Double Standard on Misoginist Attacks Around Town, posted by Double Standard, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Rush Limbaugh was correctly chastized for his misogynistic comments regarding Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law sudent, who recently testified before Congress about the high cost of contraception.
But liberals such as Bill Maher and Ed Shultz have made far more egregious verbal assaults on women and the liberal press gave them a pass. So it seems if a misogynistic verbal assault is on a conservative woman then that is acceptable but if it is on a liberal woman then the perpetrator should be excoriated.
Kirsten Powers, who work in President Clinton's Administration as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs, to her credit exposed this Liberal hypocrisy. To watch the Kirsten Powers video click here.
Posted by Haywood, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm
If Rick Santorum had repudiated Rush in Ohio, he would have won it last night.
As is, Santorum lost women because of his medieval policies towards women's health care - look at the exit polls.
Rush just exacerbated the whole thing for Santorum by ranting for three days, keeping Rick's medieval policies in the limelight. Amazing the whole thing about contraception being covered by insurance, all the while Rush's massive doses of Viagara are covered by insurance (see the arrest for the 45 100mg V pills Web Link )
Can't blame the guy. All that hard core drug use involving Oxycontin (thousands of pills, want a link?) leaves his thing so it needs a lot of help.
Good thing his insurance covers his V pills.
No hypocrisy with Rush.
Lucky Rush. Getting paid to have sex, by his own words. As frightening as that image is.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Bill Maher and Ed Shultz always get passes. The left wing press and news media are hypocrites. Everyone who make sexually degrading comments about women should be criticized. But Liberal newspapers and news media love it when misogynistic remarks are made about conservative women. It makes their day. Chris Matthews gets a thrill up his leg.
Limbaugh was correctly criticized. But Maher and Shultz used langauge that was far more degrading than anything Limbaugh has ever said and not a peep was heard from the liberal media. They even do it to their own.
They demeaned Hillary and mocked her when she rean against Obama fro the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. Well folks Hillary Clinton could have a pre-frontal lobotomy and she would run circles around Obama. She is far smarter than he will ever be and is probably smarter than her husband too. She would have been a decent president. But the far left press went gaga over a genuine socialist they had to do everything they could from letting a mere liberal get elected. You get more truth reading Pravda than reading the New York Times.
Posted by Haywood, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2012 at 9:13 am
"You get more truth reading Pravda than reading the New York Times."
Upon what world do you reside?
You wrote 200 words, 4 of them were on topic: Limbaugh was correctly criticized. The rest is rambling deflection from Rush's misogyny, loss of advertisers, and failure of the crop of presidential candidates to take a stand against hate speech.
Schultz and Maher are jerks. Rush stands above them all. The world recognizes that.
That's why his show was filled with PSA ads yesterday - advertisers dropping like flies.
Posted by rush, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 10:06 am
Rush Limbaugh is a major spokesman for the Republican party. He receives major funding from Mitt Romney's company (Bain Capital) and speaks frequently at major Republican conventions. All the Republican candidates listen to what he says.
Bill Maher and Ed Shultz are nobodies. Does anyone really take them seriously?
Posted by standards matter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 3:04 pm
There should be more of a standard in the press (national and local) and these threads to attack ideas but not individuals. The real problem with Rush was his sexist attack labeling a young woman and his perverted insistence that videos be shown of private acts he imagined.
I do not condone the behavior of Bill Clinton, Edwards, Gingrich, or the language used by Maher on occasion. However, I do not remember "liberal" men make the same kind of ad hominem attacks on women as Limbaugh and Fox News commentators, and certainly haven't seen the same kind of hypocrisy as Gingrich, Hyde, et al showed impeaching Clinton for the same things they themselves were guilty of.
Posted by Mom, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 3:17 pm
awwwww, Newt just wanted an open marriage so he could be with his 2nd wife and Calista.
Makes you wonder if Calista recognizes that this marriage of hers is also an open marriage.
re standards - if you have standards, one side or the other would object on freedom of speech grounds. Take a look at the old Fairness Doctrine.
Want to force programs to offer an opposing view on every show?
Although I found it odd that last Tuesday, liberal MSNBC had on McCains 2008 campaign manager and a former RNC chair.
Think Fox would have on Howard Dean (former DNC chair) and David Axelrod (2008 dem campaign manager) to sit down on their panel for hours on end to speak freely on all subjects without someone like Andrea Makris' abuser demanding mic control?
Posted by Some Guy, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Double Standard on MISOGYNIST Attacks.
You want to know why no one calls the liberals on it? Cause the people who would call the liberals on it are the conservatives, and they don't see a problem with misogyny, so of course they don't make a big stink about it.
Of course, I have yet to hear a liberal pundit out and out call someone a slut on air. Yet you have this from Rush. [potion removed.] I heard liberals say disparaging things about women, but they tend to have more tact, and subtlety than conservatives. You can get away it if you don't say it out right.
