Bio
Publishes Mamalogues® and is a talk radio host. Blogher contributing political editor; also contributes to Mamapop, Imperfect Parent, Momversation, an...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

Dear World: Rush Limbaugh is NOT Head of the GOP or Conservatism

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 108
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The Republican Committee may have elected Michael Steele as its new chair, but you can't tell if you've paid any attention at all to the headlines. This isn't due to the left's incessant attempts to portray Rush Limbaugh as the real head of the party - more on this in a bit; rather, it's due to a continuous power vacuum and Steele's hesitance to embrace conservative ideology for fear of sacrificing his "big tent" pseudo-popularity.

Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington

I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm not reluctant to admit such; regardless your opinion of him, the man is a brilliant talk radio host and as a talk radio host, I appreciate the skill that goes into driving a daily, four-hour long program with nothing in the room but you, a mic, and maybe an engineer. The names that pop up on the call screen are the only proof that you are still connected to the outside world, the only proof that you're having a conversation. (Emails, et al., are an indication too, but not nearly as organic.) Limbaugh is theatrical; an impresario in the sphere of politics; as good a strategist as Newt Gingrich; as sharp on the uptake as Ronald Reagan; and every bit as vain as any entertainer with his influence.

I regularly find Limbaugh's analysis clever and his ability to hold the GOP's feet to the fire impressive. I'm not going to bash Limbaugh - that's a weak tactic employed by "Republicans" who think the quickest way to earning relevancy is to bash the talk giant (or their own) as a cheap way to appear "bipartisan." I am, however, going to be honest.

I watched some of the CPAC coverage, the big conservative conference in Washington D.C., over the weekend. That same weekend nearly 150,000 people gathered in Las Vegas for Nascar's Sprint Cup Series. I bet if you polled the audience not more than half of them would have been able to even define what CPAC was and why it was being held or who was holding it. So instead of getting out there, holding free meetings with the average American citizen at a time when Americans feel the most under-represented - so much so that they've taken to protesting in the streets and dumping tea in the rivers as a revival of the 1773 aesthetic just to get their voices heard - Republicans holed up at a conference and talked about the technology that many of them still aren't using adequately (the conservative citizens who took to the streets? Another story) and discussed their identity.

Ugh. The Republican party is going through one of those annoying, angsty, and self-imposed "I have to find myself" phases. It seems offensively overindulgent.

I say this because we have a group of policy-makers and wonks sitting around in dark lecture halls wondering what conservative really means, man. And out of all of them, a 13-year-old got it the best: conservatism is conservatism. It is what it is. There is no modification, no redefining. Limbaugh made this point as well, in between grandstanding for the cameras.

I'm not criticizing those who did attend CPAC; I think it's a relatively good idea; but it seemed most of the focus was redundant considering we know what conservatism is. The problem isn't recognition: the problem is that most Republicans are too chicken to embrace it.

When Limbaugh took to the podium he was only supposed to speak for 20 minutes but instead went on for an hour-and-a-half. If you are in the business of talking and thinking out loud, this is not problem. Normally I enjoy Limbaugh's speeches. This time though, I thought that he'd gone over the top.

After the speech the media assailed, quipping, writing that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP and the RNC are nothing but yes men. Michael Steele appeared on D.L. Hughleys CNN show and all but cowered when Hughley compared the GOP to the Nazi Party. Steele overlooked the comment and allowed a truly incendiary comment to be made - to say nothing of the feelings of countless Jewish Republicans, many of whom are among my acquaintance.

Steele went for the bait and allowed himself to be compromised when he clumsily defended himself. ( I do like how he corrected Hughley on the latter's statement that Limbaugh was the "de facto leader of the Republican Party." That's about it,

  • 108
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
evilslutopia 5 pts

Dana, you said you would respond to the alleged hate speech if someone could offer you PROOF. It's been a few days since we provided actual audio of Rush Limbaugh saying one of the quotes Erin attributed to him.

So are you going to keep your word and finally respond, or not?

The Evil Slut Clique

EvilSlutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

shelleyp 5 pts

Wow, I'm late to this party.

Dana, I love reading your posts. It's like a textual version of Clue. And I wanted to say, stick by your guns. Don't allow the commenters to lure you into a debate. You just continue repeating the same thing, over and over again. It's perfectly acceptable to refuse to engage with others until every single one of your demands is met. 

Personally, I couldn't be more delighted by the state of affairs within the Republican party. I think it's wonderful that Limbaugh is getting the recognition from True Conservatives that he deserves.  I'm especially looking forward to appreciation of him increasing over the next two years, before the mid-term election. 

It's time the conservatives realize that the Republican party is no longer their party. Perhaps they'll even show their displeasure by their votes.  True democracy in action, and more power to 'em. 

You're also extremely right (pun not intended)--it is time for the conservatives to embrace their conservatism, totally and completely. No more of this moderate wishy washy stuff; no more compromises, or trying to find a middle ground, or embracing of bipartisanship. Pick a mark and stand by it and if elections are lost, who cares? Isn't what's important that you stand by what you believe?

The only thing I didn't care for in your post was the use of the term "menstrual", as in "These are the people who completely go menstrual when anything critical..." That's really playing to the boys at the expense of the girls, by catering to that old chestnut about women responding passionately or angrily because "it's that time of the month". I'm surprised to see this type of phrase in a post at Blogher. 

Other than that, stand by your beliefs. You go, girl. 

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

For the compliment:

"More lovely civil discourse from you, Jill"

Re your writing this:

"For a variety of reasons, I've chosen not to use my name...although as
you've pointed out at least three times on another thread, you can find
it easily enough if you feel so compelled to look."

