The Rush Limbaugh “Staff Puke” Controversy
I commented on this at the Reaction Roundup post earlier this afternoon (go to the 2:15 PM section).
Now that Rush has done his daily site update, I wanted to go to the transcripts to get a better handle on the controversy (NOTE: The links will be gone at about 6PM on Thursday, when they will be moved behind Rush’s $40/year subscription wall).
Today (after not posting this content yesterday, unless I somehow missed it, which I doubt), he posted part of the conversation that took place on Election Day, August 2, where the “staff puke” term came up (a few paragraphs from the end of the page; bold mine):
CALLER: “Once a Marine, always a Marine.” Isn’t that what they say? That doesn’t mean all those things that you learned… Those things are supposed to stay with you and it doesn’t seem like — he either never had them in the first place or he’s not being true and have any integrity like you’ve already mentioned.
RUSH: Okay, call him a staff puke if that’s what you want, but civilian affairs, staff puke. Bottom line is he’s running a fraudulent, deceptive campaign, and the Democrats are saying this is a bellwether election. We’ve got two instances of huge fraud being perpetrated here, and I’m bound and determined they’re not going to get away with this, whether the guy wins or not, they’re not going to get away with misportraying the results of this when the whole campaign has been one of total fraud and lying and deceit, fooling people.
Remember this. Now lets’ go to today’s show (near the beginning):
CALLER: Did you call him a staff puke?
RUSH: Yeah, I called him a staff puke. I’ll call him a staff puke today.
CALLER: He was on the ground at Fallujah.
RUSH: You had better go talk to people in the military if you want to know what staff puke means. They call each other that. Do you know what Marines call each other? They call them grunts. What if I’d have called him a grunt yesterday? You clueless liberals would have thought I was assuming a lot of things and insulting him. Staff puke, the term has been used by other military people to me. It means person. He’s a staff puke, because that’s what a Navy officer was telling us on the phone.
STOP, THE, TAPE. That last sentence gives you the impression that the NAVY OFFICER was the first person to use the term yesterday (Aug. 2). The previous day’s conversation above shows that RUSH said it first, and in fact was the ONLY person to use the term (the Navy officer NEVER did, even AFTER Rush did).
BOTTOM LINE: Maybe you don’t technically owe anybody an apology, Rush, but it’s really crass for a guy to use objectionable military jargon only used among military men and women when talking amongst themselves. Your caller yesterday, and soldiers in general, know better than to use terms like those in public. You apparently don’t. You also don’t understand that someone who hasn’t been in the military (as I haven’t, and I believe as you haven’t) should not be throwing those terms around as if they’re “one of the boys (and girls)”–Remember, YOU said it first, and you were the only one who said it. Finally, you either don’t know or don’t care what the impact of using unfamiliar terms like “staff puke” might be on people who have never been in the military. That’s amazingly weak for a supposedly great communicator.
Did the caller get cut off at that point. Or did he fail to point Rush to his very next words, “Bottom line, he’s running a fraudulent, deceptive campaign…” I.e. who the **** are you trying to fool, saying you were merely calling him some jocular inside-joke name?
Comment by fourmorewars — August 3, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
Guess it’s a good thing Rush didn’t call Hackett a REMF. :-)
Comment by Dave — August 3, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
#1, I don’t know that what you’re wondering about is relevant. If you’re saying that Rush said “staff puke” instead of “civilian affairs guy” to move the conversation along, I don’t see that as much of an excuse. I don’t the caller bears any responsibility here. If the CALLER had said “staff puke” first, it may be okay for Rush to repeat it, but the real point is that the caller would never say it, because he’s in front of a national audience, not just his military buds.
Comment by TBlumer — August 3, 2005 @ 9:24 pm
#2-Assuming I know what MF is (correct me if wrong), what’s RE stand for? If it’s not PG-13, e-mail me.
Comment by TBlumer — August 3, 2005 @ 9:28 pm
RE in the above phrase stands for “Rear Echelon”, The other half you guessed correctly. Also known as the chair warming folks giving orders from their nice safe bunkers. Sounds like the kind of job they would give a resume building attorney. The question no one has asked yet is why he his tour was only seven months? If this clown had been wounded and sent back he would have been crowing about it. Nothing short of that can hold a positive implication. Has he released his 180 as Kerry refused to? Listen for the deafening silence as the MSM refuses to examine his background and quals.