Although, this is all quite ridiculous as the first amendment should allow Rush to say whatever he wants about people. If it offends you, then don't listen, don't give money to his advertisers.
The other cute thing about Rush's apology, it wasn't to the people he hurt, it was to the advertisers. The only thing he's sorry for is [portion removed] off the advertisers.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2012 at 6:21 am
The uproar over the Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before Congress on contraception, comes as no surprise. Contraception, like abortion, should be between the individual, their conscience, and health care provider, with no government involvement.
However, the Obama Adminstration wants goverment intrusion into every aspect of people's personal lives- including making hard working taxpayers pay for well healed law students' recreation.
What shows the Sandra Fluke issue to be a farce and setup is that the president saw fit to interject himself into the discussion and come to her defense.
Was this just to get the president more face time on TV, to continue a distraction from his ineptness on the job, or the fact he has no pressing problems to contend with such as Iran, the economy, wars, and out-of-control federal debt?
President Obama is a community organizer, debater, and fighter. He is not a Leader by any realistic measure.
To borrow from Budd Schulberg it is not results but internecine warfare is "What Makes Obama Run".
There is no other explanation for voting "present" so many times as a state senator. If he votes yea or nay he has to take a position. The president is more comfortable at the center of the fray dividing and keeping the fight alive, not producing tangible results.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2012 at 8:28 am
Teh Sandra Fluke issue is a "setup?" How do you figure? Wouldn't that require Rush to make these statements at the request of Obama? Rush shot his big mouth off as he usually does. This time he was taken to task for his disgusting comments. Setup. Riiiiiight.
Posted by Haywood, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2012 at 10:59 am
"hard working taxpayers pay for well healed law students' recreation"
The taxpayers aren't paying for Flukes healthcare needs any more than they are paying for Rush's, or your, Viagra. It's the insurance plan. Insurance companies love paying for the pill. It keeps their profits up. Viagra is another story.
"President Obama is a community organizer"
The most prevalent right wing radio slight to our American President. Well, the world has some news for the right wing radio junkies - your world is about to change. Premier is taking a huge hit:
"Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).”"
"But this latest controversy comes at a particularly difficult time for right-wing talk radio. They are playing to a (sometimes literally) dying demographic. Rush & Co. rate best among old, white males. They have been steadily losing women and young listeners, who are alienated by the angry, negative, obsessive approach to political conservations. Add to that the fact that women ages 24–55 are the prize advertising demographic, and you have a perfect storm emerging after Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke comments."
Posted by Whiskey Tango , a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm
What is wrong with you liberals? Medical insurance is for illnesses and diseases not for recreation. Guys, if you got ED then don't expect medical insurance to put lead in your pencil. And Sandra Flake, the same goes for you. What makes you think that medical insurance should cover contraception. Buy your own contraception and quit your whining.
When I went to college I took out college loans, work part time and in the summers worked full time. I did not expect anyone to provide me with recreation on the taxpayers' dime.
Now everyone knows that Sandra Fluke was a shill for the Obama administration to get the fertile women's vote. It was her good luck that Limbaugh was a big a pig as Bill Maher and Ed Shultz; but not a big a pig as Bill Clinton who used the oval office to engage in the type of sex that does not get women pregnant with a woman almost as young as his daughter.
Limbaugh is as irrelevant as Maher and Schultz. They only appeal to the crudest people. No one gives a damn about any of them except right wing and left wing extremists.
And if Maher wants to piss away a million dollars on a president who isn't going to get re-elected that's his business. Its a free country (provided Obama does not get a second term).
Now liberals go back to listening to a Tom Hanks infomercial on how great Obama is and right wingers go back to listening to Limbaugh argue how we should have a theocracy that would be the envy of the Taliban.
Posted by Mom, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Typical man, whiskey tango - "What is wrong with you liberals? Medical insurance is for illnesses and diseases not for recreation. "
Women health issues being decided by a panel of men. Get a woman up there testifying about the beneficial use of hormones for a variety of issues (including cysts in all the wrong places) and she is labeled in the most offensive manner. (Whiskey) wants Rush Limbaugh's voyeur tape after Rush is done. Disgusting.
Then the foolish claim that taxpayer money is involved with private health insurance plans. I don't get the connection. Then they bring up Clinton.
Could spend paragraphs dissecting this gem "When I went to college I took out college loans" and "I did not expect anyone to provide me with recreation on the taxpayers' dime."
Start with student loans being much higher now than when this (Whiskey Tango) went to school, go back to the taxpayer issue which I still do not understand, or how about Intimacy for this (Whiskey Tango) being mere "recreation." [Portion removed.]
