New Rule, everyone! Whenever you see Rush Limbaugh, puke on his shoes.
If you're fortunate enough that you think you'll never actually be in the physical presence of the revolting tick of the far right, at least write to your local paper and demand that they never run another opinion piece from him. Call up your local AM station and ask that they remove him from the airwaves. I don't understand how even a conservative can stomach Limbaugh's contemptible schtick anymore.
What is their religion? I don't doubt they're religious people, but, we talked about this. Political people are different than you and I. And, you know, most people when told a family member's been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has, they turn to God. The Edwards turned to the campaign.
Their religion is politics and the quest for the White House. And that's -- it's not just with them, I mean, it's part and parcel of political people -- undergo all this stuff, the media anal all over their private life being made public even by the candidates themselves -- it's all part of the drill.[...] If you're Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, how do you now attack John Edwards? Not a problem for Hillary, the Clinton [inaudible] will find a way. But Barack, it's going to be a challenge. [...] What the Edwards campaign is going to do here is see what the reaction is within the ranks of Democrat [sic] voters -- as far as this announcement is concerned -- and then go on from there. If there is not a big jump, if this doesn't cause a breakout, if this doesn't cause a big uptick, then, at some point, Senator Edwards will probably have to suspend the campaign.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This is really appalling, because on the sports pages about twice a year you'll read about some athlete who played in some major event while his mother was dying of cancer or something like that, and the lesson is **always** "his mother wouldn't have wanted it any other way".
the real scandal about Limbaugh is the people who pay him and the people who listen to him. If he were a drunk in a bar he'd mean nothing. In public places I sometimes ask myself what proportion of the people around me think Limbaugh is funny, smart, and politically astute, and whenever I ask that question I wish I was in some other country.
...On policies, or suitability for the job? No? Too much to hope that that's expected of politicians these days?
Had it been a Republican candidate, you can be sure he'd have put a completely different spin on the story. Slimebucket.
PZ, since your inbox is inundated, I thought I'd post this here:
Blog for the First Amendment/Religious Freedom, Against Theocracy, Easter Weekend April 6-8
Blue Gal and Neural Gourment are starting a "blogswarm" for Easter weekend, April 6-8, to blog for separation of church and state and against theocracy.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2007/03/21/blog_with_the_best_blog_agains
My personal bias is to blog for separation of church and state, but your values may vary.
I've made a few graphics
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2007/03/blog_for_separa.ht…
Feel free to steal.
Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting, pathetic excuse for a human being. I've thought this for a long time - ever since he called an 11-year-old Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog."
I love transcription-censorship. I guarantee you that Rush was not speaking inaudibly when he called Hillary Clinton a name. But, it'd make ol' Rush look like kind of an asshole if he were quoted referring to Hillary as "the Clinton Bitch"(my best guess) in print media.
Not that anyone is unaware that Rush is an asshole: it's just that if that stuff started showing up in readily-referenced newsprint, all the right-wing censorship juggarnaughts would have to start explaining why they're campaigning against Stern and not Limbaugh.
Totally unrelated to this topic PZ, but I thought this would make your day :>
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=0PBF68002BC-Nautical_Awards.jpg#70
Cheers, have a great weekend and keep up the good work u have been doing!
Gotta love the irony of a prominent, highly partisan political commentator saying that.
I really don't understand why people are surprised by this anymore. It's almost like expecting a Nazi to say perfectly nice things about Jews, Blacks, Gays and the hadnicapped, and then being outraged, insulted and taken aback when they act like a Nazi.
Now, far be it from me to equate Limbaugh to a brown shirt (it really is the tactic of freshmen debaters), but my comparison is similar in flavor, if not in severity. Limbaugh may have pioneered political talk, but one thing is for sure, he got his tricks from the God of Shock-jock himself, Stern. Limbaugh simply applies it to a different sphere of the American experience. And it most certainly is, or should be, a more cherished and respected sphere than the pop-culture stuff Stern loves taking on, since it has far more important and far wider implications for real people.
