Yes, Rush Limbaugh Is A Jerk
Many on the right seem unwilling to condemn clearly offensive remarks by Rush Limbaugh
For reasons that can only be explained by the idiocy that is our 365/24/7 media culture and the hyper-politicization of American life, a good part of this past week has been taken up by a rhetorical battle between a 61-year-old radio host in Florida and a 20-something Georgetown law student over the issue of birth control. It started when that law student, a woman named Sandra Fluke, testified last week before a panel of House Democrats after being barred from doing so during a committee hearing held by Chairman Darrell Issa:
Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke was given her chance to talk to Congress Thursday, even though lawmakers were on a break and just a few Democratic allies were there to cheer her on.
But what a difference a week makes.
Last Thursday the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee rejected Democrats’ request that Fluke testify on the Obama administration’s policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control.
This week she received almost rock-star treatment as the lone witness at an unofficial Democratic-sponsored hearing. While the rest of the Capitol was mostly empty, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, three other Democrats and dozens of mainly young women supporters crowded into a House office building room to applaud Fluke as she spoke of the importance of reproductive health care to women.
(…)
Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., had said at last week’s hearing that the panel’s focus was on whether the administration policy was a violation of religious freedom. He said at the time that Fluke, invited by Democrats in her capacity as former head of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, was not qualified to speak on the religious rights question.
“I’m an American woman who uses contraceptives,” Fluke said, when asked Thursday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., about her qualifications to speak on the issue.
(…)
Fluke, a third-year law student, said that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit institution, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan and that contraception can cost a woman more than $3,000 during law school. She spoke of a friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn’t cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of cysts.
Now there are plenty of legitimate questions that can be raised here. There’s a religious liberty argument that is going to be litigated and, based on a recent case out of the Pacific Northwest, may have far more legal merit than I first suspected. There’s the question of whether the government should be mandating the contents of an employer-provided health insurance policy. And there’s the question of whether or not Congress even has, or should have, the authority to force employers to provide insurance to begin with. But did we spend the past week discussing these important issues, all of which will have to be dealt with at some point in the future? No, we didn’t. Instead, we spend the week discussing the sex life of Sandra Fluke, thanks to a series of what I can only describe as offensive and idiotic comments made by Rush Limbaugh:
Rush Limbaugh, though, had a different take on Fluke’s testimony. On his show Wednesday, he suggested that the reason Fluke cannot afford birth control is because she is having too much sex.
“Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he said. “Your daughter…testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the pope.”
Fluke testified that without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman as much as $3,000 during law school.
“Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it,” Limbaugh said, adding that high school boys applying to college should consider Georgetown. “They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”
The conservative radio host continued: “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”
Limbaugh shied away from his word choice towards the end of his show, saying “So, she’s not a slut. She’s round-heeled. I take it back.” Round-heeled, though, is a euphemism for the same thing, an old-fashioned term for a “promiscuous woman.”
On today’s show, Limbaugh turned up the heat and suggested that women who use insurance-covered birth control should post sex tapes online: “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” he said.
The reaction has been about what you’d expect. On the left, there’s been round condemnation of Limbaugh’s comments and calls for Republican politicians to denounce him. Some have apparently started a campaign to get his advertisers to start canceling their contracts, an effort that has apparently been successful in at least one case. On the right, what we’ve seen for the most part is a defense of Limbaugh’s comments and an effort to essentially justify him calling a woman he’s never met a slut. There have been some notable exceptions to that reaction, though, as both Carly Fiorna and John Boehner have criticized Limbaugh’s comments about Fluke. Meanwhile, Limbaugh himself is again reveling in the publicity that all this self-created controversy has brought him, which is clearly all that the man is interested in the long run to begin with. For herself, Fluke has gotten no small degree of personal attention from all of this including an appearance this morning on Today and a phone call earlier today from President Obama.
In the meantime, though, I’m not quite sure what this entire episode has accomplished other than bringing yet more attention to a well-known megalomaniac with a history of saying outrageous and insulting things just for the sake of getting attention. Conor Freidersdorf wonders why the right lets Limbaugh get away with this:
What confounds me most about it is that Rich Lowry and Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon, Glenn Kessler of The Claremont Review of Books, Arthur Brooks at the American Enterprise Institute, Edwin J. Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, fellow talk-radio host Bill Bennett — none of these people would ever dream of going before a national audience and calling a female law student half their age a slut and a prostitute. None of them would ever dream of joking that if she wants her health insurance to cover birth control she should put a sex tape on the Internet. If a deranged gunman held a loved one hostage and forced them to make those remarks, as if of their own volition, they’d feel deeply embarrassed and ashamed doing it. Yet when Limbaugh says these things — when he said other things as indefensible in the past — he remained and remains a frequently celebrated, seldom criticized figure within the conservative movement. The Dittoheads are kept happy, but discredit is brought upon the movement. No leader of the conservative movement is willing to defend Limbaugh on the merits. They just stay mum.
Jay Bookman, meanwhile, what else it is that Limbaugh could possible say that would be worse than this:
If Limbaugh hasn’t gone too far this time, then “too far” no longer exists. Those Republican politicians who have genuflected to Limbaugh in the past — do any of them have daughters? Wives? Sisters? Mothers?
Will any of them dare to raise their voice in protest or disgust? Because again, if this is not going too far, what is?
The answer is actually, pretty easy, I think. As I noted earlier this week, the establishment wing of the GOP has essentially surrendered to the base, and the same is true of the establishment wing of conservatism itself. How else to explain the extent to which people like those Conor names have capitulated to the anti-intellectualism of the Sarah Palin’s and Rick Santorum’s of the world? Whether out of a desire to make nice with a group they think can put them back in power, or because they simply lack the courage to call out obvious stupidity one they see it, these people have sat back and allowed the Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s and Mark Levin’s of the world to take over their movement and turn it from something that and intellectual heft into nothing more than a nine-hour long screaming match from 12 to 9 Eastern every weekday, and things are exactly the same way on the movement’s primary television outlet Fox News Channel. These people don’t criticize Limbaugh because they’re afraid of him, because they’re afraid of being called RINOs, afraid of being drummed out of the movement by a man who clearly cares about nothing more than causing controversy and boosting his ratings.
It really shouldn’t be this hard. It shouldn’t be hard at all, really, for any decent human being to say that Rush Limbaugh is a low-class jerk for calling a woman a slut because she takes a policy position different from one that he happens to take. It should be easy to say that any 61-year-old man that says that about a young woman doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously on any political matter. It should be simple to demand an apology from the man. How would these people react if Sandra Fluke was their daughter and the same thing was said about her? The fact that so many people are being so silent, and making so many excuses for what is perhaps one of the more disgusting things I’ve heard come out of the mouth of a public figure in a quite some time is a pretty sad indictment of what American conservatism has turned into thanks to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
As I said above, there are many legitimate issues to be discussed regarding this HHS contraceptive coverage mandate. However, nothing is accomplished by calling someone a slut because of their political position, and the right does itself no favors by allying with people who do.
Limbaugh is an entertainer and he knows what the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who listen to him want to hear. He doesn’t believe much of it himself but knows how to make a lot of bucks.
