Idiot extraordinaire Rich Lowry attacks liberals over Trayvon Martin murder

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you were wondering, National Review editor Rich Lowry, occasionally somewhat less insane than most on the right, is indeed a STUPID... FUCKING... IDIOT.

In a post at NRO today, he tries desperately to make the case that "the lives of young black people are cheap, unless they happen to fit the right agenda," specifically the right leftist agenda, as liberals ignore most of the violence against blacks and only bother to care when there are political points to be scored, as, he thinks, in the case of Trayvon Martin.

This is utterly ridiculous, of course.

Conservatives don't care about "the lives of young black people in communities beset by social disorder," and Lowry's fooling no one -- no one outside the conservative echo chamber, that is -- by mentioning murders other than Martin's as supposed examples of liberals not caring.

All Lowry is really doing is trying to score his own political points by suggesting that it's liberals and not conservatives who are the racists, while also trying to marginalize the Martin murder.

This is the sort of thing conservatives do in order to try to convince themselves that they're not a bunch of racists. (They may not be, but many of them are, and movement conservatism is steeped in racism.)

The implication of Lowry's "argument" is that Black America is a horrifically violent place and that White America is right to be fearful of it.

And in this case he actually says that the Martin murder has only become an issue (for liberals) because the killer isn't black: "There is no comparable epidemic of half-Hispanic neighborhood-watch volunteers like George Zimmerman shooting young black men. Nor is there an epidemic of cops doing the same."

In other words, it was a one-off. Nothing to see. No big deal. Move on. 

What are we to make of this nonsense?

Steve M. rips Lowry apart:

You know what's one huge difference is between the Zimmerman killing and every killing Lowry lists?

It's simple: In every case Lowry lists, everyone in America acknowledges that a crime has been committed. No one questions the notion that these killers should be arrested and tried. No one thinks the law protects the killers -- no one thinks the law ought to.

There's more beyond this. Liberals would like to see more economic opportunity for America's have-nots, and a reduction in easy access to guns. Liberals believe that personal responsibility plays a huge part, but that societal conditions do also.

But changing those conditions doesn't fit the right's agenda.

And Barbara O'Brien puts it bluntly: "If Trayvon Martin was killed for walking while black, I'd say Lowry is guilty of writing while stupid. And bigoted. And being a whiny self-absorbed wingnut.

Yup, that about sums it up.

Conservatives don't much care for science

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From yesterday's Daily Intel:

While only 35 percent of conservatives said they had a "great deal of trust in science" in 2010, an estimated 100 percent of Rick Santorum believes that climate change, evolution, and pretty much all empirical scientific data is a bald-faced lie.

And, let's face it, Santorum is pretty much a mainstream Republican in this regard.

Which means that a vote for any Republican is a vote for a return to the Dark Ages.

The Founders, men of Enlightenment, surely would not approve.

Obama to Medvedev: "After my election I have more flexibility." (Cue ignorant, jingoistic conservative outrage!)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Conservatives are outraged -- outraged!!! -- by President Obama's comment to outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin should give him "space" on controversial issues like missile defence because... and I quote... "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." (Watch it below.)

Oh no! Obama was caught by an open microphone admitting that... well, what?

That he'll capitulate once the election is over... that he'll sell out America... that he's got some traitorous secret plan for his second term... that he's lying to the American people?

Here's a quiz. Conservatives are:

a) faux outraged;

b) politically ignorant;

c) dumb-ass jingoists;

d) fucking stupid; or

e) all of the above.

Allowing for an exception or two, I'm going with (e).

First, of course Obama would have more flexibility in a second term. Every politician has more flexibility when he or she doesn't face re-election. It was certainly true of Bush after 2004.

Second, winning an election means pandering, at least to some degree, to the electorate, and on national security issues, particularly complicated international ones, Americans are, by and large, deeply ignorant and prone to prolonged spasms of jingoism. Particularly on the national state, you need to be "tough," or at least to appear to be, and for the jingoistically ignorant that means saber-rattling. Republicans have been successful on the national state in large part by playing directly to this jingoistic ignorance and so by appearing to be tough (e.g., torture detainees! bomb Iran! flaunt America's nukes like a massive national hard-on!). All President Obama is doing is recognizing this unfortunate political reality. It's a reality realists like Medvedev, like most sensible political figures, understand all too well. ("I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir." This is how diplomacy works.)

Third, President Obama, far more than pretty much every Republican, understands the complexity of international relations. What he is saying is not that he will capitulate, that he will give Russia whatever it wants, but that he will work with Russia on long-term solutions to these challenging problems, that he will treat Russia as a partner for peace, not, as Romney would have it, as America's #1 enemy (not just a counter-productive but completely reckless position to take, though I suspect Romney is just flopping around like usual).

Fourth, the White House clarified the issue: "[T]his is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we're about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we're going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there's an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying." Makes sense, no? I mean, we all know this, don't we? It's politics versus policy, the latter of which is often sacrificed by the former. Alas, conservatives are so blinded by their relentless partisan outrage that they can't -- and won't -- make sense of anything.

Fifth, did I mention that conservatives are, by and large, fucking stupid?

Progressive Music Classics: "Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time" by Gang of Four

By Marc McDonald

Welcome to Progressive Music Classics, a series I run at my blog that I'm bringing to The Reaction.

 

The mighty post-punk band Gang of Four emerged from Leeds in the late 1970s. Their debut album, Entertainment! was a ferocious blast of raw anger and musical energy.

The band's bass player Dave Allen and drummer Hugo Burnham formed a phenomenal rhythm section, laying down a Parliament-fueled funk groove, over which Andy Gill sliced and diced his guitar to create lethal shards of sound. On top of this combustible mix, the band sang about topics that ranged from Marxist theory to capitalist marketing to consumerism. In short, the band created a perfect soundtrack for a cold, heartless era in which multinational corporations took over the world.