Please provide the links - I saw the one, which I provided in this thread already, and for which I take responsibility. There are another two? 

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

nellewrites 6 pts

I am probably older than most around here, what with memories of presidents actively stretching back to JFK. I was around for Ike, but well, he never caught my attention like JFK did.

Anyway, over the time since, both parties, liberalism and conservatism, have evolved.  Think of the social issues that were front and centre then, think of how they are different now.

And of course, there was escalation in Vietnam, and the subsequent reaction.

When Nixon was president, setting aside what we all most recall about him, his political outlook largely was left of most in the Republican party today. So too Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller.

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford idealogically, in terms of at the time they were in office, are not far apart. Differences, but not huge differences.

The country moved right in the 1970s, I could feel it, and recall thinking it at the time, it was quite dismaying. And that is where we've pretty much camped out since, with the political centre to the right of what it was when I was in my first year of college in 1972.

Now, as if along a slide slip fault, the country has jerked back left, and as it did, the GOP, and many prominent media conservatives, were caught standing behind a wall that just disappeared - in their skivvies.

When we are caught so unaware, our inclination is to panic; alternatives buzz through our minds, trying to latch on to something, anything to react postively to the change. It usually takes a deep, calming breath to reset and get our wits about us again.

The right has to move left, I know that sounds unthinkable, but the left had to move right, and did, with Bill Clinton. Now the right is up, and it has to think on whether the right as constituted 8 years ago makes sense in the America of right now.

People in the US turn left when they hurt economically, and they are hurting now.

When Steele made his comment, I thought this was a good thing, he was doing what is ultimately necessary, moving away from the Limbaugh type conservatives. The GOP could do worse than to start looking toward Christine Whitman as one to guide them idealogically.

Instead, the remnants of power on the right, powerless except amongst those relative few (percentage wise) who still cling to the 2001 ideal, exert this power to prevent the party from changing as is necessary. The chance will come again, it must come again, but are those on the right ready to adjust to changed circumstance?

If they do not, then the right will fail to provide any significant natioanl political competition for at least a dozen years.  

In my opinion. ;-) 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

nellewrites 6 pts

It was a sea change for me, something I've never done in my life.

What is weird is that start to present, more than 1000 book pages worth of story, I can see how my writing has grown significantly, so in that regard it is encouraging!

When starting, I was tentative, not sure about having it out here for people to read. Little by little, others challenged me or I challenged myself in new ways, and now the setting gives me the ability to tackle issues, given the protagonists are decidedly activist.

A few weeks back I did one on Myanmar, and for the first and only time, I used an actual name - the head of the junta there, and well, lets just say in my writing, he is out of work. ;-)

The latest writing is with Beirut, where I try to take a horrific and yet show the city in a better way than most of us are probably used to seeing, and delving into an issue where there is some disagreement between feminists here and there - wearing hijab, and did it in my own way. 

The incident in Beirut is also (so far) told from three different perspectives, one being first person, a writing approach that is as challenging as it is fun, definitely my favourite to do, but a rarity, with, if I recall correctly, 8 of 321 story elements written this way.

OK, so I'm totally off subject here, but I appreciate your asking. I put a lot of me into that writing, as we all do with our respective work, of course.  

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Denise 11 pts moderator

Anonymity is not a crime and it is not a community guidelines violation on BlogHer.com.

People have the right to choose their level of transparency and their choices should be respected. There is never a time when it's ok to call someone out because they do not use their full names, their real names or any other recognizable identifiers.

If at any time a member of this community feels concern over an "anonymous" member or an "anonymous" member feels she is being attacked for her anonymity, I would like to be contacted at denise@blogher.com

I would like to add that whether you're anonymous or not, if you are engaging in discussion or activity online that can be traced and referred to by other members of the community, then odds are it will happen. For that reason I always tell people that they have to be ready to own their online personas (all of them) in all arenas. We really never know when our activity in one place will be noticed by those we interact with in other places.

We're way off topic here. I'd like to suggest we move back to the original topic - Who IS in charge of the GOP and conservatism?

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

When people use anonymity to throw bricks and hide their hands, anonymity is an issue. When people go online and pretend to be something other than what they are to create confusion or derail conversations with a hidden agenda or to undermine a website via subterfuge, anonymity is an issue.  Think stalker, think troll, think political operative, think paid spammers for products.

If you don't do that, then your real name or anonymity is a nonissue.

I'm not talking about Norma156 right now because I don't know her. I'm talking about anonymity issues in general.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

Norma156 5 pts

More lovely civil discourse from you, Jill.

"...you attempted to present yourself as one way, when in fact you've written contradictory opinions in other forums."  

"I'd perceived in the comments you wrote in that BlogHer thread to
appear as if they were very veiled attempts to present yourself in a
very calculated way that just didn't ring complete."

"That's no threat, Norma, unless you really want to stay hidden and hope
people don't go looking to understand where you're coming from."

So in the course of one post you suggest that I'm a liar and that I'm somehow "hiding" by choosing not to reveal my name.

This represents civil discourse? This represents heated debate?

Huh?

I have blogged, if that's what you call leaving comments on various posts, for a relatively short time, maybe eight or nine months. 

Before beginning to follow blogher, I posted on Alphawoman under the same Norma156 for a few months, immediately before the election.

I no longer post there very often because the topics discussed are almost exclusively romantic and relationship issues, however, occasionally I do as there are one or two people there whose opinions I value.