Comment by MaaddMaaxx — August 4, 2005 @ 5:32 am
“REMF”, to be perfectly uncouth, translates as “Rear-Echelon MoFo” (edited by BizzyBlog). It refers to a Soldier, sailor, or Marine, whose duties are “in the rear” (that is to say, somewhere where they are removed from the actual combat, and sustain little chance to see combat). I am an Engineer in the Army Reserve deployed to Kuwait; I’ve been to Iraq a handful of times, but my duties are mostly in Kuwait, at a nice post with a lot of amenities that the guys in Iraq probably don’t get. I am, by definition, a “REMF”.
This is different from a “Staff Puke”. A “Staff Puke” is any Officer or senior enlisted (seargeant) whose job is to serve on a commander’s staff. Staffs typically manage long range planning, logistic, maintenance, and personnel issues. The term is derisive because it implies that the Soldier, sailor, or Marine in question is removed from actual WORK (not neccessarily from danger, just WORK). So, again, while I’m a REMF, I’m not a staff puke.
Also, Mr. Limbaugh risks alienating his military listeners. Familiarity breeds contempt, and even the lowliest “Staff Puke REMF” has at least taken the oath, worn the uniform, and said goodbye to their family and friends for a year. They earned the right to bandy those terms around. Syndicated talk show hosts with no time served in the military hasn’t.
Comment by The Substitute — August 4, 2005 @ 7:41 am
REMF rear echelon
Comment by J. Redwine — August 4, 2005 @ 8:17 am
Rear
Echelon
Mo
Fo
Comment by Matt Hurley — August 4, 2005 @ 8:31 am
#5, no one here focused on the 7 months, probably because Hackett is a reservist, and I would have thought that reservists often aren’t over there for a year. He DID come under enemy fire, which was a controversy that stayed at the local level a week before the election when another ex-military questioned his uses of the term “fight” in his ads.
Instead of answering the person involved directly, Hackett ran to a local TV station and showed the evidence and then (classless act that he is) said that (the mere act of questioning him) was a “vitriolic attack on everyone who served over there.” (sound familiar?)
Nobody did the form 180 request on Hackett, because (I don’t think) he was saying anything besides that he was over there fighting, and since he promised he will go back (whether he does now will say a lot), we probably don’t have a right to see it yet, or it may not exist until he’s officially out of the service.
Comment by TBlumer — August 4, 2005 @ 10:48 am
Molehill meet Mountain.
Comment by Joe C. — August 4, 2005 @ 11:00 am
@10–At least myself and #6 would disagree.
Comment by TBlumer — August 4, 2005 @ 11:01 am
As an ex-Navy Corpsman (Squid) who served in Desert Shield/Storm (no combat, just a lot of sand) with the US Marines (Jarheads), I think that we may be making too much of this. I would think that only the most political female would complain about a civilian using these terms. Now if it was a draft-dodger (not avoider–they’re different) said it…
Listen, I would rather Hillary win than vote for John McCain. That said, what the man went through in Vietnam…WOW! How can one not respect his strength and service?
I do not believe that Hackett faced more than a few hours of combat, but that is a few hours more than I ever have. For that I offer my respect.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — August 4, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
Of all the terms to pick, he picks the one with the word “puke” in it. Very, bad, judgment for someone who claims to be trying to persuade people.
Comment by TBlumer — August 4, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
Limbaugh on Hackett: “a liberal Democrat” who served in Iraq “to pad the resumé”
Media Matters has audio of Rush Limbaugh going to town against Paul Hackett on election day, accusing him of hiding behind his uniform. Crooks and Liars also has a short clip of Limbaugh calling Hackett a staff puke. (BizzyBlog dives into this more.)
…
Trackback by Ohio 2nd — August 4, 2005 @ 9:34 pm
Of all the terms to pick, he picks the one with the word “puke†in it. Very, bad, judgment for someone who claims to be trying to persuade people.