Today, of course, things are much worse than they were 30 years ago. Three decades of eroding workers' rights and union-busting have impoverished many millions of workers around the world. And today's Top One Percent owns a much bigger share of national wealth than they did 30 years ago.

We could really use bands like Gang of Four today. But instead, we get dogshit like Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears.

Although Entertainment! was Gang of Four's high-water mark, the band continued to make powerful music for years to come. Indeed, the band remains a going concern to this day (the excellent album, Content was released last year).

Solid Gold, Gang of Four's highly anticipated followup to Entertainment! was released in 1981 and including the classic track, "Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time" (featured in the above video). A scorching track with a driving groove, this is a song that comes to mind every time I think of a misogynist bigot like Rush Limbaugh.

A lyric that particularly comes to mind is, "He wants his wife to run -- and fetch."

It perfectly sums up the attitude of sexist bigots like Limbaugh, who want to put women "back in their place." Limbaugh has been railing against "uppity" African-Americans for years and now, with his "slut" comments, he taking aim at women, as well.

Clearly, people like Limbaugh feel threatened by a world in which the traditional power structure of Rich White Males is threatened by "others," including minorities and women. It's a scary new world for dinosaurs like Limbaugh and his followers. It's clearly a world in which, in their view: Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time.

Of course, the irony is that, for all of Limbaugh's fears and paranoia, the old Rich White Male power structure is still very much in place. And it's not going away any time soon.

Of course, Limbaugh's deluded listeners don't know that. And so, in drinking the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, they continue to direct their anger and fury at the wrong targets. Instead of blaming soulless, greedy multinational corporations like Halliburton (and their stooges in Congress) for their misery, the Limbaugh crowd take out their anger on African-Americans, women, immigrants, gays, and other scapegoats.

It's a win-win situation for Limbaugh and the rest of the fascists on talk radio. Not only does Limbaugh achieve his mission of distracting his deluded base from ever correctly identifying the cause of their woes, he also gets paid handsomely for his efforts.

Meanwhile, multinational corporations get to rape and pillage the world at their pleasure and they, along with the crooks on Wall Street, get to loot the U.S. Treasury and pocket hundreds of billions in corporate welfare.

It's settled, then: Women, we're at war

By Ramona

Don't expect me to be going over every single attack on women's rights just because I'm writing about modern-day, 21st-century, 2012, just-in-the-last-month attacks, which, as you might have noticed, are escalating at such a dizzying pace we can no longer ignore the rumblings of war.

It's ugly and it's all out there. Even Rush Limbaugh's scrubbed transcripts of his diatribes against Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student who had the temerity to attempt to testify before certain members of congress about the need for free contraception. Even Patricia Heaton's deleted tweets about that same student (aka G-Town Gal). They're out there. They're not going away.

No, we're here today to look at the big picture: How did this latest war of the sexes start? What was the catalyst? And what can we do to grind it to a halt now that it's started? 

The obvious answer to question number one is that it's all Obama's fault. As a part of his health plan (the catalyst), he told insurance companies they would have to offer contraceptive care at no cost to women. (That would mean, for most, no co-pay.) Birth control aids would be free and available everywhere, and since it was mandatory, not to mention laudatory, not to mention commonsensical and a long time coming, that was supposed to be it. End of conversation.

Ha! We wish!

President Obama's first mistake was that he thought he was taking steps toward helping women more effectively and responsibly manage their reproductive years, when what he was actually doing was antagonizing pissants who have been posing as Manly Men for so long they're not about to be ousted from their comfy zones.

A whole host of Catholic Bishops, pseudo-religious politicians, and paid-to-be-mean pundits jumped on the bandwagon called Control the women by denying birth control, and weren't they surprised when the women they were so itching to suppress wouldn't give in? A real donnybrook ensued, with everybody weighing in, pro and con, and here we are, in the middle of it all, coming out swinging, and if they want a war, okay, they've got one.

Some highlights:

• The Susan G. Komen Foundation is taken over by a right-wing zealot who makes it known from Day One that Planned Parenthood can kiss SGK goodbye. Susan Komen's sister/founder helps figure out a way to do it. A huge, unprecedented fuss ensues. Right-wing zealot goes on to greener pastures. The sister stays and apologizes -- a Pyrrhic victory that nobody feels good about.

• Long probes up the vagina with cameras on the end used not as medical tools but as instruments of shame -- Zap! Gone! Battle won!

• Gooey cold stuff massaged onto a bare belly so a government-issue wand can be waved, not to detect a zygote already determined by other methods to be there, but to establish once and for all that a woman doesn't actually have control over her own body -- still working on it but we've got them in our sights.

• Dozens of state legislatures scrambling to make laws against contraception and abortion so harsh Draco the Greek, if he were still alive, would be crying foul -- this one may take a while.

The legal issues, having some semblance of form and substance, are easier to deal with. There are wise and learned people on our side ready to take them on. But there's another, uglier issue and it's one we've faced many times before. It's our old but formidable nemesis: blind, consuming hatred toward people of our gender.

With the rise of the Tea Party and pressure from the Religious Right-to Life-Until-It-Actually-Becomes-A-Child, fortified by resident misogynist Rush Limbaugh and hardline Catholic men in red robes and black robes and pullover sweater vests, the battle to enforce the reproductive rights we've already fought long and hard for is a battle we can't afford to lose.

The spotlight is on Rush Limbaugh at the moment, but it's Rick Santorum we need to keep an eye on. He showed his hand when he talked about his reaction to John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Baptists, where JFK said he would fight hard for the separation of church and state.