Obama not reelected. Hmmmm. The GOP lost women by 13 points last time even with a strong woman on the ticket. If the Republicans keep up the war on women with record numbers of abortion restrictions across the country and their talking points on other women health issues - it will be a blowout in November.
Men making predictions about a woman's voting issues is about as effective as a panel on contraception composed of priests.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Mom makes good points (as does the unfortunately named WTF).
I can understand both sides of this issue. Some people believe that contraception is an issue of personal responsibility. Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old law student attending Georgetown School of Law where tuition is $25,000 a year - with rent, food and books, it probably costs her nearly $40,000 a year to attend. In this era of government deficits, is it too much to ask this future lawyer to take responsibility for $10 a month for her contraceptives (condoms, oc's, etc)? Using your logic, should insurance companies also provide men with condoms?
Yes, I know that contraceptives are cheaper than pregnancy. BELIEVE ME, I KNOW. And healthy food is cheaper than heart attacks.
I do have an objection to government requiring employers to carry certain insurance coverages. Some employers can only afford to offer "bare bones" coverage; some offer Cadillac packages. Shouldn't this be an economic decision?
All you are doing is forcing these employers to say "the heck with it" and let the employees get their insurance from the government pool. Then again, perhaps this is the objective.
So the question is should contraception be a mandate or does this fall into the realm of personal responsibility? It's a good question. I don't believe it a war on women - although this is a politically convenient claim - it is the mandate that is the issue.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2012 at 5:17 pm
POGO makes his usual cogent statement unfortunately Limbaugh did not but rather launched an unprincipled attack on women rather than engaging in a thoughtful debate on the mandate. It is useful to note that the mandate to offer contraception does not require anyone to use contraception. And there us sound logic in public expenditures to support preventative RXs like nicotine patches and statins so why not the option of contraceptives? And how in the world do the mandate opponents justify covering Viagra which does not prevent anything?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2012 at 7:29 am
We already have significant PUBLIC expenditures for contraceptives. Free contraceptives are readily available... literally for the asking.
The issue at hand is about mandates that insurance companies provide this - and having employers pay for it.
I don't think I could be more "pro-choice" and pro-free contraceptives if I tried. But I still believe that mandating that an employer must provide that type of benefit to an employee goes well beyond sound public policy. Why not mandate that they provide healthy food and personal trainers? It will certainly save lots of money in the long run.
That said, if an employer WANTS to provide it, that's fine - it's their business. We have employers who provide everything from free lunches to free dry cleaning.
Posted by Some Guy, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2012 at 10:57 am
Congratulations to everyone for being so distracted by this story, that you ignored world events that actually mattered.
Good job Rush, you took one for the team like a champ!
You also managed to splash some mud on Romney so he looks like a less attractive candidate.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the republicans DON'T want to win this election. And why would they? A collapse is coming, and they want to blame it on Obama. You honestly mean to tell me people like Newt, Santorum, and Rick Perry were the best the Repubs could come up with?
Posted by interesting, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Government can say gay marriage is illegal. Government can say a woman cannot have an abortion that her uterus is property of the government. Government can make corporations people.
But don't require people to carry insurance. That is wrong.
This is what today's Republicans call a platform.
Real Republicans like Reagan or GHWB are like Native Americans. You may see one or two and appreciate the historical impact they had on our country, but you will never see more than one or two at a time. They are that rare.
And this is from a Democrat. I long for the respectful and admirable debates between us.
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Regarding the core issue: If we didn't base our healthcare system on an antiquated employer-centered paradigm, the whole question of who should cover what would be moot. We also wouldn't have 40 million people without insurance and thousands of policyholders going bankrupt every year because of inadequate coverage and insurer rescissions. They do it much better elsewhere.
Regarding the unfairness of the media coverage: Mr. Limbaugh, who is worth more than $600 million, is in it for the money. Mr. Maher and Mr. Shultz are in it for the money. Fox News and the rest of the corporate media (including Pravda, nowadays) are in it for the money. Who said capitalism is supposed to be fair?
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2012 at 7:02 pm
You are absolutely correct about employer paid healthcare insurance. It got started as a "perq" and somehow came to be expected. Let people buy their own insurance. Bump their pay up to what you are willing to contribute, if anything, but that's it. Part of the reason for insanely escalating health care costs is the availability of money. Reduce it and costs will by necessity come down.
As to capitalism being fair. No one says it should be. What Rush is experiencing is the downside to free speach. You can say anything you want, but you better be prepared for the reaction.
He was for Planned Parenthood before he was against it, much like his positions on every other issue. If he were to become president, rating his progress would be fascinating - on every issue, he can say he fulfilled a promise, or others can say he broke a promise on the very same issue by looking at his flip, or at his flop.