I was listening to Ed Schultz's show, and they had a bet going that some rightie would put this kind of spin on the announcment within 6 hours (or by dinner time Thursday evening). It took no more than about wo hours for it to happen. Edwards announced around lunchtime on Thursday, and by 2PM Eastern Limbaugh was trotting out the line.
Democrats, Progressives and liberals need to really get that very short gap understood fast, because the wrong party understands it as if they had a specially-evolved gland with the ability to do so. As for Limbaugh, I really was not surprised at all by his comment, and I am surprised anyone else continues to be (that is familiar with what people like RL and AC do for "work"). Are their comments hideous, insulting and degrading in a self-agrandizing and pompous way? Of course. But just keep the pressure on, because the boy who cried wolf "got his sh!t ruined", and if liberals stay vigilant, well, the Repubs have a lot of sh!t to wreck...
As soon as I heard the gist of the Edwards's press conference, I predicted on my "home" message board that before sundown either Limpblob or O'Leilly would accuse Edwards of trying to milk the sympathy vote. No, I'm not psychic; betting the opposite would have been stupid.
It's why we refer to Rush as the "Pigman".
I guess I'm not most people (in Rush's eyes). If I was told a family member had been diagnosed cancer, I would turn to the doctor and ask what can be done.
And even if I did believe in God why would I turn to him now? He just allowed my family member to get cancer!
In a similar circumstance, a republican, say Newt Gingritch, would turn to another woman...
"In a similar circumstance, a republican, say Newt Gingritch, would turn to another woman..."
Or to the sweet, sweet embrace of loving Oxycotin...
Does anyone remember Hunter S. Thompson and "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail," from way back in 1972. I was a niave liberal when I read it in high school (long after it was published and Nixon had been convicted). I loved it and still do -- but one day I realized that sometimes Thompson was as offensive as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but coming from the other side. Thompson wrote about wanting to beat Nixon up. He wasn't always fair to the Republicans.
It took me a long time to realize Coulter and Limbaugh had turned the weapons of Gonzo journalism against its creator.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
There is something essentially despicable about this. Surely, no matter whose wife has stage 4 breast cancer, the politics of that person should not be an issue.
If Bush's wife had stage 4 breast cancer, would Rash Limpballs being saying the same things? I doubt it..
Honestly, I had to read the quote twice to figure out what was more than just politics as usual, and I'm still not surprised in the least.
The only thing that corrupts the soul and poisons the mind faster than politics has "One ring to rule them all..." engraved on it.
"most people when told a family member's been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has, they turn to God. The Edwards turned to the campaign."
When told another's spouse has cancer, most people feel and exhibit nothing but earnest sympathy for the couple's plight.
Then again, most people have some quantum of decency.
Y'know, PZ, the funny thing about this post is that I'm sure Limbaugh has about the same opinion of you as you have of him.
The really funny thing is that from where I sit, it looks like both of you are right. The only practical difference between you and him is that he's more skilled at devising creative put-downs.
The really funny thing is that from where I sit
I hope you aren't getting a headache from the pressure.
Political people are different than you and I.
ceejayoz already pointed out the irony of this statement, but I want to be the first to point out the hypercorrection-induced solecism. Way to go, Rush! You do the English language proud.
Anone who supports Limbaugh in any way - given all the nasty things he has said through the years - is scum.
His behavior is indefensible. The audience that supports him should be mercilessly vilified for not cursing him from the rooftops and hounding him off the air.
He epitomizes all that is wrong with America.
Tom Snyder and Patrick Reusse both knew Limbaugh when he was a sports broadcast employee of the Kansas City Royals. They said he was a fairly liberal guy, and a Democrat, but realized that the best way to make money in radio was to be a conservative because they have all the money to buy advertising. So he moved to Sacramento, and got into radio as a right-wing character, unafraid to say anything. Part of me still wants to believe that underneath is still the old Rush before he got corrupted by the vast wealth of the White Male Conservative Elite who had just been waiting for a Daniel to lead them in their bleating about how much they are being persecuted.