I invite any of you to visit that site and read what I've written. Some of the posts are more personal than comments posted here, but in no sense are opinions, particularly political opinions, contradictory to anything I've written here.

Dana is a contributing editor to this site. I would expect her to reveal her identity. I am not. For a variety of reasons, I've chosen not to use my name...although as you've pointed out at least three times on another thread, you can find it easily enough if you feel so compelled to look.

evilslutopia 5 pts

For the record, there are two of us who use this account to comment, and we realized that could get confusing for other people reading, so from now on we're going to sign our comments 'Jezebel' and 'Lilith' so that people know who they're talking to.

As far as our name - "EvilSlutopia" and "Evil Slut Clique" are partly inside jokes for us, but it's also an effort to reclaim "slut", a word which is normally used to shame and degrade women, and kinda refuel some of the energy around the word with different power and different intentions.  We know that some women are in favor of the idea of reclaiming words and some women don't like it, and we can definitely understand and respect different views on the subject.  But at the same time, I don't think that me calling myself a slut is the same thing as if someone like Rush Limbaugh called me a slut, because the intention matters.  

I really don't buy the 'he's just being provocative' argument.  Does that mean that I can go back to my blog right now and post something full of heinous racist, sexist, and homophobic comments, and then turn around and tell people that they can't be offended and can't call me racist/sexist/homophobic because hey, I was just trying to be provocative?  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If you use racism, sexism, and homophobia to provoke people...then you just might be a racist sexist homophobe.

I feel the same about your defense of the term feminazi.  (And as a feminist I also take issue with your definition of what a feminist believes.)  Why use the term Nazi at all if not to associate feminists with Nazis?  And why can't he disagree with feminists without the use of a stupid offensive nickname?  As I said earlier, if I was all over this thread just saying "Rush Limbaugh is a Nazi!" over and over, I would certainly have people taking me to task for that, so I'm not sure why it's excused that Rush calls many of us Nazis every day.

~Jezebel

The Evil Slut Clique
( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

EvilSlutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

nellewrites 6 pts

and yes, it is a worthy topic for another time.

Fortunately I do not write to call out others, and over time my blogging has morphed from view-sharing to fiction writing. One can do much with social commentary via fiction, and I am just beginning to explore the possibilities. :-)

I do appreciate your standing up and saying 'it was me' in whatever context that means, for I have no doubt there will be continued disagreement over matter.

Please know Jill that I've always valued your views and your writings, and I do not use anything in this thread to alter that view.

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Denise 11 pts moderator

Email me about this please. denise@blogher.com

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Erin Kotecki Vest 5 pts

"As far as I know, no organized group of sluts ever attempted to kill other people for not being slutty. "

bwhahhaahahahahahahahaha

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Just wanted you to know that I saw you've been writing fiction.  Good for you! I plan to visit your space.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

evilslutopia 5 pts

I think Jezebel explained things pretty well, but I'll add my 2 cents, since the feminazi/evil slut comment was directed at me (being the Jewish evil slut, heh).

I don't think there's anything wrong with being provocative or saying things for shock value. I don't condemn anyone for being offended by the term slut, however you'll notice that we don't use the term to describe other women (even those who might, to borrow Dana's phrase, "deserve it"). We use it to describe ourselves, and it alludes to the way that some closeminded conservatives may view us (i.e., if that's what they think of me because I'm liberal or sexual or feminist, then fine, I'm proud to be the evil slut they think I am). On the other hand, very few feminists would claim themselves to be feminazis. Rush Limbaugh uses it as an insult. Dana has not claimed to define the term in a new, positive, refueled way.

I also think you have to recognize a huge distinction between the term "nazi" and the term "slut". The Nazis were a real group of people who committed real heinous acts against other real people. As far as I know, no organized group of sluts ever attempted to kill other people for not being slutty.

And for the record, our definition of "slut" does not necessarily imply promiscuity or even sexual activity at all. If you go to our website, you can find a full explanation of our usage of the term "evil slut" (you know, just for the record).

-Lilith

The Evil Slut Clique

EvilSlutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

What I’m about to say has nothing to do with whether Rush Limbaugh uses hate speech, whether he’s a racist or a homophobe. What I’m talking about now is motivation, and while you may have more to say about economics, I have more to say about people, perceptions, and the end goal of a communications strategy:

This comment published before I was finished editing it.  It had been my intent to move it to my Zombie Post ( http://writingjunkie.net/blog/2009/03/07/do-you-re... ), but I hit the wrong button.

It's been moved now if you want to read it, Norma, to The Zombie Post.  My reponse addresses only one paragraph of what you said because that's all I felt like addressing.  I've decided to stop leaving longer, thoughful responses on this particular thread and deal with my concerns elsewhere.

I didn't respond to your feelings that you are being attacked because I think lots of people feel they've been attacked just because people disagree with what they say and challenge their belief systems. That's life in general and probably some personal issues too.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

I don't know anything about the asking Norma to leave the forum or the other allegations about personal attacks, though - only the comment I take responsibility for.

The name thing is an evergreen and fascinating issue.  Although when I first started blogging, the anonymity of my commenters often bugged the heck out of me and I often would seek to determine who some of them were (it became a "name that tune" kind of thing), not once did I ever or have I ever "outed" someone except to them if that was appropriate (like an Ohio county GOP officer who told me I was anti-Semitic - his URL in the comment info went directly to this GOP site - not smart if you want to call people names and hide, so I wrote him advising him that he might want to reconsider using his GOP office's URL when leaving those kinds of remarks on people's blogs).