@Ron Beasley:
It’s a well known formula going back to an L.A. talk radio host named Joe Pine, and perfected by a New York guy named Bob Grant. Limbaugh just followed in their footsteps
I’m sure someone will trot out the fact that Limbuagh is “just an entertainer.” And it is true that in the past he’s never been able to deliver the votes in the clutch — no matter what he says. But it still seems somewhat bafflingly that given his own problems with divorce and drug abuse, he’s embraced as a voice of morality (this seems to me to be akin to looking to Michael Moore for tips on moderation, snappy dressing, and healthy eating).
But the far more disconcerting thing is the number of republican and conservative politicians who have gone on his show to offer apologies when they’ve been found to be in conflict with him. I think that alone suggests the fact that while the party line is he’s “just an entertainer” stops making sense.
Or put a different way, when was the last time you saw politicians going on another talk show to seriously apologize for crossing the host.
@Doug Mataconis: Agreed!
Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the party. Who else are they to ally themselves to?
‘…like those Conor names have capitulated to the anti-intellectualism of the Sarah Palin’s and Rick Santorum’s of the world?”
The Sarah Palin’s of the world that get called a cunt by Bill Maher with almost zero outrage from the same people who are letting the spittle fly over this? And please, do not throw out the “He’s a comedian” bullshit excuse. Maher is often invited on news shows and political roundtables to speak as a political commentator, not to tell jokes. Maher just gave a million bucks to the President’s Super-Pac. I sincerely doubt President Obama will be making calls to Sarah Palin and demanding the money be returned.
I don’t defend what Limbaugh said because there’s no use for that kind of language, but the outrage level about what he said, for the most part is phony. It’s no coincidence that fundraising emails went out 24 hours following Rush’s comments from the DCCC.
In addition, none of this happens, and Fluke continues to be a nobody if the administration didn’t muck around where it didn’t belong to begin with. If some of the same people reacted with such venom about the government butting its nose in on the issue the way they have over Limbaugh, then perhaps the pushback would have been enough for them to back up.
But I guess not. It’s easier to get riled up over the truly important things in life — incendiary comments of a radio talk show host.
Yeah Boehner really went out on a limb…he called it innapropriate…I hear he’s up for a profile in courage.
@Doug Mataconis:
The key innovation that Limbaugh introduced was (a) giving the show away in order to sell advertisements and (b) introducing the idea of marketing self-authored books to thier captive audiences. (And with B, I can’t remember for the moment if Rush’s book or Stern’s Private Parts came first).
As far as the general format, it was perfected years ago by “Morning Zoos.” The format, which included call-ins, humor and parody skits/songs has been largely adopted by most of the successful national talkers on both sides of the aisle. Probably the only major exception *might* be Thom Hartman on the left.
I sadly ‘grew up’ listening to Bob Grant. While is vitriol and race baiting went to 11, he never had the humor component that Limbaugh and those who followed did. Grant worked purely on outrage and venom.
@mattb:
That’s where the both sides do it breaks down. When has a Democratic politician apologized to Ed Shultz or Rachel Maddow? He is an entertainer with power and you can say the same thing about FOX news personalities – a dangerous situation.
OK, so you call out someone you disagree with by calling them a disrespectful name. Way to be consistent.
@mattb:
I too “grew up” listening to Grant, and remember when Limbaugh first came to WABC in New York and his show. This was before the show went national several months later. Yes, Limbaugh is a better entertainer than Grant which probably explains why he’s the one who managed to make it nationally. The problem is that the listeners forgot it was entertainment somewhere along the way.
Good for you, Doug, but for one thing. It’s not just fear that prevents people from calling Rush a jerk. Do you really think Jim DeMint or Haley Barbour or Jeb Bush or Tom Coburn or Mitch McConnell couldn’t tell Rush to shut the hell up if they wanted to? Do you really think DeMint is worried about being called a RINO?
Mike
…
These people are shills who make their livings peddling a slightly more respectable version of the Limbaugh rubbish. Why would they criticise Limbaugh? He’s in the same business, just operating at a different price point.
@Jay:
One significant difference — like it or not — is that Palin is a public figure, which means that in the eyes of the law (amoung other places) there’s an entirely different level of speech that can be applied to her. Fluke was a private citizen testifying (and part of a larger pattern of conservative talkers attacking private citizens who tend to express a differing viewpoint).
To be clear that’s not to defend Maher’s statement — which is of the Limbaugh School of analysis. And, the fact is that there are a lot of liberals/progressives who tend to get pretty uncomfortable with that type of attack.
It’s simple economics Doug. Are you going to vote Democrat in November over this? If not, why should they care how outraged you are? There is absolutely no cost to be suffered in outraging you.
@Doug Mataconis:
The PROBLEM is that it is not entertainment….never was.
Stormy,
At the current rate, I don’t plan on voting either Democratic or Republican for President in November.
@Brummagem Joe:
More importantly, what Limbaugh can deliver is buyers (as opposed to voters). Since part of the business plan is to make money selling books, people don’t want to lose their “pitch spot” and access to directly marketing to Limbaugh’s audience through interviews and his talking up the book (filling segments — cause 3 hours is a lot of talk/prep work — with discussions of the books content/advertorials).
@Donald McElligott:
It makes me giggle when Professional Victims pull out the fainting couch.
I don’t think Limbaugh understands how birth control works. Psst…you don’t take a pill every time you have sex.
@Brummagem Joe:
If there wasn’t entertainment there at some level, the show would not have succeeded. That much I cannot deny.
You can’t just put some guy on the radio to talk about politics and expect them to be a success. Air America proved that with its lineup of incredibly boring hosts.
All true. And he is the most powerful man in GOP politics. ‘Nuff said.
@Donald McElligott:
Excellent point, you thin skinned, pea brained outrage troll.
(see what I did there?)
@Neil Hudelson:
Also, there is no point in Fluke’s testimony where she testifies about either her own sex life or what she pays for birth control.
@Gold Star for Robot Boy:
I don’t get this response at all. I was pointing out that this article is doing exactly the same thing Limbaugh was doing.
@Neil Hudelson:
Neil, he’s probably just getting it mixed up with the instructions for his viagra prescription.
I mean he hasn’t been quite the same since he blew out his hearing (and possibly a few grey cells) on that prescription drug addiction.
@Donald McElligott:
Limbaugh called a woman a slut for giving testimony that supported a policy position he disagrees with.
I called Limbaugh a jerk for calling a woman a slut.
There’s a big difference there, whether you want to recognize it or not
@Donald McElligott:
OMG! Doug, you’ve just been “Both Sides Do It-ed” but from the right!
@Doug Mataconis:
Limbaugh wanted to bring attention to an argument being made before congress that was attempting to force taxpayers to pay fer her to have recreational sex without consequences. His method to get that attention was to employ a harsh term.
You want to bring attention to your point by using a harsh term as well. You both could have made your points without the harsh term. Me, I’d rather you both keep it up. It’s better to be honest about it and it is more entertaining that way.
Rush can take it, and so can the Law School activist, they are both adults.
@Jay:
My outrage is real but I’m not raising any money – explain that.
I am no liberal, but Rush is an ass. And I was surprised to hear Santorum at least call his remarks “absurd”.