But then, perhaps, like Frodo's hope for Gollum's redemption, I am mistaken. The old Rush is gone for good and has succumbed to greed and power.
As for turning to God, I see that Rush has been divorced times now. How many times did he "turn to God" when his marriage was failing. Laying wagers.
Since the open thread is calm, and this is related, I will also go slightly OT here. :-)
As you may or may not noticed, there is a concurrent separation issue in Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel (protestant), with the help of the churches and Poland, is pushing for reviving the European constitution with christian messages included.
A group under the leadership of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the European Humanist Federation, and the ultra-liberal Catholic group Catholics for a Free Choice have instead drafted a rival Secular Vision for Europe. ( http://richarddawkins.net/article,658,Battle-for-Europes-secular-values… )
Apparently a majority of countries voted against the inclusion and it supposedly resulted in the rejection of it in the preparatory "Berlin Declaration" when it was presented today. The catholic leader is not happy according to Reuter. "Pope Benedict strongly criticised the European Union for excluding a mention of god and Europe's Christian roots in declarations marking the 50th anniversary of its founding." ( http://www.gulf-news.com/world/European_Union/10113554.html )
This religious leader does not seem to understand what a secular government is. "Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it [Europe] to doubt its very identity?" Apparently he has conflated non-religious activities with anti-religious views before. Which of course makes it the more important that his and others meddling seems to have failed so far. Go EU!
"Apparently a majority of countries voted against the inclusion" - Apparently a majority of countries are against the inclusion. No votes what I know of yet.
I just want to point out that Rush is on FM here in the TWin Cities. Other than that, you're dead on.
Northern California owes the nation an apology for making Rush into a radio star back in the 1980s when he was merely a local ranter on Sacramento's KFBK. Some of us thought he was a parody back then, but the joke stopped being funny a long, long time ago.
The sad fact is, Limbaugh is not rich and successful despite being an asshole. He's rich and successful because he's an asshole. His nastiness plays to the tastes of his target demographic, the enormous mass of Americans who feel like losers.
(#15):
Unfortunately, Nixon was never convicted, never tried, and never even impeached. He resigned before (probably) being impeached, and could not be tried or convicted because Ford pardoned him. He was disbarred.
Had he been convicted, I'd like to think Bush 2 would be less infested with Nixon-retreads; and, for that matter, Kissinger would have been sent off to any of the many countries that still want to try him for war crimes. But what the world got was those crooks back, who have restarted their loot and destroy fixation, this time in Afghanistan and Iraq (at least).
Whenever someone quotes Limbaugh in a conversation, I just ask them what he's ever done for a living besides shoot off his big, fat ignorant mouth. That usually shuts them up.
blf wrote:
Whoops! My memory is bad. Bernstein and Woodward had all the evidence and some guys did go to jail - John W. Dean who wrote "Worse than Watergate" spent a few months in prison for his role in the Watergate cover-up. But you're right -- Nixon never got convicted.
But I'm surprised no one is taking me to task for saying Hunter S. Thompson was sometimes as bad as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. It's only a partial truth. Is no one going to defend Thompson?
Norman - it's early yet. ;-)
My opinion, FWIW: Although Ford was by all accounts a decent man, the Nixon pardon did a grave disservice to this country. In the name of "national healing" what we were given was a precedent for relieving the office of the Presidency of accountability, and the seed of what the Reagan administration would coin as "plausible deniability." The legacy? Bush, Cheney and company, who operate on the unspoken premise not that it's their job to serve, or even to lead - but, rather, to rule, and be answerable to no one.
I'll bite. I don't recall the quote about him wanting to beat up Nixon (I last re-read the book a long time ago), but you'll recall he threatened to do worse to John Chancellor after JC disagreed with him on a small point relating to press coverage of the Democratic Convention. It wasn't meant literally, it was his schtick. You'll also recall he was impressed by Nixon in the one personal conversation which they had.
I recommend "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" as by far Hunter Thompson's best book. He was not a deep thinker, but very funny (in a savage way), and a good describer of the American scene.