But you just learn to trust people as best you can or make sincere pleas to help build trust.

The best case I've ever encountered (and there are others of course) for anonymity were two women, both of whom are the wives of Orthodox rabbis.  They both wrote incredibly stuff and for a very long time.  Both have been featured in articles across the country, including takes on their anonymity as well as their content.  And there was a lawsuit against one, "Orthomom" in which a school board member in Orthomom's city tried to get a court to force out Orthomom's identity.  She had a lawyer whose name I forget now but he's done a lot of cases like that- been in the news a lot for it - and in the end, the court decided in Orthomom's favor (the school board person was actually concerned with alleged defamatory comments about her ON Orthomom's blog - Orthomom herself was somewhat irrelevant).

Anyway - it's a topic for a whole nother place and time.  I just wanted to be clear that the blogger Norma was referring to was me, the comment where I wrote what she references was on BlogHer and it can be read in the context of the thread in which it appears and be seen that it's no threat to "reveal" or anything but in fact I was working desperately to try and understand her and engage.  If that's something I need to apologize for doing overzealously, then I apologize - I do take engagement very seriously (I know that will make some people laugh - it's practically an understatement when it comes to me!).

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

nellewrites 6 pts

I never ever will share my real name on the internet, for a bazillion reasons. Those who know me (Denise and Sassymonkey among others here) know my identity, but I prefer anonymity to the greater numbers out here.

I do not think that should be a factor in evaulation of the thoughts and opinion one offers up. Of course, people should refrain from going after other bloggers as well via their actual identity, so in that sense, hiding behind anonymity and sniping at an actual person's identity is not cool. 

I know not what occurred, whether it is accurate, etc... but I do hope forums in which I choose to participate are vibrant, aggressive places, yet know where things start to cross lines.

Far be it for me to say where the lines are, that is for the BlogHer owner and staff for this place, and write only to share how I view things from inside my little bubble. 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

That I believe you're referring to. ( http://www.blogher.com/so-dissent-still-highest-fo... )

People can go read it in that context and decide for themselves if it's a vague threat to you or not.

Threat of what would be my only remaining question.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

The communication to you by a "blogger" about finding information on the Internet was written by me in a comment on a BlogHer post in which you attempted to present yourself as one way, when in fact you've written contradictory opinions in other forums. 

I'd perceived in the comments you wrote in that BlogHer thread to appear as if they were very veiled attempts to present yourself in a very calculated way that just didn't ring complete.  So, in an attempt to understand where in the world you were coming from, I googled "Norma156" and from that, was able to learn more about the opinions you express, at least on the Internet, and so on.

The comment I left on BlogHer about the ability to do that made the point that it's easy to do that and so just let it loose, why hide?  That's no threat, Norma, unless you really want to stay hidden and hope people don't go looking to understand where you're coming from.

I put myself out there everyday on my blog and have from day one. I must say, it's one thing (among a few to be honest) that I absolutely admire about Dana - she puts her name on everything and you can find out about her and where she comes from.  That's what encourages people to trust what she says and know that her passion is real. 

I'm very big on wanting to understand where people are coming from and when I feel like people are trying to hide it, that's the red flag for me to go look.

If you find that to be intimidating, well, that's too bad that you feel a need to hide.

But it was no threat, and, again, feel free to name me and even link to the comment where I wrote that.  I'd appreciate it if you not seek to demonize me and make what I wrote out to be something it wasn't, unless, again, you felt that way about it (that it was intimidating to think that we can't hide as easily as we'd like to and then present ourselves in varying ways).

I'm a big girl too and take responsibility for what I wrote and the point I was making.  

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Erin Kotecki Vest 5 pts

That any comments in violation of BlogHer's community guidelines are handled appropriately by our community manager.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Erin Kotecki Vest 5 pts

WHich is why it was "just a note"

Now, as to what you said... it baffles me. If Rush ISN'T a bigot, homophobe, etc. etc... then I really don't know who is.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

nellewrites 6 pts

and hope most of us can understand that debate means a free exchange of ideas.

I hope that we can move past the divisiveness; at the end of the day, I like to think those of different views can find some common ground in association, in friendship, etc.I'm weird like that.

Our views are roughly polar opposite, but shouting down and chasing away is no solution, it creates new divides over which we must build yet more bridges.

I know not the facts of the allegations, but I hope that anyone stating such things takes stock and realises in the long run that is quite counterproductive... to everyone. 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Norma156 5 pts

I'm going to say this only once. I'm not here to whine. I've been told to get off the forum. I've been vaguely threatened by one blogger who asserted she knows who I can and can find out about me courtesy of the internet. (Big whoop!) I've been personally characterized in the most negative of terms.

However, I'm a big girl. And that was not the point of my post which I notice you ignored.

You can be proud of whomever you wish. There is however no confusion in my mind about the difference between personal attacks and a heated and civil debate.

Erin Kotecki Vest 5 pts

I'm proud of the women who can very strongly debate in these threads and have a strong disagreement with Norma's assertion that she's attacked viciously. If by attacked you mean, debated with in a heated and civil manner...then sure. But when you say attacked viciously it really gives the wrong impression for the very heated debate that goes on here.

Just a reminder of BlogHer's community guidelines:

http://www.blogher.com/what-are-your-community-gui...

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

LiteralDan 5 pts

Yeah, I know, right?

 I realize in rereading my comment just how overly lengthy and odd it sounds, but I've just heard this baseless, snide little quip made several times before, and it never makes any sense to me. Can't they just stick to pointing out his middle name and stuff, instead of trying so desperately to find additional points at which to lob unproductive/inaccurate personal attacks?