I can not imagine a man like Mitt Romney ever saying anything like this either. It is just ridiculous.
@Doug Mataconis:
Doug I used to listen to this guy stuck in Washington beltway traffic around 1992, there was never any doubt his message was political however much sugar it was coated with. And I was a long time Republican voter in those days.
Limbaugh at this point is a gift to Democrats.
I’ll tell you something: you just cannot beat luck. First Susan Komen comes up and without intending to, sets the table. Then the bishops, bless their molester-enabling hearts, serve up the main course. Santorum pours the wine and Limbaugh brings in dessert.
Are espresso and Cognac still coming?
Please sir: more?
@Doug Mataconis: “If there wasn’t entertainment there at some level, the show would not have succeeded. That much I cannot deny.”
One thing to keep in mind is that Limbaugh today is not the same as Limbaugh 20+ years ago. When Rush started out, he was doing something much more like a political version of the Howard Stern show and there was a lot of emphasis on actual entertainment. Rush’s dream was not to be what he is now. It’s to be something like Howard Stern or even Al Franken before he ran for Senate, an entertainer who could go on shows like David Lettermen and just make people laugh. What happened is that while pretty good for radio, Rush was never much of an entertainer outside that and when he discovered he could maintain his conservative audience without having to work so hard at being entertaining, it was too great of a lazy temptation to resist.
Mike
@Donald McElligott:
Obviously you’d would see no problem with this had it been directed at your daughter, wife, sister. Great little value judgement system you’ve got there.
@Donald McElligott:
Where to start with this… How about, Fluke wasn’t testifying about herself, but about a friend who needs contraception to prevent ovarian cysts.
@Donald McElligott: Rush has been playing the victim for years. He always likes to talk about how mean everyone is to him and true conservatives like him. But the truth is he does not do conservatism any favors. For instance, here he did not bring attention to the issue, he brought attention to the fact that he is an ass. The actual issue gets lost along the way.
His ratings are down and he wants numbers…today on my commute I heard a radio reporter say that Rush Limbaugh was under fire because he called a young woman a prostitute for disagreeing with him on birth control..that is how the media will spin this..and that does not bring attention to the real issue of a government power grab..that is what this should be about..not Rush Limbaugh’s big fat mouth.
Also, it seems my self-inflicted exile from this site lasted less than a day.
I wish I knew how to quit you, BTS.
(OK, where in the world did I get BTS?)
@MBunge:
.
I’d dispute this. I actually listened to him occasionally in the car 20 years ago and there was never any doubt what his agenda was. I’d agree it was more sugar coated (another example of the same phenomena is John Stossel who used to do mildly entertaining stories about incompetent MVA clerks but has now moved into full hate govt mode) but there never any doubt about his agenda.
Stunner. Georgetown “Coed” Sandra Fluke Is a 30 Year-Old Women’s Rights Activist
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201202290008
What about the Sherry Sherrod standard where it is ok for her to say “his own kind would take care of him.” because she said later in the speech that she regretted her racist view?
Of course there was no outrage over this entertainer.
Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan
@Brummagem Joe: “I’d dispute this. I actually listened to him occasionally in the car 20 years ago and there was never any doubt what his agenda was.”
My point is that Rush back then didn’t have an “agenda” any more than Stern has an “agenda”. His shtick was politics like Stern’s was sex but Rush just wanted to be an entertainer. But unlike Stern, Rush came to rely on politics as a crutch because he wasn’t that talented and got lazier as he became more successful, until today he’s barely any sort of entertainer at all. He’s just an old, rich, bitter, white Republican who gets on the radio and bitches.
Mike
@Paul L.:
Oh, has Rush said he regretted his misogyny? I must have missed that. Oh, and this doesn’t work, “OK, so, she’s not a slut. She’s round-heeled. I take it back.”. Tell you what, why don’t you ask your wife or your girlfriend (if you have either) if she thinks health insurance plans should cover contraception as a matter of law? If she says yes, then tell her that, according to Rush, she’s round-heeled and a prostitute (he hasn’t taken that back as far as I know). Get back to us on that, will you?
@Paul L.:
Wow Sandra Bernhard…one of the major power brokers in the Democratic party said this?……I’m shocked
@sam:
You left off the part of
even for Religious institutions that object to contraception on moral grounds.
@mattb: The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/
@MBunge:
You don’t actually know this you’re surmising this. You may be right but the claim that it was all innocent entertainment 20 years ago is not really the case. It was the same anti government, anti liberal, anti women, anti foreigners, anti UN, et al message. As he’s become more bankable and powerful he’s just pushed the envelope on the message that’s all.
Just possibly this is the moment when the line to use is: “Finally, sir, have you NO DECENCY?”
Limbaugh is far more than a jerk. He’s an idiot. Seriously. The man flunked out of a school that a well-trained gorilla could have passed.
He’s also the luckiest SOB on earth. Nobody has done more with less.
After failing as a sportscaster and going nowhere with various establishment media outlets Limbaugh wound up on the a.m. band in Sacramento, CA, in the early 1980’s. Sacramento at that point not only was a cow town it was a poor excuse for a cow town. Then the FCC eliminated the “equal time” rule, Morton Downey, Jr. developed an audience on the right and then moved on to bigger and better things, and then Limbaugh found himself in the vacuum left by Downey’s ascention to T.V. At that point the only two conservatives with modicums of audiences, outside of the National Review folks and the WSJ editorial pages, were Downey, Jr. and Wally George, both of whom were focused on T.V. gigs. Limbaugh started pimping a right wing message on the radio. He tapped into a docile and ignorant demographic that had no problems sitting there passively for hours on end being fed loads of bullcrap from a guy with no qualifications, no education and no real experience.
The rest as they say is history.
@Voting Mama:
Does any of this mean she’s not a law student and not entitled to be upset about being called a slut or being required to give live sex performances on TV. You people are deeply, deeply sick in the soul.
@Donald McElligott:
So much moralizing fail in one little sentence.
Hey Cretin, stop trying to shove your morals down my throat and in return I will stop trying to shove my….
Never mind. How about this: Shut the F up. Hint: She never even once testified about herself or her sex life. What is it with you perverts climbing up the vagina of every women you never met ?
@Voting Mama:
It doesn’t matter who she is. No woman should be called a slut, prostitute, or any other similar name for advocating a policy position. NO WOMAN should ever have these things said about her, and if they are, they person who says them should, at the least, find no defenders.
Oops – got carried away with the caps there; I didn’t mean to all cap woman (or no, either).
No woman should be called a slut in public discourse. For that matter, no man should be, either. That kind of language does nothing to further the agenda of the individual who says it, and it is hurtful to the one who is so described.
@Tsar Nicholas: For once we can agree on something.
@JohnMcC: Well, upon checking I find that the quote from the Army–McCarthy hearings was not as I recalled it. (I grow old, memories fade.) The way Mr Welch asked the question is much better. It is available on youtube. “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
The inner pedant is now satisfied and will move on.
I love that people are coming on here and defending Limbaugh. Without people like them you might be tempted to think it’s just Limbaugh. But no: it’s a substantial percentage of Republicans.