Santorum wanted to throw up when he read that. Why? Because it's disgusting and unforgivable that  Kennedy had the chance to pave the way for an American Pope and he didn't take it. Rick will remedy that when he's president. And guess who will suffer the most under his reign?

The obvious goal is to make sure Rick Santorum never becomes president, but once that threat is gone we'll still be fighting those others working to take us down. We thought that war was over, but all we really won, we know now, was détente.

Men (and, incredibly, other women) are fighting against those of us who go on believing our reproductive rights are sacrosanct. Suddenly they're coming out of the woodwork, no longer pretending that Roe v. Wade is all that's keeping us apart. Now it's about contraception -- a real puzzler, since birth control is the obvious remedy for unwanted pregnancies.

Only women can incubate babies. It's a fact. If they get knocked up and it's not a good time, the sex police want us to believe they have no one to blame but themselves. Really? What other species on the planet punishes the female for being impregnated by a male? Birth control is a two-way street. It's irresponsible and gutless to pretend that women did this to themselves, and yet we're hearing it louder and clearer every day.

And why is that? Because to the people who are coming at us with the same hoary arguments, it's not about the control of birth, it's about the control of sex. That nutty comment by Santorum backer Foster Friess about birth control being as simple as holding an aspirin between our knees? The admonishment from Rick Santorum that all birth control should be banished because it can only lead to badness? Rush Limbaugh's crazed, three-day masturbatory fantasy about the reasons women want free birth control? Sex, sex, and, yet again, sex.

It's the same tiresome struggle, but this time we're going to win. Why? Because we have a secret weapon.

It's men. There are more than just a few good ones out there and they're on our side. They're men who work with us, talk with us, and see us as equals. They're men who live with us and see our roles as complementary and not competitive or without merit. They're men who can love unconditionally and have grown so far beyond the ancient need to keep women bound and tethered, they're willing to fight beside us until this war is ended. Some of them are already at the front lines.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you dirty old men of yesterday. A new day dawns and you've been left behind. It has to be this way. It's the way human progress works.

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices.)

Major advertisers finally pulling out of right-wing talk-radio hate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's The Daily Beast's John Avlon: 

Rush Limbaugh made the right-wing talk-radio industry, and he just might break it.

Because now the fallout from the "slut" slurs against Sandra Fluke is extending to the entire political shock-jock genre.

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)."

This is big. According to the radio-industry website Radio-Info.com, which first posted excerpts of the Premiere memo, among the 98 companies that have decided to no longer sponsor these programs are "carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm), and restaurants (McDonald's, Subway)." Together, these talk-radio advertising staples represent millions of dollars in revenue.

It's about time.

But, the question must be asked, why now? Was Dear Leader Rush's assault on Sandra Fluke just the final straw? Here's Digby:

I don't think they care about hyperpartisanship. They just don't need the backlash that comes from creepy middle aged men behaving like barbarians and insulting half their customers. It's not exactly an advertiser's favorite image.

Of course the perennial question is what's changed, since they've all been spewing hatred for ages. In my view, it's mainly a combination of a weakly recovering economy and feminists, both men and women, who were able to mobilize via social media to stage an effective boycott. But there's probably more to it than that. These things don't just spring up out of nowhere. In this case, we had a series of events over the course of a few months that were staggeringly insulting to women so maybe it just reached critical mass. Or maybe it's something else, some kind of a historical turning point that we can't see since we're in the middle of it. Or maybe not -- it's entirely possible that it's another in the series of fits and starts that mark women's progress in this world.

It remains to be seen if this will have any long term effect. But if it manages to break the two decade stranglehold of the right wing propagandists on radio, it will be a huge moment. These horrible people are a blight on the American political system and the path to a more civilized, decent society will be much clearer if their particular brand of rhetorically violent political "entertainment" is relegated to the past. The sentiments won't go away, of course, but there's no reason it has to dominate the airwaves of one whole media format.

Very well put.

I'm not sure what it is, whether it's just the culmination of a series of recent incendiary events or whether it really is something more historic, but I do think there is simply less toleration in the culture at large for the right's hateful bigotry, for the hate-fueled propaganda that characterizes so much of conservative talk radio, and so much of conservatism period these days.

Just as you can't get away with being a racist anymore, at least in decent, non-conservative society, you can't spew anti-gay bigotry and certainly not this sort of misogynistic bullying without being called on it, and without suffering the consequences.

This isn't a matter of free speech, though, which is what the right makes it out to be. No one is saying that you shouldn't have the right to say whatever you want, within broad parameters, including the sort of offensiveness Rush and his ilk traffic in all the time.

Rather, this is about the expansion of toleration and inclusiveness, about respect and dignity, about American society maturing.

And if you defend Rush and these purveyors of bigotry now, then you probably would have defended the bigots of the past as well, the racists and sexists and homophobes and others who are more and more being marginalized by a society that has had enough of the hatred that was so prominent for so long, that has been nothing but an ugly blight on a country that fashions itself a beacon of hope.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think these companies are motivated by common decency or an objection to such bigotry. Perhaps they are to some extent, but it's really the bottom line that matters. And with society changing for the good, it looks like they're finally getting the message and taking action.

What progressives can learn from Andrew Breitbart

Guest post by Marc McDonald 

(Ed. note: Along with his post earlier today on how to take action against Dear Leader Rush, this is Marc's fifth guest post at The Reaction. His first, on how Steve Jobs represented much of what's wrong with the U.S. economy today, can be found here. His second, on how Ronald Reagan laid the groundwork for the death of capitalism, can be found here. This third, on the top mysteries surrounding The Beatles, can be found here. For more of his writing, check out his great blog, Beggars Can Be Choosers. -- MJWS)

********** 

Marc McDonald is a Texas journalist who runs the progressive political blog Beggars Can Be Choosers.