 Speaking of his book, it must kill the hardcore Republicans (as opposed to conservatives) who just can't put down their battle armor that they can't talk much about Obama's drug use after our last president made "I didn't inhale" a long-forgotten, fond memory. 

 I can't help but notice that the "hardcore-Republican [hypocritical] drug user" part ties this tangential comment chain up nicely back with its original subject, don't you?

Nordette Adams 6 pts

What would it take to make you happy?  Really, what would it take?  A complete history rewrite? What?

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

evilslutopia 5 pts

I didn't watch the Olbermann clip.  I also didn't defend it or say that it had all of the audio clips of the quotes from Erin's comment, because I was posting my own sources from Media Matters.  

~Jezebel

The Evil Slut Clique
( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

EvilSlutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

Erin Kotecki Vest 5 pts

When Joe Biden stood up for women, I applauded.

http://www.blogher.com/joe-biden-made-me-cry

When Joe Biden said stupid shit, I questioned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erin-kotecki-vest/jo...

However I will point out whatever gaffe's have come from Biden's mouth have been proven as just that... gaffes. Why? Because his voting record and actions not only support minorities but women and anti-hate legislation.

Let's guess how Rush feels about things like the Violence Against Women Act and Hate Crime legislation.

See the distinction? Does it excuse a Biden gaffe? No. but at least he makes good by doing the right thing.

So let's review. Just for fun. When people say stupid shit- be they Rush, Matthews, or Biden, we've been calling them out. Their true colors show in their actions time and time again.

Time and time again Rush makes NO APOLOGY.

Rush has been consistent in his racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-muslim views. His actions and his words make the distinction between the two very, very, very clear.

And I really suggestion you get to know Rev. Wright via CE Kim Pearson.

http://www.blogher.com/node/17236

http://www.blogher.com/patriotism-wrights-jeremiad... ( http://www.blogher.com/patriotism-wrights-jeremiad... )

You learn the difference between racism and the fight for equality, and you urge conservative leaders to take their "gaffes" and show us how they really feel via action and votes.

Oh, that's right. That's where their true colors show.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Norma156 5 pts

Despite being occasionally attacked rather viciously by people in this forum, I continue to read and participate because I sometimes learn something from the more thoughtful members. That includes Kim whose columns posted above I just reviewed.

She makes clear the vast cultural divide that informs our prespectives.  (Although I would mention both to her and Michelle Obama that I grew up near Princeton and went to the Sacred Heart Academy there. They're not alone in feeling like outsiders at Princeton. Most people feel like outsiders in that precious, so very precious community.)

I think what some of you are missing in this thread is common sense. Of course Rush is provocative...it's what he does. But asserting he's homophopic, bigoted, etc., etc., is to take the provocation that is his grist and elevate it to something that it is not.

The "femminazi" thread is one example. Rush uses that to refer to women who recognize one one viewpoint--their own. There is no way he uses that to justify or even refer to Nazi Germany seventy or eighty years ago. Nazis were fascists and he is using the term in that sense.

A writer who calls herself "Evil Slut" claims she is offended by this because she's Jewish. But what is "Evil Slut" except an effort to be provocative? I'm not offended by the usage, but others could be.

Using the MacPherson definition then, that "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" can I legitimately claim offense and expect her to change her pen name? Or do I just recognize that she's being provocative and let it go?

So you know where I'm coming from: I am an economic conservative. I believe that what Obama and his crowd are doing will lengthen and prolong this depression. I think he is more interested in social experimentation and wealth redistribution than fixing the mess we're in and as proof I'd point out that he and his team have offered nothing by way of addressing the banking crisis which is the root cause of the global financial meltdown.

In my opinion, Rush is doing a service by pounding on this theme. He is an entertainer...and he is an educator. Whether or not he's "taken the bait" offered by the administration is immaterial in my mind. If by taking the bait, he is expanding his audience base...then I say good.

Economics is hard to learn. If Rush or anyone else can forcefeed some economics into people fooled by our presidential pide piper...then I say great. Go to it, Rush.

NOfreelunch 5 pts

The hypocrisy and partisan bullshit in this thread is thick. The amount of holier-than-thou people on their high horse boggles my mind. How many more people are going to pile on Dana as if she is Rush Limbaugh's mother who "raised him up right" to make the comments being cited as hateful in this thread?

Obama/Biden supporters: you have voted for and many of you rabidly and constantly defend your chosen president. As all of us not living in a political cave know, Barack Obama is a man who sat in a pew for 20 years while a master of racist and hate-filled rhetoric religiously "entertained" with that type of speech from the pulpit. You chose to look the other way when it became common knowledge and easily verifiable that your candidate for president was a 20-year member of a church that thrived on racist and divisive speech. Oprah Winfrey got out of that mess early and knew extremist hatemongering when she heard it. According to two sources close to Oprah cited in Newsweek, Oprah left Obama's church expressly because of Wright's angry message and the way it could possibly speak toward her own image, belief system and professional interests. ( http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392 ) But President Obama didn't stop at attending the church. He enlisted this man to officiate over his marriage. Obama employed this man to baptize his own children. Gee, I'm not sure Dana saying she respects Rush Limbaugh as a talk show host could ever compare to her having such a personal relationship with Rush that he would be present at her wedding or baptisms, much less beg him to file for some "PreacherOfHate.com" certificate and officiate over them. Dana's a private citizen and you are reading her the riot act for much less than you'd condemn a man you'd elect President of our Country! Shouldn't you hold the President to a higher standard? At least Dana didn't sit in the Church of Limbaugh for 20 years and then say she'd never heard his sermons. Hey, you all choose to turn the other way. That's your prerogative. But to act so indignant when someone grants the same benefit of the doubt to someone else in the same circumstances is laughable.