Back on topic, there are several conservative pundits whom I sometimes enjoy listening to, even when I don't agree with them, such as John McLaughlin and George Will (even Pat Buchanan ocasionally makes a bit of sense). Limbaugh and his imitators have never made any sense to me. There is no there there. Yet I have friends, good people, who listen to him on the radio for hours a day. I just don't get it.
Looks like Rush got your attention, though, and that's all fools like him and Ann Coulter want.
True as far as it goes, Doug, but the problem is that there are plenty of people who eat up what they say, and repeat it verbatim as if it was their own opinion, and have you noticed? Their influence grows. What shall the rest of us do? Stay mute? I don't think so.
My wife, who is not politically conservative at all, was immediately turned off by Edwards pressing on with the campaign in light of his wife's cancer. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't - I'm trying hard to avoid thinking too much about presidential politics 18 months before the next election. I'm just saying that if my wife is representative of some subset of women or married women, the political impact of his decision may be different that what the blowhards on the right seem to fear.
Rush is human form vomit. He is the personification of puke.
It could be good for the campaign; the Puritan work ethic is still alive and strong here, and soldiering on in the face of personal difficulty is quite revered. Besides, if Elizabeth Edwards was in a more average income bracket and circumstances, she wouldn't be able to stop doing her job and going on with life, regardless.
As for Rush, I still think no one could ever top the horrific statements made by Bill O'Reilly about Shawn Hornbeck, but this comes a lot closer than I thought anyone could.
COd, does it matter to your wife that Elizabeth Edwards wants her husband's campaign to continue? She said so without any apparent reservation and has always been a key player in the senator's political campaigns. I think the Edwards want to avoid making their lives and careers "all about the cancer." While they can't just wish it away, it seems they refuse to give it top billing. That's probably better than sitting at home wringing their hands.
Kseniya, you are so correct, and I find it a bit scary at times because I listen to people who repeat Limbaugh's words almost verbatim after listening to his radio show. They may say the same thing about liberals, but I find I disagree with fellow liberals more than they disagree with Rush, if you get what I mean.
BTW, I think Kseniya deserves a ROMA for her posts lately, especially as she is young (which is to say that's a great thing). It's refreshing to see that critical thinking isn't completely dying in the US.
BTW, for those who never saw this back in 2000, it still applies. Afterwards he started eating oxycontin - 104 pages of cartoon goodness. Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything:
http://www.e-sheep.com/rusheats/000.html
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat asshat.
Seriously, I wish he would just shut the fuck up.
If Bush's wife had stage 4 breast cancer, would Rash Limpballs being saying the same things? I doubt it..
No. But a good portion of the Right, both online and MSM, would be speculating about what incredibly lucky wingette would nail the widower, probably in some publication/blog/program that Laura Bush reads or listens to. After six years, the Rs have pretty much chased out anyone with a shred of taste or decency, while emboldening every total cretin in the country--in other words, their base.
It's been a long long time since I read any of Thompson's works, but what I recall was whilst he could be nasty, he did so with style, wit, a bit of humour, and usually to make a telling point.
I don't believe that is true of either Limbaugh or Coulter. (I qualified that because I now don't live in the USA and so have been mostly isolated from those two.)
But I'm surprised no one is taking me to task for saying Hunter S. Thompson was sometimes as bad as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. It's only a partial truth. Is no one going to defend Thompson?
Well, there's no need to. For one, the man's dead and, secondly, it's an idiotic claim. The idea that HST only went after Republicans is silly enough - read his stuff on the '68 Democratic Convention or how much loathing he had for Hubert Humphrey - but if you really think HST's complete lack of respect for "respectable society" and political nobility puts him the same camp as Limbaugh and Coulter just tells me you really ain't read much of HST's stuff. Frankly, I find it hard to believe you made it through On The Campaign Trail if you think Thompson went easy on Democrats. Hell, he even busted the balls of his favorites like McGovern and, later, Carter. He was friends with Pat Buchannan, for cryin' out loud.