Normally, when someone passes away, everyone tries to think of something kind to say about them. But I can't do that with Andrew Breitbart. I absolutely despised him while he was alive. And his death doesn't change my feelings one bit.

However, I do think that we progressives can learn a thing or two from Breitbart.

By that, I don't mean resorting to using dirty tactics and twisting the facts around to attack opponents, as Breitbart did. No, what I'm talking about is learning a thing or two from his hard-core, take-no-prisoners attacking style to get what we want.

Democrats (and progressives in general) are just too goddamn timid and polite these days. We let conservatives steamroll right over us again and again. On the other hand, cons know exactly what they want and they'll do whatever it takes to win. And that is why they've pretty much gotten everything they've wanted for the past three decades.

Breitbart nearly always got what he wanted. It didn't matter if his tactics were questionable or slimy. They got the job done. A good example was when he posted video of Shirley Sherrod that made it appear that she'd made racist remarks. (Of course, she'd done no such thing, as was clear when the full video was released). But Breitbart still "won" in the end. After all, Sherrod was forced to resign, apparently with the White House's approval.

The Sherrod case involved a despicable tactic by Breitbart that summed up his approach to politics: attack, attack, attack -- and worry about the facts later, if at all.

Once again, I'm not suggesting we progressives copy this sort of slimy technique. But we do need some of the fire and conviction that Breitbart had in spades.

We need to fight tooth and claw for what we want, instead of timidly sitting around letting the GOP steamroll over us again and again.

Take the 2000 election, for example. The GOP fought ferociously on behalf of George W. Bush, even to the point of bringing in a rent-a-mob to bang on doors and intimidate Florida election officials. Meanwhile, the Gore team sat around politely, waiting for the phone to ring.

Yes, what the GOP did was despicable and it dealt a severe setback to democracy in America. But I get the feeling they didn't lose one second's worth of sleep over their sleazy tactics. And what's more, their guy got into the White House, despite losing the popular vote by 539,000 votes. In the end, they got everything they wanted: their war for oil, their tax breaks for the rich, and their billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for Halliburton.

Modern day politics is like a back alley switchblade fight. The GOP has known this for the past 30 years. And so they always come equipped with a switchblade, and whatever else they need to win the fight.

Meanwhile, the Dems have a bizarre fixation on using a polite, timid approach to politics. Unlike the GOP, they fail to grasp that the game has changed and that sometimes, you've got to use brute force and have a willingness to fight fire with fire.

After all, simply having the facts on his side didn't help John Kerry in 2004. On the other hand, the Swift Boat Liars' willingness to lie and use vicious, sleazy attacks sank Kerry's presidential bid.

The worst part of it was that, unlike the GOP, Kerry didn't need to lie. But he did need to use brute force (and a very loud megaphone) to get the truth out. He needed to get into the liars' faces and scream at the top of his voice that they were lying. In the end, his timid, polite approach failed. He failed to realize that, in modern day politics, politeness and being a gentleman and even having the truth on your side often isn't enough to win elections.

It's a lesson that the Dems have yet to grasp. In modern politics, if you want to win, you've got to have the fire, the hunger, and determination of people like Breitbart. Unlike Breitbart, you don't need to lie -- but you do need to learn to bring a switchblade to a street fight.

Are you fed up with Rush Limbaugh? How to take action

Guest post by Marc McDonald 

Marc McDonald is a Texas journalist who runs the progressive political blog Beggars Can Be Choosers.

Rush Limbaugh got a lot of attention lately with his mean-spirited, vicious attack on Sandra Fluke, in which he called her a "slut" and a "prostitute" and suggested she post video tapes of herself online having sex. But really, Limbaugh has been doing this sort of thing for many years. Remember in 2006, when Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox's symptoms of Parkinson's disease?

If you're fed up with Limbaugh and the daily toxic nonsense he spews on the nation's public airwaves, I urge you to take action.

Go here to sign a petition to Clear Channel to discontinue Rush Limbaugh's show.

Go here to add your voice to a group of female veterans who are calling for the Armed Forces Network to drop Rush Limbaugh from its programming. (Armed Forces Network by the way, is funded with your tax dollars.

Go to BoycottRush.org and join the more than 100,00 people who've signed the petition there using Limbaugh's advertisers to drop him. Note: this site also includes an up-to-date list of Limbaugh's advertisers, along with contact information.

At this site, you can access the #StopRush Limbaugh Campaign, which rounds up news, info, and resources on the various efforts across the Internet to pressure Clear Channel and advertisers to stop supporting Limbaugh.

Go here to file a complaint with the FCC about Limbaugh's show. (Remember, his program is aired on the public airwaves that are owned by We The People. Note: Left Leaning Liberal Lady offers a good suggestion: "contact the FCC to file a complaint against Rush Limbaugh for soliciting pornography via public airwaves.")

At this site, you can find detailed information about the companies that are still advertising on Rush's show, as well as updates on those companies who've dropped their ads. Be sure to add your voice to those who are contacting these companies, asking them to stop sponsoring Limbaugh. (And until these companies do so, we should boycott their products and services).

Add your name to this Facebook page which is coordinating a boycott-Limbaugh effort (and which already has over 30,000 "Likes"). (Note: Twitter users can add their voices here at #boycottrush).

I am Rush Limbaugh's wife... part deux

Hi everyone. It's me again! Kathy Rogers Limbaugh. The luckiest girl in the world! Holla!! I wanted to write another post after my last one got such a great response. Plus, I wanted to give you an update as to how my husband is doing since he called that uppity college slut a whorebag.