One wonders how Mitt Romney expects to be president without women voting for him.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
FACT: "1 in 3 women have reported struggling to afford birth control." Web Link
Society benefits when women can choose if and when they have children. With access to birth control, the women are happier and more productive and their children grow up better adjusted & educated and become more productive citizens.
Without access to birth control, women have more abortions, more unwanted children, less productive & less happy lives. Their unwanted children will be less happy, less educated, less productive.
Considering the full costs of not making birth control available to all women who need it, we would be penny wise and pound foolish. Don't let ideology blind you to common sense.
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Where is this all going? This just in, from Statespress:
>>The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections. Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment. “My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said.<<
So the legislation would allow ANY employer to vet female employees' medical prescriptions on "religious" grounds--and perhaps fire them as a result. Is this freedom of religion, or is it rather an establishment of religion through the backdoor?
Again, with a single-payer healthcare system that isn't dependent on the whims of employers, this sort of abuse wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by standards matter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:13 am
Interference in a woman's private decision, in consultation with her health care provider, about the best medical care for her health issues, is outrageous. Neither her employer nor a governmental agency should have any involvement.
What is not interference is the requirement for insurance companies to offer employer-based coverage for women's health treatment, including birth control pills that could be prescribed for a number of reasons. The actual prescription and the use of these is optional, not required, by the requirement to offer such care.
Many in this thread are correct - far too many "conservatives" dislike government requirements unless it either helps them (think tax breaks for the 1%, outdated subsidies for certain types of businesses that don't need them) or subjugates women.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:45 am
This thread has gotten a bit off topic. The topic was the double standard on misogynistic attacks where people on the left such as Bill Maher and Ed Shultz can call women c**t, right wing sl*t with the approval and admiration of their following. Where Keith Olbermann can call for someone to take Secretary of State Clinton into a room and beat the crap out of her.
No one should get a pass on misogynistic attacks. Yet the left feel it is perfectly acceptable for one of their own to do so even to their own.
Kirsten Powers, a Democrat who worked in the Clinton Administration, wrote an article describing this hypocrisy. Not only is it hypocritical it sends a signal that it is OK to degrade women.
By the way I saw no conservatives defending Rush Limbaugh for his sexually degrading remarks. Yet liberals have on numerous occasions applauded, cheered and otherwise shown strong approval of Bill Maher for his sexually degrading and misogynistic remarks.
And Rush Limbaugh is no more the de facto leader of the Republican Party than Bill Maher is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. I don't know where liberals come up with such nonsense.
Posted by standards matter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
As a proud liberal, I do not condone attacks on women from anyone. But, please, Rush Limbaugh's rants and this recent attack on Ms Fluke telling her to post videos of her sex life go way way beyond what Maher and others have said about women.
Maher brings onto his show people like Ann Coulter, and he shows respect that I don't think Limbaugh ever has or would. Maher certainly is not the leader of the Democratic party, and his show is only once a week for part of the year. Limbaugh fills the airwaves for hours on end every week. There's a difference. And, again, standards matter. I don't agree with everything Maher says, but his comments are a far cry from Limbaugh.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 11:28 am
That is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will rationalize misogynistic comments from their own and claim that what the liberal did is not as bad as what the conservative did.
Conservatives excoriated Limbaugh for his misogynstic comments and then excoriated liberals for their hypocrisy.
What Limbaugh did was very bad. What Maher, Shultz, and Olvermann do on a regular basis is very bad also. There is no degree of malevalence. All their behavior is equally reprehensible. But for some reason, in the liberals' minds, if a liberal makes a misogynistic about a conservative then that is acceptable. And judging by the reactions of Maher's audience it is more than acceptable it is encouraged and applauded.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Disappointed in the Press - "Conservatives excoriated Limbaugh for his misogynstic comments"
That's great, maybe you can help me since you are such an expert!!
Please find me the quotes from Mitt Romney and Rick Santorium excoriating Limpbaugh in the 3 days following Rush's hate speech comments. As one of them is the presumptive leader of the Republican Party, I'm sure they boldly stepped forward to immediately excoriate such despicable speech. I'm sure they would not have mealymouthed their way through it by saying something pitifully weak and impudent like saying it was a "poor choice of words" after Rush called her a slut and asked for a sex tape.
I can't seem to find them and you seem to know everything.
Please find me the quotes from Mitt Romney and Rick Santorium excoriating Limpbaugh in the 3 days following Rush's hate speech comments.
Take your time. I'll wait.
Thank you for your kindness in helping. You are such a strong man.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Oh, dear me. Silly old fool!
All I can find is the weak, limp impudent phrase from Mitt on Rush calling a law student a slut and requesting her to post a sex video...
Mitt Romney: "It's not the language I would have used."