You got that right. Staff puke or not, Major Hackett has done a lot more to serve his country than Rush “Pilonidal Cyst” Limbaugh ever will.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein — August 4, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
I’ve got news for you, Blumer, there are THOUSANDS of reservists from all over the country who have/will spend a whole year over there. During the initial stage of the conflict, many units (not just reserve units) were lucky to rotate out after a few months. Please no pissing contests over “well, he was there 4 months, but the other guy was there 5…” Everyone has a different experience of it, regardless of Active or Reserve Status, MOS (job), and where in theater you are (southern Iraq vs. Sunni Triangle)
Comment by The Substitute — August 5, 2005 @ 8:19 am
#16, assuming you served, thanks for your service. Sorry I hit a nerve; I certainly didn’t mean to.
I have known that a “typical” tour has been in the neighborhood of a year, but thought that perhaps reservists might often or usually be shorter. Looks like I’m wrong, based on your comment.
My point in #9 was simply that no one focused on the 7 months, and that we got diverted (being stateside ignoramuses) by Hackett’s reservist status. If you’re saying “we” blew it by not investigating how he got by with 7, and how he happened to come back just in time for the primary, I would have to agree with you. (BTW, Hackett portrayed it as “somebody said I should run for Congress the day I came back,” as if he had never thought about it and didn’t know Portman had resigned to become Bush’s Trade Rep. Maybe, maybe not. Based on how things went down, I question the truth of everything this man says, NOW.)
I personally was burned out on politics after blogging the very contentious GOP primary here in mid-June (mostly ignored Hackett in the primary, except to note that he appeared to be a promising candidate, esp for a Dem), and would have preferred to abstain from blogging during the general. But Hackett’s POS videos showed him to be a very dangerous person, so I came back in with 8 days to go. There wasn’t a lot of time to do anything but push the video angle in contrast to his public statements (which worked pretty well, because it percolated up to Rush just in time) and otherwise simply react to things.
Comment by TBlumer — August 5, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
I am pleased about Hackett’s service as much as the next guy, but ALL of his public record must be held to account. He has done quite enough to restrict freedom here in America.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — August 5, 2005 @ 11:23 pm
(Re #18) He has done quite enough to restrict freedom here in America.
Oh yeah, those sewer rate increases were brutal.
Seriously though, I understand that Major Hackett is pretty far from being perfectly libertarian, but he’s pro-choice, pro-gun, and anti-”Patriot” Act. That’s good enough to get my support the next time he runs for office.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein — August 6, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
Well, two out of three ain’t bad! (PS, study his record and positions more carefully; not much freedom there.)
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — August 8, 2005 @ 1:51 pm
not much freedom there.
I know, Mr. Kelso. Most of my fellow Democrats are substantially to my left on economic issues. However, the puritanism of the right bothers me more than the socialism of the left.
Besides, there’s not much freedom in the modern Republican Party either. In just the last few years, the Republicans in Columbus enacted the largest tax increase in Ohio history and the Republicans in Washington enacted the largest expansion of Medicare in 40 years. The new transportation bill enacted by the Republicans in Congress is the largest public works expenditure in American history. How many current or recent elected libertarians are there in the Republican Party? After former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-New Mexico), U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), and State Rep. Leon Drolet (R-Michigan), the list wears a little thin.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein — August 8, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
#20 and #21–Good points.
On the OH front, there is a Tax Initiative on the ballot in Nov. that would limit future state spending increases to inflation and population growth. It’s called TEL, but I don’t remember what it stands for at the moment.
Locally I blogged on the RATS (Republicans Addicted to Taxes and Spending) here:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=368
It was an open letter to the antitaxers who suggested sitting out this election. I have been told to expect a response from their sort-of unofficial spokesperson, the Whistleblower, tomorrow (8/9) at roughly 1PM by e-mail and 4PM on his site (NOTE: it will be the August 10 issue):
http://www.bluechipreview.com/Whistleblower.html
(Warning: Rated R)
Stand by. I think this antitax thing may get real interesting.
Comment by TBlumer — August 8, 2005 @ 11:37 pm