I have to say, my husband has been having quite a week. All of those "liberal media elites," as my husband loves to call them, have been going crazy over this whole thing. It is just to bizarre to me. Even a bunch of his advertisers have left the show, which is really weird because they are the ones who usually like what he has to say. I mean when Rush made fun of that guy from Back to the Future for having Parkinson's disease nobody seemed to mind at all. When he said that the NAACP should have riot rehearsal and get a liquor store and practice robberies, nobody said anything then either! I mean, it's not like a lot of black people listen to his show. And if one happens to slip through the cracks, when they are not smoking it that is, then he just tells it like it is. I remember he told me about this one time a long time ago, some slutty black girl called his show to harass him. Rush told her to take the bone out of her nose. LOL! I mean, you can see why I married him.

So why is everyone so upset when he calls some college student who likes to have sex all day long a slut? And to make matters even worse, I am now being harassed! For example, I was shopping the other day for a new Prada handbag and this woman who I didn't even know came up to me and asked if I was Rush Limbaugh's wife. I asked her, "Which wife are you thinking of because he has had four of them." She looked at me like I just walked out of Banana Republic or something and stormed off. What a bitch, right?

My point is, I can't even go into my favorite stores anymore without some slutty, contraception binging slut, wearing shoes from the Gap by the way, coming up to me and asking me things. It's like I am being assaulted or even raped! I mean, my husband said he was sorry for calling that slut a slut. I told him he did not have to apologize to anyone for anything. I told him he should go onto the radio the next day and say that not only is that girl a slut, but that she also has no taste in clothes.

As usual, he didn't listen to me. Later I tried to give him the cold shoulder when he came into the bedroom wearing nothing but his ratty EIB polo shirt. But he was feeling depressed as a result of all of this so I backed down. Plus he threatened to close my credit card account if I didn't "give it up," as he calls it. I mean, can you blame me? The cards are all in his name. I am not allowed to open one by myself. Sometimes that makes me so mad. But then, I am a girl. That's just how it goes, right?

Oh well. Tootles!

********** 

Guest post by tmcbpatriot (not Kathryn Rogers, but close) 

tmcbpatriot's informative and always entertaining blog, Take My Country Back, emanates from somewhere out in the Midwest. He writes passionately and as often as possible about a confused, mindless right wing hopelessly lost in the abyss of endless lies and misdirection. 

Ed. note: This is the patriot's fourth guest post for us. His first was on how it's about the vagina, stupid, his second was on gay marriage and the end of the GOP, and his third was the first post by Kathryn Rogers. I'm a big fan of his blog and we're happy to have him on board.

For more from The Reaction team on Dear Leader Rush and his vicious attack on Sandra Fluke, see:

-- Ramona: "What's so funny about Rush Limbaugh";

-- MJWS: "Rush the Punk: Thoughts on a 'fat, gutless, pill-popping loser'"; and

-- MJWS: "There's a reason I call him "Dear Leader Rush." 

See also Mustang Bobby's "Annals of Victimhood" over at his place, Bark Bark Woof Woof.

What's so funny about Rush Limbaugh?

By Ramona

As I write this, my sense of humor is intact and waiting, as always, for something funny to happen. I can get tickled at the least little thing -- adorable babies and clumsy dogs and tripping on sidewalk cracks -- and I can howl at even the worst, god-awful jokes. I can't explain them and I've never been able to repeat them with any kind of comedic skill, but I know funny when I hear it.

I can say without even having to think about it that I've never laughed at a thing Rush Limbaugh has said or done. I don't get him. His performances are like those of a mean, out-of-control drunk who thinks everything coming out of his mouth is either hilarious or golden. He begins every riff quietly, taking his time, pausing, letting his words sink in, and builds to an awesome, wiggly, crazed crescendo. Oh, my God. Electrifying to dittoheads and the uninitiated. Wow! But to those of us who have been exposed to his antics for decades, they're nothing more than the usual carefully calculated theatrics. Ho hum.

That's what makes his latest rantings against a Georgetown University law student fighting her college's policies on insuring birth control aids so mystifying. His initial comments about this young female student were so breathtaking in their vile putridity, the reactions against them were, at last,  refreshingly awesome and swift. Hundreds of thousands of people protested his words. Even his usual defenders could be seen slinking away from the ten-foot pole they wouldn't use to touch them. Yes! Limbaugh is a pariah!

So did he finally stop and think about what he had said and realize he'd overstepped? The woman he so viciously word-raped was a young college student and not a politician or a public figure. She was not fair game and she was not a joke. But no, he didn't. He was so sure of his base, so sure of the politicians in his thrall, so sure that his advertisers would be too busy counting their money to notice, he came back the next day and attacked this same young woman again. This time he demanded videos of her sex acts.

His politicians, true to form, gave out some half-hearted hand smacks, reminding us that he's an entertainer, not a Republican spokesman -- as if he's only pretending to be one because he'd slept at a Holiday Inn once.

At last count, seven of Rush's sponsors have dropped him, at least for the moment, until all the fuss dies down. Dozens of petitions are still making the rounds, working to gain enough signatures to pressure all of his backers to leave him helpless and wiggling on his own. It took all of that for Rush to give an inch and release an odd written statement that, considering who it is from and how rare those things are coming from him, some might take to be an apology.

A Statement from Rush

March 03, 2012

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?  In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

"I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke." Really? How would you go about attacking someone if you DID mean it?

In Rush Limbaugh's 24 years on the air, he has apologized six times for the things he's said that backfired. BuzzFeed has put them all together here. For example:

-- In 1988, he called Amy Carter "[t]he most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country," and "apologized."