I need a strong conservative man like Disappointed to find proof for his claim: "Conservatives excoriated Limbaugh for his misogynstic comments"
Please find the Republican Party's presumptive leader's quotes excoriating Rush Limpbaugh. I'll settle for one from Mitt and one from Rick Santorium. I have trouble using the Google machine with his name.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner on Friday March 2 said the top Republican condemns a controversial comment made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Carly Fiorina (National Republican Senatorial Committee Vice-Chairman) : "That language is insulting, in my opinion"
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): Limbaugh's Comments Are "Unacceptable In Every Way."
Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): "Rush Limbaugh's Comments Are Reprehensible. He Should Apologize."
No Democrat leaders have condmened Ed Shultz, Bill Maher, or Keith Olbermann for their sexually degrading remarks toward women. The Democratic Leadership gives a free ride to liberals to make misogynisitic remarks about Republican women and in Keith Olbermann's case about a prominent democrat woman if she happens to be running against a socialist for the presidential nomination for the democratic party.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 10:15 am
Disappointed: So you have no answer to my request? What did Rick and Mitt so to excoriate Rush?
"Please find me the quotes from Mitt Romney and Rick Santorium excoriating Limpbaugh in the 3 days following Rush's hate speech comments. As one of them is the presumptive leader of the Republican Party, I'm sure they boldly stepped forward to immediately excoriate such despicable speech. I'm sure they would not have mealymouthed their way through it by saying something pitifully weak and impudent like saying it was a "poor choice of words" after Rush called her a slut and asked for a sex tape.
I can't seem to find them and you seem to know everything."
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 10:36 am
I'll play your game of diverting attention away from Rush Limbaugh's terrible remarks, since you can't answer my request above. And I thought you were such a strong, smart man! Silly old me.
Bill Maher is a comedian (though I neither care for him nor find him funny.) He is not recognized by the Democrat party nor ever honored as a member. He says many reviled things, as do too many supposed 'comedians' these days.
Rush is the voice of the conservative movement - few Republicans ever hold him accountable.
Where is the tape of the Speaker of the House excoriating him? A statement from an aide is not "excoriation." The Speaker is arguably the leader of the Republican Party until Mitt is nominated. Oh, dear me, I found it, what you where referring to:
"CNN: Boehner hits Limbaugh's comments as 'inappropriate'"
My dear, dear Disappointed; perhaps you should review the definitions of the words: 'inappropriate' & 'excoriate'. I fear you are a tiny bit confused as to the meanings of those words.
- Ronald Reagan told Rush Limbaugh : "Now that I've retired from active politics, I don't mind that you've become the number-one, voice for conservatism in our country."
- A Republican representative once placed a tribute to Limbaugh in the Congressional Record.
- The freshman Republican class of 1994 made Limbaugh an honorary member of their class.
I do believe we are all best served by condemning Rush Limbaugh's remarks and not try to make him look better by Disappointed's fabrications or deflection upon some very rude statements by meaningless comments a couple years ago.
Have a nice St Pat's, my dear. I'm sure you can download some of those newfangled pod-casts of your boy Rush to keep you occupied the rest of the weekend. I hear those pod-casts are like his radio show this week.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
1. Rush Limbaugh is not the de facto leader of the Republican Party. He is no more the de facto leader of the Republican Party than Bill Maher is of the Democratic Party
2. Democrats give fellow Democrats a pass when it comes to misogynistic comments towards Republican women. And it is OK for Democrats to go after Secretary of State Clinton. After all she was a mere liberal getting in the way of getting a bonafide socialist elected to hte Presidency.
3. At least some Republicans condemn Limbaugh for his remarks. Where are the Democrats comdemnation of Bill Maher for calling Sarah Palin a c**t or for making crude references that her 14 year old daughter was having sex with a baseball player twice her age? There are not any. That is because when it comes to misogynistic comments the Democrats are hypocrites.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
You seem to be quite happy comparing Rush with a vulgar, distasteful, unfunny 'comedian'. Delighted we can gain agreement!
You have yet to prove your claim of Republican leaders excoriating Rush: "Conservatives excoriated Limbaugh for his misogynstic comments"
There has been zero excoriation from the leaders that matter: The Republican Speaker of the House (said: 'inappropriate') nor either of the presumptive leaders of the Republican party (Mitt 'not the language I would have used' Romney or Rick Santorum.) So let's let your claim of Conservative Excoriation rest, shall we?
"He is no more the de facto leader of the Republican Party than Bill Maher is of the Democratic Party" Despite the listed Congressional honors or President Reagan's thoughts to the contrary? One knows without debate that Rush means far more to the conservative movement than the distasteful Mahler does to any liberal movement. To claim otherwise is rather silly, even you must agree.
If you don't agree, I would be happy to match you quote for quote on support for Rush. In my silly little old quiver, I have quotes from Pat Buchanan and other movement icons, both President Bush's, President Reagan, former Chairmen of the RNC and almost untold House and Senate members. I shan't bore you with all their man-blubbering, suffice to say there appears to be an inordinate amount of love and respect for a man with several mugshots posted online for his indiscretions with pharmaceuticals.