Those attacking Dana here have also voted for a Vice President who has said about Obama during the primaries,

"I mean, you've got the first...sort of...mainstream African-American who is articulate and...and...bright...and...clean...I mean that's a storybook, man!" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ )

Can you imagine the controversy if that would have been uttered by a Republican politician? Biden also said about his experience with Indian people in his state,

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent. Oh, I'm not joking!"

Biden also commented, ( http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/25/bi... ) "There's less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with. When you have children coming from dysfunctional homes, when you have children coming from homes where there's no books, where the mother from the time they're born doesn't talk to them - as opposed to the mother in Iowa who's sitting out there and talks to them, the kid starts out with a 300 word larger vocabulary at age three. Half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom."

That's not to mention the little "Biden's was a slave state" blunder. I could go on. 

But you people have chosen to look the other way at these "good natured blunders." Give ol' Joe the benefit of the doubt. "He's not racist...he's just...oh that goofy Joe." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Erin has even written that "Joe Biden made (her) cry." Wow! And it wasn't even for being a foot-in-his-mouth idiot! Can you imagine the carnage if Biden was on the air as a political commentator for as many hours as Rush Limbaugh has been cumulatively? Given his penchant for frequent foot-in-mouth disease, Ol' Joe might have precipitated World War III by now. But you all have chosen to look the other way and dismiss these instances, for whatever reason. Look the other way if you want--but I'm not about to imply that you're racist or sexist or condone that type of behavior because you've exempted him from your regularly scheduled hate speech/racism persecution.

What if it had been revealed in the months before the election that McCain or Sarah Palin was a 20-year member of a church in which racism and divisiveness had been regularly spewed from the pulpit, and they said they were not aware of it? What if that preacher had married them and performed baptisms on their children? You're saying you would have given McCain/Palin the benefit of the doubt in that instance? You would have said "McCain isn't racist! He just says things that are really inappropriate and puts his foot in his mouth a lot." "Sarah a racist? No way. How dare you bring up her minister." Really? How incredibly benevolent and fairminded of you.

Let those of us throw stones who are completely innocent of ever looking the other way from others who've ever used speech that could be considered racist, intolerant or divisive. Because I don't think anyone in this thread is completely innocent. I'm not at all attempting to justify or excuse any racist or intolerant speech from Limbaugh. But I'm not going to tolerate it from any leftist, noncontroversial, "milquetoast" figure either. I also won't tolerate the blatant hypocrisy from people constantly playing innocent, politically correct "hate speech police."

As others have said, I think this is not even a viable political issue at all. It's simply (and sadly) diverting attention from the Curious Case of Obamanomics and similarly scrutable political and economic whimsy currently going on in Congress--things political that we in this country might want to keep a sharp eye on, especially in our financially precarious position.

Christine Watch Me 5 pts

FYI, it was at the beginning of the Olbermann video.  You know, the video that so many of you defended as having all of the quotes in it responding to Erin's original comment and thus should be sufficient.

nellewrites 6 pts

It wasn't Wright drawing the serious heat, it was Obama taking it based on Wright.

Big difference. 

As for Rush, I reiterate that he has slammed and defamed and denigrated, he almost  single-handedly ushered in an age of divisivenness and high polarisation in politics. 

What is different now is that a lot of this country thought he made sense, say... 25 years ago; even 8 years ago. Now, well, probably only his actual listeners think he makes any sense at all.

His version of extreme political idealogy has been ripped from its foundation, tossed in the air, and slammed down, now shattered into a million different discredited pieces. And not by the opposition, but rather through its own self-disintegration - it was unworkable, it thumbed its nose at lessons learned long before, and repeating the mistakes of the past, well, we know where that takes us.

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Not to you as much as you think but a bad habit I have.

I started leaving you a short comment above about "feminazi" and ended up writing about other stuff.  I was going to move part of it so it didn't go as a reply to you but got distracted.

But I did want to say that I don't think Hughley was thinking as deeply as you are. 

It's been reported his show's been canceled ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/03/d-l-hughleys-g... ), btw.

Also, despite my years on the web, I sometimes lose track of writing in reply to someone  because I used to write editorials for a newspaper publisher.  I start writing to the larger group instead of the individual.

Sorry. Trying to break that habit.  Wasn't actually explaining anything to you specifically. Should have put it at the bottom of the list so it didn't connect anyone's comment in particular since you're not the only person addressing word choices in this discussion.

Complex view of language. I wish you had written more on that because I think part of the probelm with people not being able to understand what's good and bad about political correctness is they see language as flat and think simplistically or that being PC is about a set of rules from Sunday School or Temple.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

jaelithe 5 pts

Nordette, I was replying to Dana's assertion earlier that I didn't understand the difference between Hughley's casual use of the word and Rush's (and Dana's own) casual use, not your comment.

I agree with most of what you said here, Nordette. As a writer, and as someone who has studied linguistics a bit, I actually have a very complex view of language and the ways people use certain words that carry baggage that I did not bother to explain in my comments above, because it would have taken a page or more to do so. My main point was that Dana was defening Rush for things she was criticizing other people for, and that doesn't make logical sense to me. I was trying to get her to explain to me what her logic was. 

KeegsMom 5 pts

Can you please post examples of hate speech from Olberman, Matthews and/or Stewart?