-- In 1992, he called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog" and "apologized," blaming his crew for confusing him by mixing up pictures of Chelsea and the Clintons' dog.

-- In 1996, he made fun of Michael J. Fox, saying he either didn't take his medication on purpose or he was faking it when he appeared in a commercial for Claire McCaskill. In his "apology," he said, "[a]ll I'm saying is I've never seen him as he appears in that commercial."

-- In 2008, he compared then-Senator Obama to Curious George and in his "apology" threatened to fire the caller who brought it up, ha ha, saying he never knew Curious George was -- gosh! -- a monkey.

This is not to say that Rush has otherwise never said stupid, hateful, racist, misogynistic things. Oh, he has, and plenty. That's apparently part of his appeal, God help us.

So think of it. One of the wealthiest, most famous entertainers in America right now is a stupid, hateful, racist, misogynistic radio personality who broadcasts a show three hours a day, five days a week highlighting his own peculiar, insulting, disrespectful brand of humor. Millions of seemingly sane listeners adore him and are honored to align themselves with him.

In many dark parts of our nation, he is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to deliver a one-hour speech to friendly packed houses, mirroring the stupid, hateful, racist, misogynistic rantings direct from his incredibly popular radio show.

He is so successful, grown politicians fear him more than they loathe him and cannot bring themselves to denounce a man who, underneath all that bluster, is a weak-kneed coward.

He will not debate or answer to anyone. His radio callers are screened so no one can ever dispute anything he says. He won't make public appearances in places where people who disagree with him might be in attendance. He has never appeared on a program where he might be asked hard questions. He attacks women and children and the handicapped with impunity and laughs along with his audience at the outraged responses.

He is a monster in the eyes of most normal human beings, and so I ask this question in all seriousness:

What is so goddamned funny about Rush Limbaugh?

Rush the Punk: Thoughts on a "fat, gutless, pill-popping loser"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Don Imus, as you may have heard, yesterday called Limbaugh "a fat, gutless, pill-popping loser" for his "lame apology" to Sandra Fluke, the woman whom he misogynistically called a "slut" and a "prostitute," claiming that she wanted to have subsidized sex when really it was merely to have insurance coverage for contraception for health purposes.

I don't much care for Imus, but I can't argue with that... or this:

It's the worst kind of cowardice. Maybe he's still jacked up on the Oxycontin, or whatever it is, but you can't say stuff about somebody and not, 1) own up to it, and, 2) have guts enough to go sit down with her and say, "Look, I'm sorry and I won't do this again." But no, he's a punk.

And he can get away with his sexism and racism because he operates within an echo chamber of like-minded morons ("dittoheads"), because conservatives worship him, and because Republicans, whatever they think of him, are required to kowtow to him to get anywhere in the party.

That is, because he's Dear Leader Rush.

And he's not sorry at all. He only insincerely apologized because he's losing sponsors. And he only apologized for "[acting] too much like the leftists who despise [him], which of course is ridiculously stupid -- as if those of us on the left go around calling women sluts and prostitutes and otherwise spewing hateful bigotry.

Does he actually believe this bullshit? Or is he just being as cynically manipulative as usual, lying to his stupidly loyal followers? Or both?

Whatever the case, I hope Ms. Fluke sues his fat, gutless, pill-popping loser ass off.

(image)

There's a reason I call him "Dear Leader Rush"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Oh, by the way, did you see our recent post by Kathryn Rogers, Rush's fourth wife? If not, check it out. It's a must-read.)

George Will expressed it well on This Week yesterday to George Stephanopoulos:

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been inundated with criticism after calling Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University student who testified before a House committee about contraception, a "slut" and a "prostitute." But while Democrats have fiercely condemned the comments, Republicans' ire has been significantly more muted.

ABC's George Will told me Sunday on "This Week" that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh's comments because "Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

"[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush's language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that's inappropriate. Not this stuff," Will said. "And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

ABC's Matthew Dowd suggested that Rush's influence is largely a "myth," but there's really no denying his lofty place on the right. And while some Republicans may indeed think of him as a "buffoon" and a "clown" whom "nobody takes... seriously," and while members of the Republican media elite like Will may scoff at him, he wields enormous influence not just because of his huge audiences of "dittoheads" but because, much like with anti-tax maniac Grover Norquist, Republicans are pretty much required to kowtow to him in order to prove their right-wing bona fides and receive his blessing. Sure, it's been possible to get ahead in the GOP without his blessing, but as the party has moved further to the right and more and more heretics have been purged, his position has only solidified.

And, too, it's pretty rich of commentators like Will to scoff and leaders like Boehner to use euphemisms like "inappropriate" in response to Rush's latest awfulness. Not to take anything away from his horrible remarks about Ms. Fluke, but he has a long, long history of sexist (like this) and racist (like this) and generally bigoted comments, and he's been able to get away with it without suffering much in the way of consequences from within the Republican Party or movement conservatism. Sure, he's had his detractors, and no doubt many have rolled their eyes at his various "inappropriate" comments over the years, but the fact that he's still so influential, still such a force on the right, says a lot about what is appropriate and what isn't for Republicans.

I am Rush Limbaugh's wife

Hello. My name is Kathryn Rogers. You might not know me, but I am Rush Limbaugh's wife.

I felt it was time to come out of the shadows and respond to the hate mail we have been getting after what my husband said this week about women and contraception. By now you have heard the comments and are probably wondering, what kind of woman marries a man who says such things? How could a woman be willing to let a man who says such things kiss her? Touch her? Get into the same bed with her? Well, I wanted to let you all know the answers to these questions. I hope it sheds some light on the situation and opens up the conversation.