And gonzo journalism is more than being purposely outrageous and offensive, even if it means stretching the truth, about politics. It was supposed to be a way of chronicalling the story, the real story, because you're a part of the experience, not just telling someone to fuck off.
No need to refute a comparison when it's questionable whether or not the original claimnant knows what he or she is talking about.
All I remember of F & L on the Campaign Trail is the Ed Muskie-on-Ibogaine bit. Much funnier than anybody writing on politics today.
When did I ever say HST went easy on Democrats? I said that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter learned gonzo from him. Are you lying for the fun of it -- or are you on drugs?
If you want to make a case, please do it without lying.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Clearly both Rush and Ann Coulter listened to Hunter S. Thompson's advice. I fully expect to find than Ann is doing speed and coke like we found out Rush was on his drug.
-- From: Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century
That's as offensive as anything Rush or Coulter has written if you're on the other side of the political divide.
And I know he called Hubert Humphery "a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese Current."
Fat chance.
She's wasting her time.
You know, threads like this frustrate me because I despair of anyone with any influence doing anything about this guy. He's not a journalist, so you can't accuse him of violating journalistic ethics. He's not a politician that you can throw out of office. He's not an academic, and he doesn't publicly debate anyone, so you can't tear him down except in effigy. And this plays to his strength: he's just a guy who says outrageous, often offensive things that appeals to a certain base of political conservatives,and this has made him a cash cow.
About the best we can hope for is that some of the candidates will do something decent and unite in condemning his behaviour.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told "The Today Show" that "Limbaugh is irrelevant." :
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/arnold.rush/index.html
To paraphrase a newer post, why does anyone listen to someone who thinks w/his ego?
Brash Bimbo is a cowardly demagogue, hypocrite extraordinaire, a rethuglican whore (he'll spread his legs for any GOP president), and, and...pejorative nouns and adjectives just fail me, there being so many.
It becomes obvious that the 'family values party' is dysfunctional to the nth degree.
I've had my own run in (flickr picture) with the limbaugh family, showing it's not limited to just Rush.
You know, one of the main things Rush advertises for is homeopathic cold medicine. Got to love that!
I'm surprised no one has repeated the old Doonesbury comic:
Q: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
A: One's a flaming Nazi gasbag, and the other is just a dirigible.
Never ceases to be funny.
-- CV
What truly amazes me is that Rushbo said they are political people unlike you or "I" I was unaware that
rushbo was not a political person. I think I must have been hallucinating the 15 hours each week of someone claiming to be him turning everything in the world into a partisan political comment. Perhaps someone should call him up and warn him that someone else has been using his name and program to be a 24-7 political person. He seems to not know that.
Since the open thread is calm, and this is related, I will also go slightly OT here. :-)
As you may or may not noticed, there is a concurrent separation issue in Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel (protestant), with the help of the churches and Poland, is pushing for reviving the European constitution with christian messages included.
A group under the leadership of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the European Humanist Federation, and the ultra-liberal Catholic group Catholics for a Free Choice have instead drafted a rival Secular Vision for Europe. ( http://richarddawkins.net/article,658,Battle-for-Europes-secular-values… )
Apparently a majority of countries voted against the inclusion and it supposedly resulted in the rejection of it in the preparatory "Berlin Declaration" when it was presented today. The catholic leader is not happy according to Reuter. "Pope Benedict strongly criticised the European Union for excluding a mention of god and Europe's Christian roots in declarations marking the 50th anniversary of its founding." ( http://www.gulf-news.com/world/European_Union/10113554.html )
This religious leader does not seem to understand what a secular government is. "Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it [Europe] to doubt its very identity?" Apparently he has conflated non-religious activities with anti-religious views before. Which of course makes it the more important that his and others meddling seems to have failed so far. Go EU!
"Apparently a majority of countries voted against the inclusion" - Apparently a majority of countries are against the inclusion. No votes what I know of yet.
Fat chance.
She's wasting her time.