You insist on bringing up rather unrelated items such as an unwed teenage mother (the only one to stand on a nomination stage of a family values party, to my knowledge) dating a ball player. Dearest Disappointed, if you continue on this path of seeking every Bogeyman to bolster your attempts to excuse the inexcusable, I fear you will soon be reaching back to Mr Clinton and his affair, or even further back to my time, when Mr Kennedy had several infamous dalliances.
Is that what you require? Using strong historical men to prove either you or Rush are indeed Real Men? I'm so confused as to your inadequate methods of defending Rush, bordering on 'two wrongs make a right'.
Yes dear, you have been quite inadequate thus far, but please, continue to enlighten me with your vast historical knowledge. It's been a lonely day, I delight in your company.
Posted by Foxtrot, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Rush Limbaugh has a small following from the Far Right. It is the Pat Buchanan crowd who adores Rush. Most moderate Republicans see him for what he is. That is xenophobic, homophobic, racially intolerant bigot.
Moderate Republicans are quite embarrassed by Mr. Limbaugh because he creates the misperception that most Republicans are like him. Nothing could be further from the truth. His values are not ours.
You don't see mainstream Republicans cheering Libaugh on. You do, however, see Democrats cheering Bill Maher on, and gleefully laughing when he makes misogynistic remarks against Republican women. Not only are Democrats not condemning Maher they are joining in unseemly misogynistic behavior
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm
As I understand our modern culture, I don't see politicians excoriating comedians or actors much since the lovely Dan Quayle addressed Murphy Brown.
Interesting statement: "You don't see mainstream Republicans cheering Libaugh on. You do, however, see Democrats cheering Bill Maher on, and gleefully laughing when he makes misogynistic remarks against Republican women."
I don't see the leaders of the Republican Party excoriating Rush, despite the insistence otherwise of my dear friend Disappointed. Can you help enlighten me with examples of Democratic leaders "cheering on" the uncouth comedian?
You may have missed my comment on the knitting bag (quiver was an overstatement, an artifact of my younger athletic days) of comments supporting Rush by the likes of many Buchanan and other conservative movement icons, both President Bush's, President Reagan, former chairmen of the RNC and almost untold House and Senate members.
Excuse me for being a little risque after my post midday meal apertif, but when it comes to your quotes of Democratic leaders cheering on the comedian and my quotes of Republican leaders supporting Rush, well dear, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
I suspect I'm far better prepared to do so in that area than you, Mr Foxtrot.
Good day to you, as I amble on to my afternoon respite.
Oh, one last curiosity - who would you claim to be moderate leaders of today's Republican party? Or even Republicans who are moderate leaders? They seem as rare as discussion of a Reagan Democrat these days. Please help me understand if you have the time.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm
No one ever said that Rush Limbaugh's behavior was excusable because Democrats have been doing the same thing. All that was pointed out was that Republicans never gave an excuse for Limbaugh's egregious behavior while Democrats look the other way when one of their own engages in the same behavior. It's a bit hypocritical for Democrats to give a pass to their own while excoriating a Republican for doing the same thing.
I am glad that advertisers are walking. Limbaugh does nothing but tarnish the Republican brand. He's an uncouth gutter snipe like Maher, Schultz, and Olbermann.
As punishment they all should be forced to listen to Al Gore speeches for hours on end. But that may be in violation of the 1954 Geneva Conventions and the Helsinki Accords on Human Rights
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm
You have yet to validate many of your claims, skipping my most current request: "Can you help enlighten me with examples of Democratic leaders "cheering on" the uncouth comedian?"
Also looking forward to the quotes you claim you have of Republican leaders excoriating Mt Limbaugh, starting with the Speaker, Romney and Santorum.
"As punishment they all should be forced to listen to Al Gore speeches for hours on end."
A delightful idea!! We can all start with the speech Mr Gore gave criticizing the plan to invade Iraq, a powerful and foretelling speech. Those on the right used reviews such as "Al must be off his meds" and some such.
Let's review with the benefit of hindsight - who was correct about Iraq? That would be Mr Gore, of course. Actually listening to his speech on Iraq instead of merely belittling the man would have saved thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, along with many other benefits.
So many thanks for the delightful idea of reviewing Mr Gore's speeches! You are indeed prescient - those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Are you talking about the Al Gore who travels the world in his private Gulfstream V and whose Nashville mansion consumes 20 times the energy of his neighbors? Not to mention is big limos and Santa Barbara Home that is over 9,000 square feet. He preaches reducing the carbon footprint and while he is not trying to solicit sex from a Portland Masseuse he is making a huge carbon footprint.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 3:04 pm
My dear Disappointed:
You have yet to validate many of your claims, skipping my most current request: "Can you help enlighten me with examples of Democratic leaders "cheering on" the uncouth comedian?"