I am Rush's fourth wife. Yes, lucky number four, as I like to refer to myself. Rush and I met in 2006. I was working as a party planner and Rush was working the party. It was love at first sight. What I mean to say is that Rush thought I was totally hot. It took me a little longer, I have to admit.

Once I got to know him better, I really started to fall in love with him. How could you not? He is so handsome and cuddly, and so sexy. Sure he was married before, but that is only a testament to his wild nature, something I really love about him. Like for example, his first wife was named Roxy. What a slutty name, right? She was a sales secretary at the radio station where he worked at the time. I kid him by calling her his Loni Anderson.

Following Roxy, Rush married a college student who was an "usherette" at a baseball stadium. Her name was Michelle Sixta. I joke that it kind of sounds like "Sexta." He always cracks up when I tell him that. And boy was she a slut. She would use contraception without even telling Rush about it. Not that he ever wanted children. Why would he? Who would want those rug rats anyway? Life is too short and there is too much shopping to do.

Conquest number three for my Rushypoo was a horrid woman named Marta Fitzgerald. She was an aerobics instructor. Can you believe that? They met online. I mean, how slutty is that? This woman paid money to meet men on the Internet. You know who pays money to meet men on the internet? Loser whores! That's who!

People could argue that men pay a membership fee for online dating too. Just the other day Rush and I were talking about this and he had a great idea. If men are going to pay a membership fee to meet women, if men are expected to pay for this, then men want something in return -- videos of all the sex posted online so they can see what they're getting for their money. I thought that was great. I think he used that one on his show the very next day.

So all you sensitive people out there who are offended by how my Rush talks about women on his radio program, I say to you get a life! Rush requires a certain kind of woman to handle him, and it's not you! Jealous? He requires someone who is not a contraceptive-using slut. Someone who is willing to light his cigars, buy him oxycodone and hydrocodone, and protect him from all the hateful sluts out there who just don't understand him.

So stop hating on my man! On second thought, don't. All the hate on my husband actually improves his ratings. To me that means one thing -- I get a raise in my al-low-ance! Holla!! And there is this cute dress that I have had my eye on. It is this short, hot little thing that is so slu... I mean conservatively classy. You would love me in it.

Tootles!

**********

Guest post by tmcbpatriot (not Kathryn Rogers, but close)

tmcbpatriot's informative and always entertaining blog, Take My Country Back, emanates from somewhere out in the Midwest. He writes passionately and as often as possible about a confused, mindless right wing hopelessly lost in the abyss of endless lies and misdirection.

Ed. note: This is the patriot's third guest post for us. His first was on how it's about the vagina, stupid and his second was on gay marriage and the end of the GOP. I'm a big fan of his blog and we're happy to have him on board.

I would just note, for what it's worth, that the fourth Mrs. Limbaugh is considerably younger than Dear Leader Rush -- like, more than 25 years younger. That should tell you something about Rush's view of women.

For more on Rush's sexist and indeed downright mysogynistic assault on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student he has repeatedly (and very publicly) called a slut and a prostitute for using birth control, see ABC News, Think Progress, and Media Matters. Here's what he said on Wednesday:

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

It's amazing that any woman wants anything at all to do with this asshole. Obviously, he wants women to know their place. Right under his boot. Where he and his ilk can use and abuse them as they see fit.

(And if he thinks women who use birth control are sluts and prostitutes, then it must be that he thinks the overwhelming majority of American women are sluts and prostitutes. That should tell you a lot about what conservative men, and even some conservative women, really think of women.)

As for Ms. Fluke, I hope she fights back with every legal weapon at her disposal.

-- MJWS

Andrew Breitbart is dead

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Conservative bully and agitator Andrew Breitbart, as you surely know by now, died earlier today "unexpectedly from natural causes."

He was 43.

However much I loathed the man, and I certainly loathed him a great deal, I do not wish here to speak ill of the dead. He was what he was, to the detriment of civil discourse, to the diminishing of conservatism, and to the worsening of American democracy.

And let us not forget that he himself did speak ill of the dead, just as he spoke ill generally. What goes around, comes around.

Still, there is sadness in death, including in Breitbart's, and one feels for his loved ones. They are not to blame for who and what he was.

**********

One may not wish to speak ill of the dead, but honesty demands it sometimes. This is so very true in this case. As David Frum wrote:

And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It's difficult for me to assess Breitbart's impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness -- when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas -- how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?

How indeed.

Erick Erickson gets it right about Romney

By Richard K. Barry

Sometimes in politics the despair of the other side is so palpable that you almost feel sorry for them. Almost. Such is the case with Erick Erickson, noted conservative pundit, who runs the website RedState, as he commented on Mitt Romney's candidacy after the Michigan primary.

Go on Erick, share your pain. We're here to help.

When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d'etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving.

Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don't like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you're going to go with the guy you like.

If Republicans in Washington are not panicked and trying desperately to pull Bobby Jindal in the race tomorrow, or someone like him, the party leaders must have a death wish. Mitt Romney continues to run an uninspiring campaign only able to win by massively outspending his opponents to tell voters how much worse the other guys are. That may work in the primary, but it will not work in a general election where the President of the United States won't be outspent 5 to 1.

Well, that was fun.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Conservatives love their choices

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I condider Erick Erickson one of the more loathsome conservative commentators, but there's no denying his popularity (at least with his right-wing ilk), influence (again), and, yes, quotability.

Case in point: He says he'd support the "sweet meteor of death" over any of the remaining Republican nominees (even if he'll support whoever wins regardless).

In other words, he'd prefer Armageddon to Romney.

I sense a bit of hyperbole here, but, well, that pretty much sums it up. Movement conservatives aren't a happy lot these days.