I mean, with sources. (If we're gonna go there).

And regarding: "Let's attack Sarah Palin!" Whew, boy. She didn't need any attacking. She couldn't answer simple questions ("I'll get right back to ya on that," wink wink; "Newspapers? Oh, I read 'em all!"); she came with very little experience but much of it centered on governing a small town in AK which she left dreadfully in debt and terribly polluted (the very lake on which she has a home is blighted due to her development policies); she preaches abstinence and had a pregnant daughter; there were legal issues hovering over her, and eventually a court found her guilty of misusing funds for her famly's travels (not to mention collecting per diem money for hundreds of nights she was home and not traveling) and acting egregiously/unethically in "Troopergate" .... You know we could all go on. She didn't need attacking. She sure needed scrutinizing, however.

Regarding Rush:

Rush has said enough purely stupid and offensive things that the one or two quotes Dana is concerned with here don't warrant the effort. How can you excuse the things he has clearly said? How can he say the new admin is "bastardizing" the Constitution when he then confuses it with the Declaration of Independence in making a big public appearance? Is he even familiar with these documents? Is he aware of the memos now coming to light that prompted people like Harpers Magazine's Scott Horton to write:

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late
2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The
constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were
suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the
Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we
know now is likely the least of it.

Moderates might save the GOP. Another round of extreme ideologues will not. America has wised up. (The power of Rush? If it's so powerful, how did semi-moderate McCain get the nomination?)

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

CrabbyAbby 5 pts

I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm not reluctant to admit such; regardless
your opinion of him, the man is a brilliant talk radio host and as a
talk radio host, I appreciate the skill that goes into driving a daily,
four-hour long program with nothing in the room but you, a mic, and
maybe an engineer.

B.S.

Michael Moore is an Academy Award winning filmmaker. Do you enjoy his films? Paul Krugman just won a Nobel. Take in his columns?

CrabbyAbby 5 pts

A friend said I should stop saying Rush is a media whore because that's an insult to whores everywhere.

Snort.

You don't get to have it both ways conservatives. If Rush is "just an entertainer" than what the hell is Steele doing genuflecting? You created this monster, you gave him his power, now you'll have to deal with the mess.

I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the fall-out.

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Furthermore, this post could have been controlled by Mamalogues as the moderator if she hadn't followed up with demanding documentation that the sky is blue when we could at least agree that it looks blue to many people.

Sorry, Dana, but you helped derail your own post. You could have just said to Erin, "I disagree with some of your sources but I'm not going to argue with why you feel the way you do because I can see Limbaugh frustrates some people. I want to talk about fiscal conservatism and conservative leadership not Rush because I've already admited the Republican Party has some problems."

Then the conversation would have centered around why that's so maybe with a smattering here and there of Rush sucks from people who need to get that off their chests.

Standard customer service script comes in handy to diffuse conflict.  But people love to fight. 

You've said you don't want to discuss it anymore, but the train has left the station. Live and learn.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

What I can't beleive is all the Rush supporters who want to defend him despite his being complicit in this distraction ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/03/rush-limbaugh-... ).  They'd rather defend what he says than look at how he's equally guilty in the this theater ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-mach... ). He's been playing along all along for the sake of his ratings not the future of this nation.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

KeegsMom 5 pts

Oh, my god, this is PRICELESS. Thanks, Jezebel!

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

Christine Watch Me 5 pts

I agree, Kimberly...as someone who is strongly fiscally conservative, it's a shame that there hasn't been a strong leader to that end in years.  

It sure isn't Rush Limbaugh...ironic that THAT was the core of this post, and yet Limbaugh is STILL what everyone is discussing in this thread.

cynematic 5 pts

So the precocious 13 year old kid who spoke at CPAC has the clearest idea of what conservativism is. That says a lot about the grown-ups supposedly in charge, and the state of conservatism as an intellectual movement.

Maybe the kid and Rush can have a debate, to clarify conservatism for everyone who cares about it.

kdc521 5 pts

Rush Limbaugh is NOT the Head of the GOP or Conservatism.  The GOP and/or conservatism lacks leadership at this moment in time.  Period. (That's unfortunate to a degree because I agree with some conservative principles.)

I'm with CityMama on the whole "let it go" concept.  In this thread, I've seen several people cite links/video/etc. to support their claim that Limbaugh has used racist/sexist speech.  In response, there has been not THAT source/ not THAT instance of racist/sexist speech/etc.  At a certain point, it becomes ridiculous/a time waster.  People are going to hear/accept what they want to irregardless of how much "proof" anyone provides to the contrary.  So be it.

I do agree with Mamalogues on the fact that with all that is going on in this country, Limbaugh should not be a central issue though...

Kimberly/Mom in the City ( http://www.mominthecity.com/ )

evilslutopia 5 pts

Some of you will get a kick out of this:

I'm Sorry Rush ( http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry ) - the Rush Limbaugh apology generator, a handy new tool for Republicans.

~Jezebel

The Evil Slut Clique

Evil Slutopia ( http://evilslutopia.com )

evilslutopia 5 pts

 So you're saying people shouldn't feel free to trash a book that they haven't read and don't know anything about beyond the title?  That's crazy talk ;)

The Evil Slut Clique

Evil Slutopia ( http://evilslutopia.com )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

I have way more I could say on this subject than I'm about to write, but given what I've seen from Limbaugh supporters, an exploration of this topic on this particular post would be fruitless and counterproductive. 

I'm pretty sure there's no way to discuss the educated use of offensive words in this type of forum without leading some people to conclude using the words Nazi, n*gg*r, fascist, Uncle Tom, etc. flippantly is okay when that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm talking about the proper and educated use of language to make a point, examine a sociological issue, or sound an alarm.  The problem really isn't that a certain word was used, it's how that word or phrase was used.

But I know humans forever look for excuses to practice stupidity which is why people who want to use the word Nazi flippantly would read something like what I write here to do so.

Nevertheless ...

You give D.L. too much credit, I think.  I believe, while he's aware of the Republican Party's history, he was probably tapping into the gut reaction many African-Americans and some members of other minorities as well some whites, including people who've studied the precursors to Nazi Germany, had while watching the predominantly white sea of faces, the nationalistic chanting ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/09/lessons-learne... ), and the speeches at the Republican convention.

However, what you said about the history of the Republican Party is correct and a topic I explored in Michael Steele: I Don't Want to Get Jiggy With You ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-rncs-steele... ).

People start to hooping and hollering when any analogy is made to Hitler's Germany. They do the same when anyone compares them to the KKK. All that is evidence that there's truth to the southern saying, "The guilty dog hollers loudest."

I'd be more impressed if they'd defend what they actually believe than shouting over and over again "Are you saying I'm a racist?  Are you saying I'm a Nazi?" because if you believe you used your words correctly you can defend them.

Other people scream offense because they want us all to remember that six million people were murdered as though bloodshed is the only sign of atrocity and nobody we see now in our enlightened world can ever get as bad as Hitler.  Sad thing is, they can. We could repeat an updated version of the Jewish Holocaust but with a different group of people.  In fact, genocide hasn't disappeared at all and most people ignore the initial stories because once it gets to killing many thousands of people, folks can't fathom the level of abomination and would prefer not to believe it's occurring. 

You stop genocide by talking about what theatens a few before it gets to what's done to the many. You keep it from getting that far by listening to what people are saying and speaking against hate speech, which is what you're doing.

If we live by "never forget" then the Holocaust is only part of the story of Hitler's world. If we don't want to repeat that horror, it's the precursors to it that we must discuss and many of those precursors were specific kinds of divisive rhetoric. The wise look for these patterns in our own society that indicate we're nearing the precipice of our destruction. Can we see them if we force the offensive words completely underground?

Some of us have been fooled into thinking stopping people from saying certain words is the same as stopping people from having hateful agendas. But its their words that warn us of their hateful agendas and we need to listen, discuss, and condemn. If the people using the words decide to stop because they've had a change of heart, then great.  If they don't then what have we lost by pointing them out?

It's the foam coming from a rabid dog's mouth that warns us to stay the hell away from it, call for help and step up animal vaccinations.  Want to get rid of the foam at the mouth, cure rabies.

So, until there's a cure for racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, etc., I prefer being able to spot those who embrace bigotry and their sympathizers by how they choose to use certain words. 

None of what I said is an excuse to use offensive language like a school-yard bully.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

KeegsMom 5 pts

... about the one or two you are pressing here, Dana.

Even his attribution of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"  to the constitution is evidence of his lack of control/knowledge/judgement ... This after he says the Obama admin is "bastardizing" the constitution? After 8 years of Bush decimating it?! 

Who can take him seriously? I can't take seriously anyone who does, unfortunately.

Have you read the Harper's piece about what Bush & Co. did to our constitution?

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late
2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The
constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were
suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the
Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we
know now is likely the least of it.

Go to: http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Now there's something to talk about.

McCain got the GOP nomination thru your moderates, not your extreme right wingers. The GOP needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Or not.

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

chandlerful 5 pts

Nazi.  People need to get away from casual use of the whatever-nazi.  That trivializes that word, and trivializes what nazis were about.  Equating the annihilation of 6 million with being a feminist, breastfeeding or selling soup is insulting.  I don't think people realize what they are saying or mean to be offensive when they use that term, but it still is, and there really isn't any way to make it ok. Go visit Dachau and then we will talk about appropriate use of terms and who "deserves" to be called that.  (related: drinking the koolaid.  again death of innocent people turned into "cute" catchphrase.  that's another post, i guess)

As far as Mr Limbaugh goes, I dont get it.  Conservatives/republicans think he's witty, smart, brilliant, entertaining and right.  So what's the big deal if people think he's the leader?   You like him, and jump to his defense if he's maligned, so why not just embrace him?  Unless you think maybe he's bad for your cause...?

LiteralDan 5 pts

Norma, I just wanted to note that it seems clear to me that you have not read either of Obama's books. The entire point of "Dreams From My Father" was to track down what scraps remained of his father, because he was never a presence in his life. To suggest that he devalues his mother's love and sacrifice by wondering about his absent and deceased father, as well as his extensive unknown family, is ridiculous and offensive.

He begins with the fact that he was raised by his mother and her parents, that they love and sacrificed for him and he could never thank them enough, etc. etc., and having soaked that up and appreciated it his whole life, it was a logical next step to try to find out who exactly his father was, and how that man in his absence has informed his own life.

The virtues of his mother are touted every time she's mentioned, and beyond that, he goes on at length about her in his second book. And if it makes you feel any better, for some reason, he has very little to say about his father that could be called positive without any qualifications.

I don't think there's anything wrong with his premise or process in any way, and again, if you would actually read at least his first (fantastic, completely non-political) book, while you might be sad at the loss of your useless, flippant comment completely unbased on facts, you'd have gained more than just a valuable glimpse into the life and thought process of this person your neighbors have chosen to lead us.