Limbaugh takes the temperature of the room. He knows his audience. He knows they’ll enjoy seeing a woman humiliated, called a slut, and he knows they’ll be sexually titillated by his video suggestion. He is after all very successful, so his opinion of conservatives carries weight.
Limbaugh thinks a whole lot of conservatives are just as creepy and misogynistic as he is. He’s right. It’s a beautiful thing: Limbaugh has more contempt for conservatives than even liberals do.
@Paul L.:
Oh, gee, Rush didn’t get into that at all. He never once mentioned religion. He, as befits that fat mouth of his, made no distinction among plans. But, hey, add that proviso if you wish, and then ask the question.
The guy is a godsend (if I can say that) for the left, today:
On second thought, forget it. How the women in your life feel about contraception and insurance is their business. But as far as the Viagra-dependent Rushbo goes, I just hope he keeps on keeping on. The more he talks, and the more folks like you defend him, the more women will vote Democratic in the fall. Keep it up (if I can that, too).
Has Rushbo been drug tested lately?
@Paul L.:
Oh, gee, Rush didn’t get into that at all. He never once mentioned religion. He, as befits that fat mouth of his, made no distinction among plans. But, hey, add that proviso if you wish, and then ask the question.
The guy is a godsend (if I can say that) for the left, today:
On second thought, forget it. How the women in your life feel about contraception and insurance is their business. But as far as the Vιagra-dependent Rushbo goes (and you can bet that’s covered), I just hope he keeps on keeping on. The more he talks, and the more folks like you defend him, the more women will vote Democratic in the fall. Keep it up (if I can say that, too).
My guess is you would not have to dig too deeply into some of these psyches to find rape fantasies. There has been a lot of barely suppressed rage towards women on display recently.
Keep calling women who use contraception sluts and prostitutes, Republicans. It’s a winning strategy.
Apparently according to our conservative contributors here this is now the correct standard of behavior for conservatives. Any 30 year old, liberal, female law students that disagree with us are to be immediately called sluts and requred to give live sex performances on TV. I can see Edmund Burke and Bill Buckley nodding in agreement.
@KariQ: But wait — what if she has marble countertops? Then woman deserves everything Rush said about her. Plus, someone you never heard of once said something mean about a conservative political figure, therefore anything Rush says about a private citizen is justified. Oh, and liberals are mean, and Christians are oppressed and Obama hates Catholics, and I’d keep typing but I have to take a break to pity myself.
Now I am a conservative!
@Paul L.:
Of course, this was after his going to great lengths to explain how ’round-heel’ was his mother’s code for “slut” — nice distinction without a difference. Kinda the same way that Rush couches all of this racial critique…
And as for the “30 year old activist” — your attempts to compare the publicness of an “activist” to the public figure nature of Sarah Palin requires about the same level of mental gymnastics as it does to explain how blatantly racist jokes circulating about the president shouldn’t be taken as “racist.”
@michael reynolds:
Of course it is. Just like a substantial proportion are tainted by racism and a bunch of other isms. But alas our hosts see no essential difference between the zeitgeists of both major parties. Sad but true.
@RWB:
Maybe it’s trouble with the wife? Is he gonna be announcing divorce #4 in the near future?
@Brummagem Joe: “You don’t actually know this you’re surmising this.”
No, I know it. I work in talk radio and all but one station I’ve worked at in the last 20+ years has carried Limbaugh. Just to be sure we’re on the air and the right commercials are playing, we have to monitor what’s going on. That means I’ve spent the last 20+ years listening to Limbaugh 3 hours day, 5 days a week, month after month, year after year. Guys like me know more about Rush from listening to him than he probably knows about himself. And I am telling you, the show Limbaugh does today is substantially different in tone and even content than when he first started out.
Mike
@Donald McElligott:
Emphasis on the moral judgement I see. There are of course two fact that undercut this argument:
(1) that birth control pills are regularly prescribed for off-label uses. I’ve known a number of women who were put on birth control prior to becoming sexually active because of the fact that it helped regulate and ease menstrual cycles.
(2) that most of the health programs in question cover erectile dysfunction medications* (in particular one that starts with “V” and gets caught in spam filters), without checking to see if the people its being prescribed to are (a) married and in relationships with someone of (b) breeding age. Granted one can still argue about the mandate itself, but this more or less vacates the “high moral ground” in terms of “recreational sex.”
* see http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/13/146822713/why-catholic-groups-health-plans-say-no-to-contraceptives-yes-to-viagra
@MBunge:
You’re in the business I’m not so I’ll bow to your superior knowledge but apart from pushing the envelope much further in terms of language he doesn’t sound very different to me. The targets are EXACTLY the same, the language is just more extreme.
@MBunge:
Btw I forgot to give you my commiserations
A) rush is not just some radio personality- he’s a major mover and shaker on the right, Sad to say he’s at least their main mouth piece if not actually considered a thinker.
B) It’s not just Rush, before he was ever involved the right was already going after reproductive health care on both the state level (hello “transvaginal probe as a punishment for getting an abortion”) and the federal level (hello “fake concern for religious freedom of employers, but emphatically not that of employees“).
In that sense the Rush flap is useful as a way of reminding people how truly backwards the GOP is on these issues. They should know it lest they inadvertently vote for the mouth breathing troglodytes.
I’ve yet to hear the guy, but from what quotations I read, I have no problem assuming he’s a jerk.
I haven’t heard him much since he was married to “the lovely Marta”.
Wonder what that settlement cost?
@Voting Mama:
30?! Women’s rights?! That whore!
Next thing you’re going to tell me she supported racial integration in our schools!
Glad you showed up here to set us all straight!
Rush makes such idiotic and rude comments that I can’t bear to listen to him long enough to hear his opinion. I don’t want to have to suffer through his mean-spirited comments in order to hear what he has to say. Why he doesn’t just keep it professional, state his views and his reasons behind them. I guess that is too much to ask or expect from him. I’m pretty sure he is incapable of respecting anyone besides himself. I don’t understand why this man even has a talk show. Who in their right mind would care what he thinks about anything?
(For the satirically challenged, yes, there was some sarcasm in that post.)
I had to check but my fading memory served me well this time. It was Joe Pyne. I think I must have heard him on the AM band when he was syndicated.
Wiki provides this tale involving Pyne and one of my early counter culture heros.
@MWeber:
I don’t think it’s people in their right whom he’s trying to reach.
@KariQ: Where were you when Maher called Palin a “c–t/”
Mr Mataconis,
While I disagree with you on many other issues, I glad to be reminded once again that you are willing to apply your standards equally across the board.
The language and tactics of Limbaugh, when applied to anyone by anyone, has no place in our public discourse.
free contraceptives=keep your legs shut.
HOMOPHOBE!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, there is a third option here: that they tacitly agree with what Mr. Limbaugh is saying.
@Graham: @Voting Mama:
And not just a women’s rights activist, but part of the HARDCORE!
And yet she is still at large. Wow!
@Pete:
You presume I was okay with that based on what? When did I defend that? And what part of “no woman” do you find confusing?
You couldn’t possibly be as stupid as you present yourself, could you? Or was that some lame attempt at humor? Let me spell it out for you in case your pea-sized brain can’t figure it out…homosexuality is not the same thing as child sexual abuse…
It’s just tribalism at work, they are protecting the leader, no matter how despicable he is, just because he wears their colors.
