.

Second, I think it’s clear from the tape, if not the transcript that my “fair enough” is directed at Tucker’s comment that he personally doesn’t “like drug laws that much”. I didn’t mean that “fair enough” to affirm everything Tucker had said before then as OK and fact-checked by me.

Here'a a link to the whole transcript from that night if you want to see our full conversation.

That said, I certainly passed up the opportunity to correct Tucker’s misstatement about whether or not the ACLU had ever taken Limbaugh’s side in this case.

Here’s why: Tucker wanted to debate this issue with me in order to make Rush Limbaugh’s doctor-shopping a rightwing case-study.

He wanted to argue that Rush was being unfairly persecuted because of his rightwing politics (!), and that liberals are unprincipled because we’d oppose a hatchet-job prosecution like this for anyone except our politiical enemy.

I don’t happen to think this was a hatchet-job prosecution. This always looked to me like an open-and-shut drug case where anyone other than a rich well-connected guy like Rush would have ended up with a drug trafficking indictment and a battering-ram through his door.

So yes, I could have corrected Tucker about whether or not the ACLU filed a brief on Rush's behalf. Instead I tried to shake Tucker from his talking points and argued that that Rush got off easy because his lawyer is worth his weight in heroin. Oh, and by the way Rush Limbaugh is a big freaking textbook rightwing hypocrite anti-drug-crusading drug addict. That, too.

I apologize to the ACLU if I created the impression that I agreed with Tucker's mischaracterization of their record. But I don't regret trying to steer the conversation the way I did.

For the record, here’s the ACLU’s amicus brief on Rush Limbaugh’s medical privacy rights. (The link is a pdf file).

And here’s where you pay a minimum of a measly 35 bucks to join the ACLU -- I’m a proud member and if you love the bill of rights, you ought to be, too.

See you on the radio!
Rachel

http://shows.airamericaradio.com/maddow/node/1781

[LisaM]

17. Ahh, she's great

She is so intelligent; I love when she subs for Franken. I still wish she'd jumped in and said it though.

[spag68]

8. Carlson

I've always thought he was the most dangerous wingnut, because of his preppy look and sometime sensible positions. DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.

[Mythsaje]

9. Rush is a RW creep

AND a hypocrite. It's the last one that stinks the most.

[Kagemusha]

11. Truthiness in action!!

Carlson went with what his gut knew to be true, rather than do something like look it up in a book, or horror of horrors, Google! Or be bothered to read the darn news at the time the friend of the court brief reporting occured!!

[blondeatlast]

14. Yep, a TEXTBOOK example. Thank God for the internets and the

fact that someone had this already up before I did!

[blondeatlast]

15. We should SERIOUSLY demand a retraction of that statement.

I think it would shame all the players in this sordid affair.

Anybody with me to get the e-mails rollin'?

[NoPasaran]

16. I used to think

That Tucker's bow tie was cutting off the blood flow to his brain. I guess I need to develop a new theory.

[0007]

18. Goes to show you how well informed he is and how bias his

ass glows.

[ComerPerro]

19. Not only is that an outright lie...

but it illustrates one of the biggest problems with these so-called "balanced" debate shows.


The right winger introduces a talking point that is either based on a lie or is just a complete, outright fabrication.

Then, instead of the proclamation being laughed and mocked and then dismissed, it is debated as though it were literal fact and had any merit at all.


When we waste time arguing their lies as though they actually deserved the respect as opinions based on fact, we play right into their hands.



Here's how that "debate" should have gone:

CARLSON: Where's all the -- I'm dead serious. Where is the ACLU?

MADDOW: They did offer help and stand up for his rights.


END OF DEBATE.

[AtomicKitten]

20. He better put the bow-tie back on.

It apparently was the funnel for information.

[maxsolomon]

21. anti drug law people

are concerned about ILLEGAL drugs

not abusers of PERSCRIPTION DRUGS.

*ucker.

[Bluesplayer]

23. Wasn't his father

a Voice of America propagandist? What did you expect - honesty?