The Republican Party vs. Newt Gingrich

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wrote last night that Newt is probably done. He's still ahead nationally, but Romney has pulled well ahead in Florida and simply has too much of an advantage for Gingrich to overcome.

I would add that this is especially true with both establishment and movement conservatives, seeing him as a legit threat and entering full panic mode, going ballistic on his ass, from Dole to Drudge to Coulter, predicting disaster (for the GOP) if he's the nominee. Newt may still have some big names on his side, including Dear Leader Rush (who hasn't endorsed him but who despises Romney), but the full force of the Republican Party is coming down on him, and there's no way the party allows him to win. It'll do whatever it takes, and spend as much money as it takes, to make sure of it.

So much for that moon base. Alas.

Newsflash: Social conservatives don't like Mitt Romney

By Richard K. Barry

Tony Perkins

It seems that 150 or so social conservatives are going to get together in Texas over the weekend to consider presenting a united front in the race to crown a Republican presidential candidate.

In one report, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins says that:

Many of the evangelical, Catholic and fiscal conservatives are looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney, but fear their influence will be diluted if they remain divided.

Surrogates for all the campaigns will speak to the gathering before, according to Perkins, conservative leaders discuss whether or not they should get behind one candidate.

While Romney certainly has the momentum coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire, it is amazing how ambivalent so much of the conservative base remains about his candidacy.

I don't know how many times we can say this, but just the fact that social conservatives are getting together this late in the campaign would suggest that, even should Romney get the nod, there won't be a lot of love for him from this key constituency. In fact, for someone most people think is going to win the nomination, he's not very popular.

Good thing for Romney so many of his opponents are too pig-headed to get out or he might actually have real difficulty securing the nomination against a challenge by one credible conservative. But, as we know, that person doesn't exist.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Let's get something straight: Ron Paul will never ever be the Republican nominee for president.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

My, are Republicans shaking in their boots. If it weren't bad enough that a faux conservative like Mitt Romney seems to be the favourite to win the nomination despite an embarrassingly low ceiling of support from the base (which loathes him), and that a disaster-in-waiting like Newt Gingrich is still a serious contender (if not so much the clear frontrunner he was as recently as just a week ago), GOP bête noire Ron Paul, renegade right-wing libertarian extraordinaire, is threatening to tear the party apart. With Newt's recent decline, he has surged into the lead in Iowa, where his fanatical supporters may propel him to the win, and there's even the possibility he could run as an independent, pulling over enough support to doom the Republican nominee.

Just how worried are Republicans? So worried they're ratcheting up the anti-Paul fervor. As Politico (which is very much in tune with mainstream Republicanism) reports:

Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state's 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Note the clear anti-Paul bias here: He's bad for the GOP and bad for Iowa. And leading conservatives, like National Review's Rich Lowry, are going negative, ratcheting up the attacks:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is in a bid to make history in Iowa. Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses?

In 2008, the surest way to get applause in the Republican primary debates was to excoriate Ron Paul. This year, the Texas libertarian stands much closer to the emotional center of gravity of the party in his condemnations of government spending, crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve, and foreign intervention. He brings 100-proof moonshine to the GOP cocktail party. It can be invigorating and fun, if you ignore the nasty adulterants.

Even if Republicans remain unsure of Romney (to put it mildly), even if they're divided between Mitt and Newt, they're sure of one thing: It absolutely must not be Ron Paul.

And you know what? They're right. While there is much to admire in Paul's support for civil liberties and opposition to American imperial militarism, there's no denying he's a man of the far right. Not only does he not speak for today's Republican Party, which is socially conservative / theocratic and convinced of America's exceptional imperial mission, he promotes an anti-government agenda that is closely connected to extremist right-wing elements. There's just no way the GOP wants to or ever will nominate a man who is opposed to central Republican dogma and who has spent much of his career on the fringe. As Jon Chait explains:

It would be nearly impossible to imagine the Republican Party nominating a candidate who spent years and years publishing a racist newsletter and has deep associations with the fringe far right. (Here he is speaking to the John Birch Society on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.) It would be even more impossible to imagine the Party nominating a candidate who favors total withdrawal from world affairs and takes a Chomsky-ite line on American power. The notion that the Party might nominate a candidate who does both these things is totally preposterous...

Paul's supporters seem to believe that the media ignoring him is the only thing keeping him from challenging for the Party nomination. More likely, it's the only thing that's allowed his candidacy to progress to this point. If more people actually understood the full scope of Paul's fringe-right views, a huge portion of his support would peel off.

I think that's right. Paul has his hardcore support, and that will remain, but many of those who are merely attracted to his anti-government views and who respect him as a man of principle without really knowing much about him would recoil in horror if they knew what he was really all about.

In a recent piece at The Huffington Post on Paul's anti-Newt "serial hypocrite" ad, I included a throwaway line (as the post was mostly about Newt) about how Paul wouldn't win the nomination and was subjected to a blistering response from Ron Paul fanatics in the comments section (now 299 of them), accusing me (as a member of the hated media) of being biased against Paul and just plain wrong. I had been aware of it all along, but it was an up-close-and-personal look into the delusional state of Ron Paul fanaticism. Maybe some of these people know of Paul's fringe politics, but I suspect that most are just on board with his outsider image and anti-government libertarianism. They believe in him, and really want to believe in him, not least because he's something other than the sell-out politics-as-usual that you find in both major parties, someone seemingly authentic in an inauthentic political world.

I understand where they're coming from, and, again, there is much to admire, but his supporters just don't get it. They don't understand how the Republican Party works, nor what it stands for. Paul may well win Iowa, with its ridiculous caucus system, but that would be it. He would go no further. As extreme as he is, he's just not Republican enough for the Republican Party.