The only way to get him off the air is to cut off the money supply.
Balls. It does have a place. In the corridors of power in the modern conservative movement.
Besides all the fake outrage over the name calling she’s the perfect representative of the moocher class.
@bandit:
Yeah, a law school student.
Won’t find any of THEM in the conservative world!
@bandit:
That’s just stupid. I mean really, mind-numbingly stupid. It’s a nonsense comment. You’re not even trying as hard as Voting Mama.
First of all, Rush’s comments were vile and abhorrent. Anyone who isn’t a misogynist, indeed anyone who has a shred of honest humanity, can see that immediately. So the outrage isn’t fake.
Secondly… WTF? Who is the “moocher class”? Law students? Women? People who are passionate about issues? She isn’t a single mother. She isn’t living on welfare. She isn’t addicted to drugs. She isn’t an immigrant or racial minority. She fits *none* of the categories vile hatemongers associate with the “moocher class”.
Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Better luck next turn.
@bandit:
You’re an imbecile. But you’re also morally contemptible.
Hmm. So which is better, do you think? To be an idiot? Or to be a creep? How would you rather we thought of you?
I live in Brazil, I´m male. Why is it so complicated to buy condoms and pills in the United States?
@André Kenji de Sousa: It isn’t. Some weirdos just wish it was.
@André Kenji de Sousa:
Puritans. You were settled by Catholics. We were settled for the most part by Protestants with sticks up their asses. We never fully recovered.
@michael reynolds:
I have to agree. It’s like they wake up everyday and say:
“You know what? I think I’ll make some democrats today”
The level of contempt that the GOP shows again and again for black people (Santorum), Latinos (their entire immigration policy) and women is just mind boggling.
@André Kenji de Sousa:
Condoms? Buying them is not a problem (surprise, surprise!) No scrip necessary, no age limit, you can buy them from vending machines.
Birth control pills? It’s not terribly complicated to buy the Pill in the States but a prescription is required (makes sense since it is a drug). The main issue is that health insurance in the US is more often than not provided by your employer (depending on your age) rather than the government. Folks are making the argument that an employer has the right to not cover birth control pills if they find contraception to be morally objectionable or circumscribed by their religion. The core issue is about health insurance plans offered by hospitals, charities and other associated businesses that are owned by and directed by religious groups, but are not churches per se. Church employees are exempt from these requirements, but associated businesses are not. Yesterday, there was a proposal to extend the same exemptions that churches have to any employer – any employer could have denied insurance coverage of BCP or any health service citing “moral reasons”. It failed in the US Senate 48 – 51 on a mostly partisan vote (3 Ds for, 1 R against). Scary, I know.
Other people have said what needed to be said here so I’ll just throw in one tidbit that hasn’t been mentioned yet:
Georgetown already covers contraception for faculty and staff.
Maybe this isn’t the case in other places, but at Georgetown whatever their objection is to covering contraception for students is it’s not based on finding it immoral under Catholic teaching.
And yet we are told by certain people that the reasons these groups vote for Democrats are because they are promised and/or given handouts, unfair preferential treatment, open borders, etc….
@An Interested Party:
superdestroyer’s transactional theory of partisan politics is bass-ackwards. superdestroyer demands that black or brown folks should vote R before that are given any political accommodation. That whole concept of honey and vinegar seems to have sunk in, but somehow got turned around in his head.
@de stijl:
before they are given
Grr edit button mumble mumble
Want to make Limbaugh pay? Reddit is on the case.
@An Interested Party: The funny thing is that it’s conservatives that equate being gay to being a pedophile, but they have no problem with an organization–that for decades–covered up the sexual abuse of children.
i was pointing out a hypocrite and
That most of pedophile priests was gay, a point never brought up, and looking for a reaction that I got.
Oh and I have almost as big a problem with the Catholic church (organization) as I do with the atheist church.
lol, show me something I can’t understand or something that I can’t understand the reasons for your understanding of it.
Perhaps I was trying to truly show how stupid it is, feels and looks for most of you to cluelessly hurl out homophobic, racist and lol, vile, every other sentence.
You people don’t want to talk about crap, just Judge and condemn, Intellectuals my a$$…
@G.A.:
By that logic, prisoners are gay too.
Here’s a hint,. It’s about access.
@michael reynolds: Let’s hope it works. That’s what did in Glenn Beck. You can only stay on the air for so long selling end-of-the-world survival packs and gold coins.
@J-Dub:
The success of this tactic depends on who his advertisers are. Some I’m sure are targetting exactly the wingnut misogynistic demographic but others are probably more generic (Quicken for example has already announced a suspension). If anyone really wanted to cut off the ad dollars they only need to start running ads where El Rushbo’s name and incendiary comments are linked with their products. When you have a lot of brand equity built up over years the last thing you want is this “entertainer” pooping all over it.
@André Kenji de Sousa:
Pills might require a doctors visit and a prescription, not too complicated but could have some expense. Condoms can be easily bought at nearly all drug stores. This current round of bickering came out of the Obama administration requiring insurance companies to cover contraception for free, without co-pay.
Limbaugh’s egregious behavior has made the issue about mostly about that, giving the left a stick to poke the right with.
@rodney dill:
Yeah. Hey, it’s shaping up into The War on Religion vs. The War on Women. In that rhetorical, hence, electoral, contest, guess who wins?
@rodney dill:
Not really. It’s about the right of employers who provide much of American’s health insurance to exclude contraceptives (and indeed any other service they don’t like) from this coverage. Co-pays are a very minor part of the issue.
Again not really. Limbaugh idiocy has just drawn even more media attention to the issue along with other egregious attempts by Republicans to impose other conditions on how women’s health issues are treated.
@michael reynolds: I couldn’t possibly care what you think since your thought process is limited to juvenile name calling.
She’s just another mooch who expects the gov’t to force other people to pay for what she wants.
@bandit:
Limited thought process? Check.
Juvenile name calling? Check.
@bandit: Uh, she was talking about a friend of hers.
By your argument, all insurance is invalid. Please stock up $500K to pay for your OWN brain cancer treatment, you moocher!
@Tsar Nicholas: I wish his luck would run out I hated him from the first time I heard him That was about 20 years ago. He sucked then and he sucks now only worse.
Oh, and one more thing:
Romney, you want to know why you’ll never be fit to be president? This was your Sister Souljah momment. And you failed it.
Did health insurance cover Limbaugh’s drug rehab?
Does it cover the hearing aids and other therapies necessary to him as a consequence of his drug addiction?
@Brummagem Joe:
Depends on what I meant by ‘this round’. The exclusion of contraceptives overall was mitigated by Obama when he required health care providers for provide them free. I didn’t indicate that Co-pays were a major part of anything. The clip they show of Rush always seems to start with the ‘free’ part. I was only talking about ‘this round’ as starting at the point.
I agree that that represents the left’s narrative and their attempts to assign ‘egregious’ or any other derogatory adjective to any Republican behavior.
Sandra Fluke should keep her ovaries off my rosaries.
@michael reynolds:
If he’d purchased coverage directly or worked for an employee that offered a package that included these I would think, yes.
Was there a goverment mandate, that his insurance carrier offer this coverage for free or at all? I would think not. (At least pre-Obamacare, I’m not sure what Obamacare would require)
@rodney dill: meant ’employer’ not ’employee’
Okay, this is making me CRAZY.
I keep seeing people say that they are outraged that “taxpayers” or employers or “everyone else” has to pay for someone’s contraception.
You have health insurance by paying for an individual policy, or perhaps by joining a group plan at an educational institution. Or you get coverage from your employer, but that is part of your compensation. In any of these cases, the individual is paying for the contraception, not the employer, not the school, and certainly not the taxpayers.
What am I missing? How would “taxpayers” or anyone else be paying for someone else’s contraception?
The only health coverage funded by taxpayers is Medicare and Medicaid. Is this woman on either of these plans? Do they even cover contraception??
“Sandra Fluke should keep her ovaries off my rosaries.”
How about you explain to us how exactly Ms. Fluke is interfering with you practicing your religion?
“Birth control pills? It’s not terribly complicated to buy the Pill in the States but a prescription is required (makes sense since it is a drug). The main issue is that health insurance in the US is more often than not provided by your employer (depending on your age) rather than the government.”
I know that. But Brazil has a very tough consumer protection legislation for private insurance* and has what is probably the most generous welfare state in the emerging world(The Public health insurance covers some procedures that even government provided healthcare in Europe does not cover). But while there is distribution of free pills for poor women in government clinics, neither private insurance or the public healthcare system does that for all women. Women just goes to the gynecologist then to the drugstore.
* Yes, in Brazil there is universal healthcare provided by the government, but you can have private insurance – with tax deductions – if you don´t health care rationed by the government.
“She’s just another mooch who expects the gov’t to force other people to pay for what she wants.”
Again – how is she asking for other people to pay? She’s isn’t paying for her health care coverage? Can you provide the details?
Re Issa: There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.The alternative is Jerry Tetalman. JerryforCongress.com
From slut to attention-whore. Good job Sandra!
@Greg: Maybe because as a religious institution faculty and staff, who tend to be older and… I don’t know… married, but may not wish to have children at present. hurr durr
Next I say we subsidize sex toys for those who can’t afford them!
i say we subsidize sex toys and plenty of aspirin for headaches and leave you guys to figure out what to do with yourselves.
@Janis Gore: I figure I spend around $1080 a year (which is a little more than Flukey’s birth control pills after three years) at Chick Fil A and Wendy’s (the only two fast food restaurants I will eat at.) What’re the odds of me speaking in front of Congress calling for the subsidization of my yearly expenditure of a #11 with a large fry and chocolate Frosty from Wendy’s and the spicy chicken sandwich combo with a chocolate milkshake? Do you think if someone calls me a fatass I’d receive a phone call from the president about continuing the good fight of getting the government to pay for the most unproductive and insignificant aspects of my lifestyle?
Though I think the knowledge that Ron Beasley, michael reynolds, and the rest of the Dumbass Gang defending to the death my hilarious scenario as vehemently as they defend this stupid and immature Floozy woman is more than enough to appease my amusement for the day.
How are “we” subsidizing this woman’s, or anyone else’s, contraception?
Wikipedia says “A subsidy is money given by a government to help support a business or person the market does not support.”
The government is paying for her contraception? How?
I certainly wouldn’t care to see a video.
Hmmm. Since Habbit has an unhealthy diet, I don’t want to “subsidize” his (or her) treatment for heart disease. Why should I have to pay extra so that Habbit can eat as he (or she) pleases?
@rodney dill:
I guess that’s why McDonnell panicked and had them rewrite all that legislation in VA….women in the state wouldn’t have considered it egregious.
There is no this round. The attack was made on this girl by Limbaugh because she gave evidence after being blocked from giving evidence in front of a Republican controlled house committee on the issue of access to contraceptives. If you want to misrepresent try to do it with a bit more finesse.
Oh really….who was this then…your doppelganger?
Socrates, damn your two-year old reading comprehension level, as well as your selective copy/paste methods.
First, let’s address your unfairly cherry-picking the specific phrase that makes you look cute and clever. “A subsidy is an assistance paid to a business or economic sector.” – Wikipedia *tsk* *tsk* Trying to pull a fast one, are we?
Second, I never said the government was paying for her contraception. If you don’t have anything to contribute other than putting words into my comments, please find something else to do with your time. 🙂
@Socrates:
Just wanted to let you know I was the first person to like this! Even though you use deceptive argumentative methods, maybe you’re not so dumb as I originally thought? 🙂
@mattb:
You cease being a private citizen when you testify to US Congress.
We’re off topic. The question is whether Rush Limbaugh overstepped the bounds of civil discourse by calling a woman a “slut” and asking for sex videos because she made a statement during a policy discussion.
Now, I’d call plenty of men moochers because many women have subsidized their pregnancy-free sex by buying our own damned contraceptives for decades. The aspirin solution is looking better all the time
You didn’t bring up a specific instance like McDonnell before… You just blanket stated ‘egregious attempts by Republicans’ to try to slur all Republicans. Which is what I purport the left narrative attempts to do. I’m not familiar with what McDonnell did or didn’t do, so I can’t comment one way or the other.
I didn’t misrepresent anything, I just clarified what I was commenting on. You are misrepresenting the scope of what I was addressing, again to support the narrative of the left. Saying ‘This round’ is a figure of speech, so I don’t open to door to every outrageous thing Rush said in the past, while I respond on this one. You just chose to ignore that.
My point was about the ‘for free’, of which the co-pay may only be a small part. The base cost of all the insurance plans would likely be higher to begin with to cover the ‘for free’ for contraceptives. Yes, I used the word co-pay, I never said i didn’t, but also never said it was a major part of anything. You are being somewhat disingenuous today in my opinion.
@Janis Gore:
The only bounds he overstepped were asking for that horribly unattractive creature to present to the world wide web her naked body.
Yep, the aspirin solution is looking better and better.
@Paul L.:
Because that argument is stupid! I’m sorry but it’s just bone-dead stupid! Let’s say the Bishops get their way and no insurance company in America will cover contraception. That means that religious employees who want contraception (98% of female Catholic employees, apparently) will have to purchase it out-of-pocket … WITH THE MONEY THEY GET FROM THE CHURCH THROUGH THEIR SALARIES! If money is so god-damned fungible that the Bishops can get their panties twisted up because they’re paying for employee insurance and the insurance companies provide free birth control, how can they justify paying money to employees who are going to spend those godly dollars directly on birth control?!?
@rodney dill:
So? It’s an example of egregious behavior in imposing conditions on the treatment of women’s health issues. And since Republicans are currently engaged in trying introduce similar laws in six or seven other states there’s no slurring involved.
You did. This is ONE controversy, not some round of it. What Limbaugh may have said previously about other topics is totally irrelevant.
No you just said the controversy….
Ergo….it was by definition a major source of the controversy.
It’s been established in this thread that what Rush said was egregious, not that what McDonnell did (whatever it was) or what other Republicans are doing is egregious. You are just trying to establish this by inference. Which is what I said the Liberal Narrative is. (you are starting to just repeat yourself without adding anything)
Again, what I addressed was related to Rush’s statement, or more correctly toward André Kenji de Sousa’s query. Not YOUR whole contraversy that you are using as a club on all Republican. But I already addressed that, again you are just rehashing yourself.
(continued. hit post too soon by accident)
Again… No…. Co-pay is just a component, the major part is only in your mind.
A lawyer writing about a victimized law student. Figures!! This paragon of virtue is championing another piece of a suicidal entitlement system. It seems like a joke but recent trends predict that it won’t be long until she’s back demanding designer condoms and her flavor of the pill. When she gets her way and we become the spitting image of Greece then she and her victimized representatives will be prostituting themselves just to make ends meet.
Thanks Rush for taking the heat. It seems impossible but maybe some of these lugnuts (offense level somewhere between jerk and slut) will get the message and help right a badly listing ship. Ultimately it’s not about conservative vs. liberal or religious vs. secular; it’s about solvency. It won’t be long before the government, all businesses and all institutions will be writing only insufficient funds checks. Can I get an amen and a passing of the plate?!
@Habbit: A) Part of her testimony was about how her married friend couldn’t afford it on her own either. B) Catholic teaching doesn’t allow for artificial birth control period, married or not.
@rodney dill:
The person re-hashing here is you in an attempt to squirm out of what was a fundamental misrepresentation of the issue that caused the spat between Limbaugh and this girl ….namely an attempt by Republicans to allow employers to exlude contraceptives and other controversial services from female employees insurance coverage. It’s always been the issue, initially on religious grounds and with the Blount amendment any grounds. You may not consider this and the other attempts to interfere with the provision of women’s health services as egregious….a majority of the country and women do.
Your typical response whenever you are called out on your foolish bull$hit–that you are supposedly just doing it to teach others a lesson…perhaps you are as stupid as you appear to be…
Surely health insurance didn’t cover his sex tourist visit to the Dominican Republic…hell, maybe that is what is ticking him off…
Oh look everyone, a dittohead…how cute…the misogyny is a nice touch…
@Justin Christian:
It takes some talent to combine three reductio ad absurdums in a couple of sentences but this genius has managed it. Congratulations sir. Go up and collect your prize.
@Brummagem Joe:
I actually haven’t changed my views or modified what I said, I’m just not letting you define what I mean. It’s your view its a misrepresentation, not mine. (though no doubt you’d find a lot of sympathetic ears to your views among the commenters here).
I didn’t really address this at all as it was outside the scope of my ‘this round’ figure of speech. I was however addressing Rush’s verbal abuse of Fluke and how this would be used as a stick for the left to poke the right with. …and you’ve pretty much proven that point.
@rodney dill:
The “whatever it was” in this case was backing Virginia’s bill requrining woman who want abortions to be raped with a foreign object first. In the future, you might want to look up what you’re actually defending before you spring to the defense of anyone just because there’s an R after their name.
Funny how that was never an issue during the Bush years. Or the Bush ’41 years. Or the Reagan years…
@PJ: Sorry – obviously it’s way above your comprehension level to understand a description of her behavior.
@rodney dill:
Question:
I live in Brazil, I´m male. Why is it so complicated to buy condoms and pills in the United States?
Answer (per Rodney Dill)
This current round of bickering came out of the Obama administration requiring insurance companies to cover contraception for free, without co-pay.
This is simply a misrepresentation however much you try to deny it….there isn’t a current round, it’s the same controversy that’s been going on CONTINUOUSLY for two months and it’s about this and always has been;
@eva:
Do me a favor and find the legal precedent to support that viewpoint.
@Socrates: Apparently you haven’t been paying attention. The reason Fluke testified before the fake Congressional committee was to complain that the student health insurance plan at Catholic affiliated Georgetown University doesn’t cover contraception.
@Septimius:
Of course the reason she had to testify before a fake congressional committee was because the real Republican controlled one not only didn’t allow a SINGLE woman to testify but didn’t allow a SINGLE male or female supporter of the administration’s position to testify. In other words the official Republican controlled hearing was a bit like those they used to have in the USSR. I can see why this would appeal to a Republican totalitarian like yourself.
@Brummagem Joe: BJ, my hat’s off to you. In a short space you managed five pejoratives: 1) some talent; 2) three reductio ad absurdums [your spelling is wrong and your principle is misapplied … you mean to convey that I am absurd for proffering untenable, in your opinion, consequences]; 3) this genius; 4) congratulations sir; 5) go up and collect your prize. Some of my wordings are indeed hyperbole but the thrust of my argument is spot on. Since you don’t get it, I don’t know what world you are living in BJ, then I got my prize: exposure of one of the lugnuts. You currently have 3 thumbs-up so you have enough lugnuts to keep your liberal wheel rolling down the road to oblivion.
@Brummagem Joe: I really kind of envy the world you live in… Where you get to make up your own drivel and tell others what they mean as well. . You’ve added nothing new to your comments. Please go back an re-read what I said and try to understand it. Then try again. I have yet to misrepresent myself regardless of your narrative otherwise, and I’ll continue to respond as such while this thread remains open.
I’m simply not arguing for or against every point you want to berate someone about.
@Stormy Dragon: Wrong Stormy, I wasn’t defending McDonnell as I didn’t have enough information to comment either.way,
@rodney dill:
You said it’s not been established that what McDonnell did was egregious. That sounds a lot like a defense to me.
@Stormy Dragon: Joe had switched from “All Republicans” to McDonnell, the details of which I’m unfamiliar. If you can show me where the Virginia bill explicitly says.
I’d be perfectly willing to accept this as egregious behavior.
Yet another example of why Rodney should stick to caption contests.
Seriously Rod, quit digging.
@de stijl:
That is not my “theory.”
My theory is that it is impossible for any conservative politician or party to appeal to minorities since minorities are natural liberal who want big government, big entitlements, big spending. As long as the government has set asides, quotas, and affirmative action, and as long as whites, on average, pay more taxes than blacks or Hispanics, then blacks and Hispanics will vote for the more liberal party.
Even if the Republicans moved to the left, they would receive few additional black or Hispanic votes but would lose a large number of white votes. See Bush II’s failure on amnesty and open borders.
@rodney dill:
No need….I’ll just let the record of your misrepresentations speak for itself. It really couldn’t be clearer.
@Justin Christian:
I know imitation is the sincerest form of flattery Justin, but this was really a poor copy.
@Brummagem Joe:
I agree that the record couldn’t be clearer… I could tell you were going to continue to misrepresent what I was saying after one iteration.
@rodney dill:
You should take this advice Rodney
@superdestroyer:
It’s your hypothesis, not your theory. Get it right.
@Justin Christian:
Birth control = Greece. Wow, and all this time everyone’s been under the impression that trade imbalances and the lack of a fiscal transfer union are what caused the Greek crisis. If only we’d known it was really caused by birth control!
@Ben Wolf:
But there is enough data so that my hypothesis is actually a theory. Blacks and Hispanics are very consistent across all economic classes, all geographic location, and all occupations. Only Cubans have shown any interest in conservative politics and yet Cubans in the Republican Party are to the left of everyone else except the Log Cabin Republicans who are really Democratic Party operatives.
The question is not whether conservatives will ever be able to appeal to non-whites. The real question is what happens the U.S. no longer has a conservative party and becomes a one-party-state.
@Brummagem Joe:
As usual, you are completely wrong. Two women testified at that committee hearing, Dr. Laura Champion and Dr. Allison Garrett. When the Democrats were asked who they wanted to invite, the chose (gasp) a man, Rev. Barry Lynn and Sandra Fluke. When the Republicans told them to choose one, as is the standard for the minority party, they picked (gasp) Barry Lynn. After Lynn had already been invited, the Democrats changed their minds. The committee chair said it was too late and the dems told Lynn not to show up.
@Septimius:
From your own link…..this was not the original committee hearing where only men appeared as was widely reported.
@Septimius:
Btw the Washington Examiner is an official Republican newsheet a bit like Pravda so I can see it’s tremendous appeal to you but really you’ll have find something a tiny bit more neutral if you expect anyone to regard you as anything other than a right wing totalitarian.
@Septimius:
Comrade Septimius… your Pravda’s
Political views
When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico.com, “When it came to the editorial …. Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he ‘wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,’ said one former employee.” The Examiner’s conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).
The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and ….. it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.
@Brummagem Joe: Maybe you should take your own advice instead of trying to redefine what I’ve said.
@rodney dill:
You are wasting your time arguing cites with a progressives. The first step is to always demand a cite. Then the next step is to claim that the cite is not good enough. The third step is too call you names.
What you should never expect from a progressives is any references or cites to back up their reality-based, fact-based world view.
@rodney dill:
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Question:
I live in Brazil, I´m male. Why is it so complicated to buy condoms and pills in the United States?
Answer (per Rodney Dill)
This current round of bickering came out of the Obama administration requiring insurance companies to cover contraception for free, without co-pay.
@Brummagem Joe: For someone who said they were willing to stand on the clarity you are still spending a lot of time trying to define it. You just don’t get that you are not in control of the context of my statement.
@rodney dill:
I’m just endlessly replaying your statement….context and all
Res Ipsa Loquitur
@Brummagem Joe:
There is no such thing as free. What the government is requiring is that birth control pills will be covered and that there will not be any co=pays. The real result of the new regulations is that everyone gets to pay more for insurance.
Image what is going to happen in the future where every special interest will be fighting to get their pet drug, treatment, or therapy covered without co-pays.
@Brummagem Joe: It was the same hearing on the same day. They divided into 2 panels because there were 11 people invited to testify. The Democrats on the committee walked out after the first panel. They knew that two women were going to testify during the second panel, but apparently, they weren’t interested in what they had to say. They just wanted to score some political points.
@Brummagem Joe: Who cares about the editorial policy of the Washington Examiner? The New York Times hasn’t endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower! I guess they are out-of-bounds as a source as well, huh? Your claim that no women testified at the Government Reform and Oversight Committee hearing on 2-16-12 is demonstrably false.
@Septimius:
Of course grandstanding and scoring political points were the last things on the minds of Issa and the Republicans when they called this hearing…..it just blew up in their faces…..LOL….anyway don’t let me keep you from Anschutz’s own little conservative Pravda freesheet….Nazda-rovye Comrade
@Septimius:
That you think the NYT and the Washiington Examiner a little conservative freesheet have remotely equivalent credibility says more than I ever could about your perception of truth
@Brummagem Joe: Really? So am I.
…and I always preferred
Qusinam Igitur Sanus….
@Brummagem Joe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj1l8suFE68
Go ahead. Tell us again about how not a SINGLE woman testified before the committee.
Face it. Your claim is bull$hit! You can try to deflect all you want. You were wrong! If you had any self-respect you’d admit it.
@rodney dill:
Actually you’re not, you’re just repeating the same denial which is clearly disproved by your own words in context which is why I keep replaying them….it’s easy
@rodney dill:
An ad hom claims that I’m mad seem an appropriate point at which to bring this conversaton to a close.
@Septimius:
No single woman testified at the first sitting of this committee which is what caused the walkout and the ridicule. The two that testified at the second sitting were both anti the govt position and so the committee only heard one side of the argument. IOW the hearing was rigged. If you had any self respect you’d admit it.
@Brummagem Joe: Actually for all your specious claims it ended some time ago. Now I’m stuck with an earworm that reminds me of our banter.
Don’t hold your breath.
The GOP can no longer avoid its Rush Limbaugh problem.
By Editorial Board, Published: March 2
IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.
Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note.
We are not calling for censorship. Nor are we suggesting that the ostensible policy issue here — mandatory provision of contraception under health insurance paid for by religious-based institutions such as Georgetown — is a simple one. Those who questioned President Obama’s initial decisions in this area — we among them — were not waging a “war on women,” as Democrats have alleged in strident fundraising appeals.
What we are saying is that Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.
House Speaker John Boehner took a step in that direction Friday: “The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an e-mail Friday morning. But there’s no moral equivalency between the Democrats’ hyperbolic but abstract “war on women” line and Mr. Limbaugh’s targeted attack. Mr. Boehner and others of his stature need to say unequivocally that such gutter rhetoric has no place in their party or in American politics.
Incivility is not a one-way street in America. Far from it: Mr. Limbaugh’s left-wing equivalents have trashed any number of conservatives over the years. Conservatives have a point when they protest that the “mainstream media” don’t always heed their legitimate grievances.
Yet under the influence of Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk, the Republicans risk coming before the voters in 2012, and after, with nothing but grievances. This is what former Florida governor Jeb Bush was trying to tell his fellow Republicans when he observed, apropos of a recent discourse in the GOP primary: “It’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that’s kind of where we are.”
For the good of U.S. political culture — or at least its own political self-interest — the GOP must distance itself from Mr. Limbaugh. In response to listener complaints and, apparently, the promptings of its own corporate conscience, Sleep Train Mattress Centers has quit advertising on Mr. Limbaugh’s show. Dare Republican leaders show less decency?
@Brummagem Joe:
Brummagem Joe yesterday:
So, we’ve established that you are completely wrong on your first point. Obviously, two women did testify. The fact that they testified on the second panel, and not the first is irrelevant. Their testimony is just as valid.
We’ve also established that Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a prominent liberal theologian, was invited to testify. He didn’t attend at the request of the Democrats. (Although he did submit written testimony.) So, you’re entirely wrong on your second point that the Republicans didn’t allow a single supporter of the Administration’s position to testify. Barry Lynn was certainly allowed to testify. He was invited!
Keep trying, though.
@Septimius:
No. Not a a single woman appeared at the first hearing. And two female stooges appeared at the second. The entire proceeding was rigged and spectacularly exploded in Issa’s and the Republican party’s face. But keep trying to convince us this was all kosher.
@Brummagem Joe: It was the SAME HEARING. Just because you’re a lemming who can’t read any further down than the headlines doesn’t change the facts.
FACT: Two women testified at the hearing.
FACT: Rev. Barry Lynn was invited to present the administration side.
FACT: Your intelligence is way below average.
@Septimius:
Quite possibly…particularly when compared with the genius of mindless partisans like yourself.