Also looking forward to the quotes you claim you have of Republican leaders excoriating Mt Limbaugh, starting with the Speaker, Romney and Santorum.
You originally deflected to Mr Gore's speeches and then when one of his greatest contributions in speech is highlighted, you deflect again. While I have enjoyed our discussion, you have a disconcerting habit of not proving your claims, of deflecting to some other tangent. While you are consistent with that tactic, you are not very good at it. This lessens your impact.
Posted by Disappointed in the Press, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 8:43 pm
What Dorotny ignores is the consistent misogyny of many prominent, mainstream liberals against conservative women.
In fact, while one is hard pressed to find another conservative in the mainstream besides Limbaugh who has attacked a liberal woman in such vulgar sexual terms, finding incidents of vulgar sexual slurs against conservative woman is, unfortunately, as easy as gathering low-hanging fruit. Daily Beast columnist Kristin Powers has provided two excellent columns on the hypocrisy of liberals:
Although he has strong competition, Bill Maher rates pretty high on the liberal misogyny meter. (I want to digress here to state I don’t want Maher, or any of his hostile-to-women colleagues fired, or suffer organized efforts to have employers or advertisers fire them. That should be the job of audiences.) But the hypocrisy level of how liberals treat Maher and others is amazing.
Case in point: President Barack Obama’s chief adviser, David Axelrod, has appropriately condemned Rush Limbaugh and even criticized Mitt Romney for insufficient outrage. Yet, Axelrod is planning to be a future guest on Maher’s HBO show. Some of Maher’s remarks include calling Sarah Palin a “twat” and using “MILF,” a sexually vulger term, to describe Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Suggestions that an Obama-supporting superPAC, Priorities USA, return a $1 million donation from Maher were described as “crazy” by Bill Burton who runs the superPAC.
Let me agree with Mr. Burton that it is “crazy” that the money be returned. In his own way, Burton is being candid. The truth is that for a long time, a sufficient number of Democrats, whether described as liberals, leftists or progressives, have not only approved of the misogyny of Maher and others against conservative women, they’ve chortled at the jokes, cheered enthusiastically, and passed them on.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 9:34 pm
"What Dorotny ignores"
My oh my, before we get to what I perhaps have ignored, or refuting your new claims in another attempt at deflection, lets review that our dear Disappointed is ignoring his own false claims:
You have yet to validate many of your claims, skipping my most current request: "Can you help enlighten me with examples of Democratic leaders "cheering on" the uncouth comedian?"
Also looking forward to the quotes you claim you have of Republican leaders excoriating Mt Limbaugh, starting with the Speaker, Romney and Santorum."
Dearest Disappointed - once your wild claims have been proven false, why would I desire to read more unrelated claims?
Attempting to convince women, in this day of Govs. Rick Perry and Bob McDonnell and their trans-vaginal probes, that Liberals are anti-women and Republicans are nothing but respectful in their forced probing of women's private areas in an unnecessary medical procedure is a tall order indeed.
Mr Limbaugh's request for sex videos and obscenities about a student make your path more difficult.
Posted by Double Standard, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 7:23 am
President Obama and his Democrat cohorts, including elected officials and liberal media sycophants, are telling us there's a "War on Women."
According to President Obama, using the term "slut" is "horrible."
So why did President Obama not object to his wife's appearance on David Letterman's show last night? Michelle Obama's appearance on the David Letterman Show was tacit White House approval of David Letterman's misogynistic remarks. Even David Alexrod can't spin that.
to take a walk down memory lane--In June 2009, Letterman did a "Top Ten list" on Sarah Palin's trip to New York.
10. Visited New York landmarks she normally only sees from Alaska
9. Laughed at all the crazy-looking foreigners entering the U.N.
8. Made moose jerky on Rachael Ray
7. Keyed Tina Fey's car
6. After a wink and a nod, ended up with a kilo of crack
5. Made coat out of New York City rat pelts
4. Sat in for Kelly Ripa. Regis couldn't tell the difference.
3. Finally met one of those Jewish people Mel Gibson's always talking about
2. Bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look
1. Especially enjoyed not appearing on Letterman
The "Bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her 'slutty flight attendant' look" is particularly relevant since Obama was so deeply troubled by Rush Limbaugh's on-air comments about political activist and 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke.
Letterman not only insulted Sarah Palin. He took a shot at flight attendants.
No problem for Obama. No problem for Michelle.
And this was not the first time Letterman made misogynistic remarks. Letterman has spent years verbally viciously assaulting Sarah Palin and her children, with impunity for the most part.
David Letterman, a 63 year old man said about Sarah Palin who the night before took her 14 year old daughter Willow to a yankee game:
"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game -- During the seventh inning her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez"
To see the misogynistic film (You have to see the lobster commercial first)clip click here
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 9:06 am
Oh my, dear disappointed, there is a phrase a polite lady shouldn't use, but suffice to say, you seem to have your undergarments in disarray.
"Letterman shouldn't get a pass. Bill Maher shouldn't get a pass. Jon Stewart shouldn't get a pass and neith should Rush Limbaugh. "
One of these is not like the others.
Three are entertainers.
One is called, by the top tier of the Republican party hierarchy over the years "you've become the number-one, voice for conservatism in our country" (R Reagan) and worshiped accordingly. The hypocrisy is they have not denounced Rush after lauding him for decades. You've spent a dozen words mildly chastising Rush and thousands to deflect from his barbaric statements, comparing him to vulgar comedians.
Dear me, it seems that your blinders won't let you see what 90% of Limbaugh's advertisers have viewed quite clearly.
But march on to entertainers, however vulgar, at your insistence we shall! I don't approve of vulgarities addressed to men or women, nor our Presidents. Shall we denounce the Tea Party signs that step over the edge and all those that support the tea Party? The terrible jokes about President Bush's inability to speak clearly on occasion?
Shall we compile a list of Republicans that have been with Mr Letterman? Mitt Romney and the rest of the presidential field have all fought to appear on Mr Letterman's show - Cain, Huntsman etc..
Posted by Double Standard, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 11:09 am
You must be confused. Rush Limbaugh is not connected to the Republican party whereas David Brock of Media Matters takes marching orders from his benefactor George Soros and White House operatives.
Limbaugh expouses far right wing views, that are endorsed by two soon to be losers Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. The mainstream Republican candidate, and the eventual nominee in Tampa Florida, Governor Mitt Romney is not part of the Rush Limbaugh clique. Governor Romney is a focused and accomplished Republican leader who was elected Governor in the most liberal State in this country-- Massachusetts.
So we are going to have a contest with Governor Romney running against President Obama who has accumulated more debt in just over 3 years than George W. Bush did in a enrire 8 years as President!
When the young under 30 voters realize that Barack Obama has bankrupted their future by saddling them with such huge debts that they will be the first generation with a lower standard of living than their parents, they will bolt and vote for Governor Romney. They are not going to be fooled twice by President Obama's unctuous disingenuous rhetoric.
But Dorothy you can take solace in Obama winning California. I hope that makes you feel better.
I am going to feel much better when on November 6 I see President Elect Romney garnering over 300 electoral votes.
Turn out the lights the party's over. Only 231 days until America votes thumbs down on Obama's disastrous experiment with socialism.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
Dearest double standard:
Rush has been praised by virtually all Republican leaders, including the last three presidents, honored by House resolutions and scores of House and Senate members, chairmen of the Republican National Committee and on and on. I have asked before, would you like the instances and quotes? The few that have crossed Mr Limbaugh have soon crawled forward to beg mercy.
I personally have taken that as an affront to Republican voters of a more moderate temperament.
Are we are now done with your Letterman comment, you graciously offer yet another attempt to deflect from Rush Limbaugh's awful statements? You seem to now want to deflect to something entirely different.
You brought up Governor Romney. As said before, the Governor's remarks about the despicable language used by Rush along with the request for a sex video: "It's not the language I would have used."
If, as you claim, there is no respect for Mr Limbaugh, why wouldn't the good Governor Romney have said something with a little more spine?
Both you, I and most proper Americans have agreed about the egregious statements by Rush, yet Mr Romney doesn't seem bothered at all.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 11:36 am
"But Dorothy you can take solace in Obama winning California."
I believe I have not addressed the president, nor the Democrat party above. Please do not be so brash as to assign your fantastic thoughts or assumptions to me without proper discussion thereof. Even though based on your writings, it appears to be yet another trivial deflection, I ask you to honor me by not assigning assumptions.
Posted by Double Standard, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:51 pm
This film clip shows the misogynistic comments by the likes of Ed Shultz, David Letterman, Tom Hanks, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher.
Liberals are hypocrites. The amount of misogynistic comments by liberals in the media far outpace those from conservatives in the media, yet they act as if conservatives are the only ones who do this. The facts are that conservatives engage in misogynistic speech far less frequently than liberals.
Posted by aghast, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2012 at 4:11 pm
I never had the stomach to watch Rush in action (or listen to him for that matter after my curiosity got the better of me and I tuned in a couple of times), but I watched this video aghast in spite of my stomach turning in revulsion. Posting images of this fat clown in every bedroom in America would be the most effective form of birth control ever invented.
Posted by Haywood, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2012 at 11:19 am
Ann Romney weighs in, trying to appear sympathetic to women who work, only she has as many unforced errors as her husband....
"Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids."