Rush Limbaugh Accuses Those Who Celebrate DADT Repeal of Hating the Military

Dec 20 2010 Published by under Featured News

On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh accused anyone who celebrated the repeal of DADT of hating the military. Limbaugh asked, “By the way, isn’t it revealing my friends, the same people who have only shown hatred and contempt for the US military are the ones celebrating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as a great historic accomplishment?”

Here is the audio from Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “By the way, isn’t it revealing my friends, the same people who have only shown hatred and contempt for the US military are the ones celebrating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as a great historic accomplishment? So much irony in all of this, if we’re not going to call it the Pfc. Bradley Manning Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. What are we going to call it, gays in the military, show and tell?”

Here is a video portrait by Jo Ann Santangelo of gay and lesbian soldiers who were kicked out of the military under DADT. As you watch this, keep in mind that these are some of the people who are celebrating the repeal of the policy. These are also the faces of the people who Rush Limbaugh claimed hate the military.

Proud to Serve from Jo Ann Santangelo on Vimeo.

The people in the video above hate the military so much that they are willing to do something that Rush Limbaugh isn’t. They were willing to risk their lives for their country. Gay and lesbian soldiers and the supporters of the repeal of DADT should never be compared to Bradley Manning, the solider currently facing charges in relation to the leaking of government secrets to Wikileaks. Rush Limbaugh is the betrayer of the freedoms that this country stands for, not the men and women who are willing to die for them.

Limbaugh’s comments are important because they highlight the fact that although DADT has been repealed, the forces of bigotry and hate remain strong. Limbaugh also gave us a preview of how socially conservative Republicans plan to use this issue in 2012. To the social and religious conservative, the repeal of DADT is an opportunity to revive the culture wars, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they will try to use gays in the military as both a wedge issue and a call of repeal of the repeal to activate their base and get them to the polls.

What Rush Limbaugh’s remarks also highlight is the generational divide on this issue. Limbaugh and his audience are old white America. These are the same people who blocked the repeal of DADT for almost two decades. They don’t understand that the world around them has changed. The attitude of the younger generation about homosexuality is different. To the vast majority of Americans, DADT didn’t make sense. To them, there is nothing dangerous or treasonous about allowing gay soldiers to serve.

People like Limbaugh and Sen. John McCain don’t hate America. They hate that America is changing. They think that they are fighting against gays in the military, but in reality they are engaged in a losing battle against change. Resistance to change has long been a tent pole of conservative thought. This is why Tea Partiers wanted “their country back,” and it is why Sarah Palin talks about the mythic “real America.”

The truth that these people refuse to accept is that “their country” is gone, and “Real America” never existed. Those buzzwords are a mere expression of the conservative desire to return to the past, but America has moved forward, and no amount of hate and intolerance discussed faux patriotism from the voice of Rush Limbaugh can defeat the inertia of progress.

26 responses so far

Rush Limbaugh Claims Extending the Bush Tax Cuts Does Nothing for the Rich

Dec 17 2010 Published by under Featured News

On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh actually argued that the rich did not benefit from the compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts. Limbaugh claimed that the government never gives the rich anything, and, “the only giveaway is welfare. The only giveaway is our social programs. The rich are not given anything by our government.”

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

After playing a clip of Nancy Pelosi discussing how the middle class were held hostage because the Republicans demanded additional tax cuts for the rich, Limbaugh said, “What she’s claiming happened didn’t happen. Nothing was done for the rich. It all depends on the baseline. It all depends on how the table was set. If you lived all year thinking the rich are going to get a tax increase because Obama wanted to raise taxes on the rich. He wanted to let these tax cuts expire. If you’re a liberal Democrat, and you want to soak these people by raising their taxes, and you believe your party’s gonna do that by letting these tax rates expire, and then all of the sudden your own party comes along and says nope, we gotta keep these tax cuts the same so as not to hurt the economy.”

A little later Limbaugh went on to claim that the rich never get anything from that the government, “There’s no giveaway to the rich. There’s no giveaway period. The only giveaway is welfare. The only giveaway is our social program. The rich are not given anything by government. Well, other than the CEOs who have a back scratch deal with Obama, but I mean in the terms you and I are talking about, the rich are not made rich because the government gives them money.”

Limbaugh’s spin is wildly inaccurate. Extending the Bush tax cuts benefits the wealthy more than anyone else. As the MoneyBlog explained, “There’s something for everyone in the Bush tax cut deal. But the benefits are skewed toward the rich. The payroll tax holiday takes two percentage points off the current 6.2 percent taken out of paychecks. Someone making $100,000 would get a tax cut ten times bigger than someone making $10,000. Census data shows the average U.S. family earns about $52,000 a year. A Bush tax cut extension will save these households $1,180 on average in 2011–about 2.3 percent of income. Families earning from $200,000 to $500,000 would save about $7,500. Taxpayers making $1 million and more, about $129,000 — nearly 6.2 percent of income.”

The original Bush tax cuts are based on trickledown economics and were designed to benefit the rich more than anyone else. The tax cut for the rich is three times larger than the one for the middle class. Rush Limbaugh makes $33 million a year in salary. Of course, Limbaugh is going to defend the Bush tax cut. He stands to pocket an additional $4, 257,000 in each of the next two years.

As far as Limbaugh’s claim that the rich never get anything from the government, here are just a few numbers from 2008, before the great economic collapse and the government bailout. In an average year, the wealthy get $100 billion in corporate welfare, $500 billion in Social Security payments that they don’t need, $100 billion in corporate bailouts, and $500 in interest from the Federal Reserve on bonds. The total amount of federal and state spending on welfare programs averaged $400 billion a year, but has grown to $600 billion during the current recession.

To put it in context, the rich get $100 billion more in Social Security payments than the federal and state budgets for welfare programs combined. Even with demand for assistance at its current high, it is only $100 billion more than Social Security payments to the rich. Contrary to what Limbaugh said, the rich actually take more of a handout from the government than the poor, but conservatives and Republicans keep their dirty little secret close to their vests, less the American people find out who is really bleeding them dry.

11 responses so far

Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh: The Idiot Influence in American Politics

Dec 11 2010 Published by under Featured News

American politics is out of control and it’s not only because of the lies and deceit from Republicans, or their incessant call for less taxes and corporatism. The problem is that pundits, media celebrities, and think tanks are defining the narrative for ignorant voters and it is destroying democracy.

Radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh spout hateful racist commentary to their audiences and rail against imagined enemies to the point that their lies become reality to listeners. Does Limbaugh have expertise in governance or setting policy for America, or is he just an entertainer? It is obvious that although he has no standing as an elected representative, he does wield power over the Republican Party, and their relationship is strong enough that he is a featured speaker at Republican functions.

Glenn Beck is not an elected representative, but he “educates” his audience daily about government and Obama’s Socialism and tyranny. Beck is instrumental in pushing the Tea Party agenda on his radio program and his show on Fox adds visual acuity to his vitriolic rhetoric against all things not Glenn Beck. Although Beck and Limbaugh are staples in the nonstop attacks on Democrats and especially President Obama, it is Sarah Palin who is most offensive.

Palin holds no political office, and in fact, quit her job as governor when her incompetence became well-known and she became the target of investigations for malfeasance. The question is; what does Sarah Palin do? She weighs in on every subject as if her opinion carries any weight outside of her moronic Facebook followers. It doesn’t matter that every time Palin opens her filthy mouth, she gives her detractors reason to belittle and demean her.

It is also curious that the main stream media gives Palin coverage when she is a big nothing in American government. Does the media give Palin attention because they think she has any prescient insight Americans can learn from, or do they publish her remarks so intelligent people can deride her? In a non-scientific poll, 70% of men said they like Palin because they want to have sexual intercourse with her. The remaining 30% said that regardless of her attraction, they wouldn’t have sexual intercourse with her because she is too stupid. Outside of the ignorant Christians and gun fanatics who worship her, Palin’s reputation is little more than a joke.

Palin is a clown and a curiosity for most Americans, and few think she is qualified to lead the country. Her reality show on The Learning Channel is one big advertisement for guns and Sarah Palin. Does the network believe that Palin beating fish and shooting majestic animals is a teachable moment? Palin’s show is a mutual benefit for the network and her, but it sends a message to Americans that she is little more than an idiotic killer. Even Karl Rove has commented that Palin or her show do not represent leadership necessary to be president. Karl Rove is not a politician either, but he at least has experience in government; although why he continues to wield power is a mystery; unless one follows the money.

The problem with allowing entertainers and pretenders to educate and inform the voting public about issues is that, like all things American, they are fueled by money. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and the commentators on Fox News are money-making machines, and that is not bad in itself. It is bad that their unilateral opinions favor the party that is raping America and they are responsible for much of the support Republicans have today. It doesn’t matter that their commentary has as its basis nothing but lies and deceit; they are making money for themselves and conservatives.

If Americans were intelligent, they would look to more than one source for their information about American government they elect. But Americans are lazy and full of hate so they hear exactly what they want to believe whether it is true or not. The main stream media is culpable as well as Fox News and the lying entertainers because they refuse to cover stories that expose the lies from the right wing entertainers.

It is sad that so many Americans listen to the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin to learn how they should vote.  American politics is becoming a carnival with clowns and actors setting the narrative and policy of one political party, and it has damaged democracy in the process. Voters base their beliefs on lies from Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin, and refuse to look elsewhere for verification or repudiation of alleged facts from the right.

The midterms demonstrated what happens when voters choose candidates based on an entertainer’s endorsement. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Joe Miller are examples of idiots who are so bizarre that voters rejected them for their ridiculous views and policy statements even though they enjoyed undying support from Sarah Palin.

Until Americans learn the issues that shape America’s future, we are in for a wild ride. There is no justification for listening or following the suggestions of money-grubbing entertainers who have no sense of what government is or does. But that is what happens when people with no standing in the governing process make policy for Republicans from a position of stupidity.

Although Beck and Limbaugh are hate-mongers, everyone knows their game, but why anyone would listen to Sarah Palin is a mystery. She is wrong all the time, makes up facts to suit her pea-brain, and has no standing in the government. Just what does Palin do? What gives her the right to weigh in on every single issue in politics? The answer is so obvious; Americans like success stories and Palin has parlayed a failed political career into a multi-million dollar industry. It always boils down to money; truth is not relevant.

7 responses so far

Scrooge Rush Limbaugh Claims The Poor Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Vote

Dec 03 2010 Published by under Featured News

On a day when the US unemployment rate rose to 9.8%, Rush Limbaugh used his radio show to argue that poor people should not be allowed to vote. While commenting about a piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about people lining up for housing assistance, Limbaugh asked, ” If people can’t even feed and clothe themselves should they be allowed to vote? Should they be voting?”

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

While bashing Obama and railing against an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution that described poor people lining up for heating assistance, Limbaugh decided that poor people, since they tend to vote for Democrats should not be allowed to vote. Limbaugh said, “This story raises a very unpolitically correct question. If people can’t even feed and clothe themselves should they be allowed to vote? Should they be voting? If people who are receiving government assistance, that is taxpayer assistance, if they weren’t allowed to vote can you imagine the political difference in this country? Can you imagine? It’s just a think piece, putting it out there for you to ponder?”

Property requirements for voting were abolished by 1860,but this has not stopped people like Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips who argued that property requirements made a lot of sense, “The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.”

Glenn Beck picked up this right wing talking point earlier this week and used it to label the fact that poor people are suffering in America a lie, and today Limbaugh picked it up in order to call for the disenfranchisement of 15% of the American population. From a political point of view, Limbaugh was dreaming of way to give the Republican Party permanent control over the government. For people like Limbaugh and Beck the poor aren’t good people who are struggling to survive, no they are greedy, undeserving sub-human parasites.

The idea is that the rich are better and more important Americans because they have money. Property requirements undermine the very fabric of our democracy. When critics of the right call them un-American, things like dreams of voter disenfranchisement are what they are referring to. Our democracy is already threatened by a political system that has been overtaken by outside money, and I guess the best way for the wealthy and corporate America to finish the job and make sure that the American people never have power again would be to disenfranchise as many voters as possible.

Boy these Republicans really know how to celebrate the holiday season! Not satisfied with cutting off the unemployment benefits of 2 million Americans right before Christmas, now they are trying to make sure that the same people that they threw in to poverty never have the ability to vote them out of power. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the right are one speech about sending the poor to work houses away from going full on Scrooge on us. Merry Christmas America. You can be certain that rich white Republicans like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh won’t be thinking of you this season.

88 responses so far

Joe Scarborough Exposes Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck’s Fake Palin Support

Nov 30 2010 Published by under Featured News

Palin in Scarborough's Crosshairs

It turns out that Joe Scarborough’s criticism of Sarah Palin in a column for Politico today was just the tip of the iceberg. On his MSNBC program Morning Joe, Scarborough exposed the truth about the right and Sarah Palin. Talk radio hosts and Republican leaders privately say they don’t want her, but they are afraid to take her on. Scarborough basically accused the talk show hosts, who defend Palin for 3 hours a day on the air but don’t really support her, of lying.

Here is the video from MSNBC:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Scarborough opened his Politico piece by discussing the GOP’s Palin problem, “Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private. Enough. It’s time for the GOP to man up.”

Scarborough expanded on his comments during Morning Joe today. His co-host Mika Brzezinski opened up the segment on the Politico story by saying, “But the bottom line is you know, we talk off set with a lot of major Republican figures, and they say all this. They refuse to say it on the record.”

Scarborough then expanded on her point, “All of them. All of them say it offset. All your talk radio show hosts that will defend Sarah Palin for three hours every day, all offset quietly say this, all your leading conservative figures, off the record, will say all of this about Sarah Palin but they want ratings and book sales and don’t want to upset the 18% of Americans who like Sarah Palin. I, however, my main concern with actually good governance.”

It doesn’t take much effort to figure who Scarborough was referring to when he mentioned talk show hosts who take the airwaves for three hours a day to defend Palin. Of course he was referring to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and especially Glenn Beck. Judging from his statement that the talk show hosts support Palin to boost ratings and book sales, I think that he was especially taking aim at Beck.

The reason why these talk show hosts are lying to their listeners can be found by examining demographics. The average viewer age for Sarah Palin’s Alaska is 57 years old. Roughly 80% of Fox News viewers are over 50 years old, and it has been estimated that 70%-80% of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are over 50 years old. Palin’s supporters also listen to and watch Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, so it is in their financial best interests to never let their true feelings about Sarah Palin be known on the air.

In order to make a buck, these right wing talkers go on the air, and lie about their support of Sarah Palin every day. What Scarborough did this morning was provide an insider’s view of how the right wing media works. It isn’t about beliefs for them. It is all about feeding the audience what they want to hear, and making money. The problem is that what that audience wants to hear could bring down the Republican Party if Sarah Palin is allowed to become their 2012 nominee.

I think almost everyone who is not on the right underestimates what a powerful brand and marketing machine Sarah Palin has established with evangelical and social conservatives. People like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh are happy to keep milking the Palin cash cow, and are afraid of rocking the boat. These so called voices of right wing truth are so terrified of Sarah Palin and her cult like following that they tell them exactly what they want to hear.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes these propagators of false reality to line up and proclaim their love and support of Sarah Palin, and even though some on the right will see Scarborough as a traitor or a closet liberal, he is actually doing his party a favor by exposing the dirty business of selling Sarah Palin.

37 responses so far

Rush Limbaugh Wants The TSA To Grope Obama’s 9 Year Old Daughter

Nov 23 2010 Published by under Featured News

On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh suggested that President Barack Obama prove that the new TSA screening procedures are safe by taking his daughter to the airport and, “How about Obama take his daughter to the airport, and have a TSA groper go through the exact routine for Obama’s daughter that everybody else’s daughter goes through?”

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “How about, you remember when Obama went swimming in the Gulf with his daughter to show everybody it was safe during the oil spill? How about Obama take his daughter to the airport, and have a TSA groper go through the exact routine for Obama’s daughter that everybody else’s daughter goes through? Just to show it safe for everybody, like he did in the Gulf for the oil spill, hmmm?”

The incident that Rush Limbaugh is referring to occurred in August when President Obama took his nine year old daughter swimming in the Gulf after the oil spill. Yep, Rush Limbaugh wants the TSA to “grope” a nine year old girl. By the way, I have not heard anyone argue that the TSA screenings are unsafe. Most complaints center around the notion that they are an excessive invasion of privacy, but I have not heard the search procedures referred to as unsafe before.

When Limbaugh talks about putting Obama’s daughter through the same security screen that everyone else goes through, he means everybody but him. “Common man” Rush Limbaugh has no first hand idea of what the screening procedures are like because, the uber rich, like Limbaugh, don’t fly commercial. Limbaugh’s attempt to discredit Obama as being out of touch with the hassle that Americans who fly would have a lot more credibility if Limbaugh flew commercial at all…..ever.

There is the story out there from last year about the TSA patting down a three year old girl, so excessive searches can and do happen to kids, but the larger question here is why is it fine for the right to drag Obama’s children into their warped fantasies, but even the mention of Sarah Palin’s children in anything but the most flattering and angelic terms results in howls of anguish and anger?

There is something sick and pedophilic about Rush Limbaugh’s desire to see President Obama’s nine year old daughter groped. Where is the outraged tweet and Facebook post from the Mama Grizzly on this? You can bet that there won’t be one, because the right has never had an issue with attacking the children of Democratic politicians, but heaven forbid that anyone dare to point out that Sarah Palin’s adult no talent oaf of a daughter doesn’t belong on Dancing With The Stars, a show which she voluntarily appeared on and put herself in the public eye for, and all hell breaks loose.

It speaks volumes about the true morals and values of the right that they not only condone, but they also embrace Rush Limbaugh’s child molester fantasies about President Obama’s daughter, but I guess the family values end when the children involved belong to Democrats or the TLC cameras stop rolling.

38 responses so far

Rush Limbaugh Claims that the Rally to Restore Sanity Helps the Republicans

Oct 27 2010 Published by under Featured News

In what can best be described as a delusional rant, on his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh wove a tale of how the Rally to Restore Sanity helps Republicans. Limbaugh called Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, “half baked comedians,” and claimed that they tell, “Putrid jokes.” Limbaugh also predicted that the rally will draw 65,000 people.

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “Democrats are looking to a pair of comedians to do what Obama and Bill Clinton, and dozens of other leaders have not done yet this election season, that’s get party members excited about voting, and so these two comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. What? He pronounces it Colbert? It’s not Colbert? Oh. Ok. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert expect tens of thousands of fans to join them at the Rally to Restore Sanity on October 30. Three days before the election.”

He continued, “I hope you all go. I hope every Democrat in the country goes. I hope every union member abandons your precinct, abandons every bit of work you are doing on the election, and goes to Washington, sits around, gets drunk, smoke some doobies, and listens to some putrid jokes told by a couple of half baked comedians. What a brilliant scheme. If I didn’t know better I would say that Stewart and Colbert are working for the Republican, a giant rally three days before the election taking Democrats away from polling places, away from the heavy work and the heavy lifting of getting out the vote. Right on.”

Later Limbaugh claimed that Stewart and Colbert are jealous of Beck and the rally will only draw 65,000 people, “Everybody abandon your state head to Washington three days before the election and spend your time doing whatever, while the Tea Party and others are busy working to produce giant turnout on Tuesday, while you Democrats turn out on Saturday in a meaningless show of what? For a couple of comedians who simply can’t get over the fact that Glenn Beck drew over a half million people, and they’re barely going to get over 65,000, and that’s if Arianna Huffington comes through with the free buses.”

Rush Limbaugh is so out of the loop that he did not know how to pronounce Stephen Colbert’s name, and as usual when we discuss anything that comes out of Limbaugh’s mouth, a few things need to be corrected. First of all, his “fact” that Glenn Beck drew over 500,000 people to his Rally to Restore Honor is a total lie. Objective estimates place the size of the crowd at 87,000-100,000. Over a half of a million people did not attend Beck’s rally. The aerial pictures of the event are enough to debunk this right wing myth.

Secondly, Limbaugh’s claim that on 65,000 people will attend the rally was the gibberish of a delusional old man. The official Rally to Restore Sanity Facebook page lists 223,929 people who have committed to attending. There are going to be a hell of a lot more than 65,000 people there. In fact, attendance for the Rally to Restore Sanity should blow any rally the right wing has put together out of the water.

People like Limbaugh are trying to frame the Rally to Restore Sanity as a Democratic get out the vote operation, because they have to find some way to discredit the event and massive crowd that it is going to draw. Contrary to Rush’s fantasy, every Democrat is not going to D.C. this weekend. There will be plenty of them all over the country working hard to get out the vote for Tuesday.

There is no reason for Stewart and Colbert to be jealous of Beck. The ratings show that they already have more viewers than Beck, so Limbaugh is obviously projecting his own jealousy on to the Comedy Central hosts. Rush Limbaugh is so jealous of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that he concocted this wild fantasy to try to diminish their success. On Saturday, Limbaugh and the right are going to get a taste of the future, and the future doesn’t like what Rush Limbaugh is selling.

30 responses so far

Rush Limbaugh’s Geographically Retarded Attack on George Clooney

Oct 13 2010 Published by under Featured News

Rush Limbaugh today attacked George Clooney for giving up on Darfur, and instead focusing on Sudan. The problem with this is that Darfur is in fact a region of Sudan, and when his mistake was pointed out to him Limbaugh said, “I knew that when I said it but I decided to stick with it,” and somewhere Dora The Explorer cried.

Here is Limbaugh’s gaffe via Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “We supposedly have gazillions of people out of work and this president focused like a laser on it right? Meanwhile, he’s got time to meet with George Clooney, who apparently has given up on Darfur, and is now all concerned about Sudan. That’s right a meeting with Obama in the Oval Office about the horrible situation in Sudan, so Obama’s got time to do that. He’s played his 52 round of golf this past weekend since being inoculated. He’s playing more golf than I do, and he’s leading the charge on this foreign money business.”

When it was pointed out to him that Darfur is in fact a region in Sudan, Rush went with a version of the old I meant to do that defense, and in typical conservative style he took pride in his own and the stupidity of his listeners.

Limbaugh said, “By the way, I got a note from a staffer, you better be ready, Rush, you are going to get about 500,000 emails from people telling you you are an idiot when you said that George Clooney is shifting his attention from Darfur to Sudan, because Darfur is a region of Sudan, and I said, eh you know what? I knew that when I said it, but I decided to stick with it, so I checked the email, about 10 minutes ago I made that statement, not one email from anybody in any account telling me that I goofed up or I’m an idiot for not knowing that Darfur is a region of Sudan. I wonder why that is?”

There are a couple of possible reasons for why that is, Rush. It is possible that your listeners are just as stupid as you are, and just like their hero, they had no idea that Darfur was a part of Sudan. The other possibility is that none of his listeners are paying attention. Perhaps his radio show is nothing but elevator music for the conservative mind. Maybe Limbaugh has even bored his own audience with his repetition of the same old attacks on Obama. After a while, I’ll bet that it all starts sounding alike.

Limbaugh contradicts himself in the same segment. First, he said that he knew that he said the wrong thing, but he went with it anyway. Later, he claims that like him his audience had no clue where Darfur is located. This incident is the perfect illustration of why when Right Wingers try to communicate in society, they sound mentally retarded. They are getting their information from sources that don’t care about facts.

Limbaugh attack on Clooney made him sound like an idiot, but just like any good winger, he refused to admit his mistake, and took pride in his own ignorance, but it is this very ignorance caused by the replacement of facts with ideology that makes conservatives such terrible leaders. Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox are the Johnny Appleseeds of Right Wing ignorance, and they are the reason why trying to argue facts with a winger is a pointless waste of time.

57 responses so far

The Republicans Are Failing to Make an Argument

Sep 15 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

Beck, Palin and Limbaugh

Remember remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.” – English Nursery Rhyme

If you want to get a point across, or to convince a crowd of something you believe, you need to advance an argument. Don’t just say something and expect people to believe it; really make an argument. What do you believe and why? What facts or evidence supports your assertion? What are the consequences if you’re right/wrong? And what can/should we do about it?

During election season arguments fly fast and furious. It can be hard to keep up; it can be hard to know what/who to believe. But if you listen carefully, you will find that the Republican narrative has made clear that Republicans don’t know what an argument is.

Take some of the following examples (by no means exhaustive!):

  • Argument isn’t simple contradiction. If someone asserts that Democratic administrations have made for a healthier American economy saying “No they haven’t” is not an argument.
  • Argument is not simply repeating a lie when confronted with the facts. For example, McCain claimed during the debates that Obama was going to raise everybody’s taxes. Obama pointed out that in fact he was going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, which is factually true. McCain ignored this and repeated his claim. Republicans are still repeating it.
  • Argument isn’t evasion; it isn’t changing the subject or refusing to answer the question, or pulling a Palin and saying “I don’t want to talk about that today.”
  • Argument is not a unilateral statement or assertion lacking supporting evidence: “The Democrats have ruined the economy.” Where is your supporting evidence? In the same way that “spin” is not news, it is not an argument either, however catchy and easy to remember.
  • An argument is not an ad hominem attack, which attacks not the argument itself but the author. Pundits like Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter are infamous for making ad hominem attacks. This is a sure sign that the attacking party recognizes that there is no argument to be made. Democrats are “communists,” “traitors” or “terrorist sympathizers.”
  • An argument should be relevant. It should address the topic under discussion. It should provide evidence and the evidence should support the conclusion. Sarah Palin’s claim that Putin flew over Alaskan airspace (whether it is true or not) is irrelevant as it is unlikely she would watch the plane as it soared overhead, or that even if she did, she would somehow glean from it some insight into foreign policy matters.
  • The “false dilemma” (either-or fallacy) – a pair of claims of which it is said only one can be true or that there are only two choices – is not an argument. One we hear all the time is that “Either we eliminate government regulation of business or profits suffer.” As has been pointed out by observers, unregulated companies can do untold damage to themselves and to others, even going bankrupt, like Enron. Economics is a complex system; there will seldom if ever be only two choices.
  • The “slippery slope” fallacy – the claim that one thing makes another thing inevitable – is not an argument but you see it a lot. This fallacy works well in the politics of fear. For example, the Republican argument from 2003 on was that making peace in Iraq, or taking anything other than a hard-line approach – even talking about less aggressive alternatives – would lead to increased attacks on America. They are still making that claim seven years later despite the absence of such promised attacks.

There is a great deal of intellectual dishonesty in Republican discourse and in the sorts of “arguments” you see raised on public forums. As Obama said before the election, “We’ve become accustomed in our politics to folks just being able to make stuff up.” This is generally true of politics today (left and right both) but increasingly, where the Republicans are concerned, it is difficult to find any sign of honesty at all.

They not only don’t make an argument. They’ve ceased to even try.

Instead they have constructed a mythical America, divorced from reality, provided it with a fake history to support it, and delivered it in catchy sound-bites. But catchy does not equal accurate and backing up a lie with another lie does not magically transform the first lie into truth.

The world doesn’t work that way. The nursery rhyme with what I began this piece may have been used propagandistically to buttress monarchy, but it at least refers to an actual historical event. Republican nursery rhymes do not.

It is important to remember that the internal logic of an argument is completely separate from its truth content. Just because it “sounds right” doesn’t mean it is. This is part of Sarah Palin’s appeal to the Republican base, which is motivated more by emotions than by common sense or reason, let alone an examination of the facts.

“She speaks for us!” they say. Yes, that is because neither of you is thinking.

There are some simple explanations for this. The Republican platform does not support the scientific method; the idea that empirical evidence is relevant is alien to them, that is, evidence acquired from observation, experimentation and testing. The Republicans don’t support science – which is inherently liberal– or even Education.

Perhaps that’s not surprising; science and education upset the status quo that is so dear to conservatives. But that’s another discussion. The simplest explanation is that because the facts do not support their assertions they have to make stuff up, an activity they engage in with great enthusiasm.

17 responses so far

Beck and Limbaugh Blame Inez Sainz for Being Sexually Harassed

Sep 14 2010 Published by under Featured News

With the news that the NFL is investigating a claim by TV Azteca reporter Ines Sainz that she was sexually harassed by members of the NY Jets organization, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have both weighed in and decided that Sainz deserved because of the shirt she wore and according to Limbaugh she is,”bootylicious.”

Here is the audio of Beck’s blame the victim routine via Media Matters:

While laughing Beck said, “This is a TV sports reporter. I’ve never seen a woman wear a shirt like that that covered less.” Beck and crew went on to claim that she is engaging in a publicity stunt. “Here’s the thing about this woman this is clearly a publicity stunt….You know what’s really amazing is last week we were played for this whole nonsense of the Quran burning, and it was a publicity stunt, that’s all it was, and this week the media is playing this chick.”

Later in the day, Limbaugh upped the sexist ante via Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “Inez Sainz former Miss Spain knows full well. She sees it in the mirror. She knows how she looks, furthermore, whatever else she knows, Inez Sainz knows what she is and does that attracts men. She knows that she has an ass-et. Depending on what part of the country you’re from, boobalicious, bootylicious she got it. She is making no attempt to downplay it or hide it none what so ever, because she wants access for her job. She wants to interview Mark Sanchez….and like every other reporter on the face of the Earth, she wants access. She works for Azteca TV. She doesn’t care to interview Rex Ryan. She wants to talk to Mark Sanchez. Well , he’s only the starting quarterback. Everybody wants to talk to Mark Sanchez. He’s the starting quarterback, so how does she get access? Well, she is Inez Sainz, so Inez Sainz does what I think she is born knowing to do, but she’s even been trained further.”

In some ways the blame the victim because she is a beautiful woman stance of Beck and Limbaugh is nothing more than a reflection on long held conservative sexist attitudes. Many conservatives don’t even consider sexual harassment to be real. The blog The Stir recently pointed out that female journalists have long been subjected to sexual harassment in the locker room, and even though the NFL passed a rule in 1985 which granted equal access to all reporters regardless of gender, claims of sexual harassment have continued. The issue may be under reported because just as in society as a whole, any female journalists who do complain are often under immediate pressure to recant, because pursuing their complaints can often cost them access in the case of journalists, and their jobs.

While Sainz’s claims are still under investigation, the attitudes of Republican opinion leaders like Beck and Limbaugh are big, loud, ominous signal that despite the fact that the GOP has tried to dress themselves in the words of a redefined conservative feminism, and “Mama Grizzlies” their views on issues that are important to women remain the same. This is still a party that wants to tell women what to do with their bodies, does not think that they should get equal pay for equal work, and believes that when a woman gets sexually harassed or raped it was her own fault.

Don’t be fooled by the dressed up women pretending to be the face of the “new” Republican Party. Mama Grizzlies are nothing more than a continuation of the 2008 Sarah Palin strategy which emphasizes the belief that women are stupid, and they will vote for another woman strictly based on gender. If a Mama Grizzly is spouting the same old anti-woman talking points, she is not a new brand of feminism. She is simply a woman who is selling out her own gender in exchange for fame, money, and power.

It feels ridiculous to even have to point this out, but if Miss Sainz was sexually harassed, she did nothing to deserve it. Women have the right to practice any profession in an environment free of discrimination and harassment. At least women still have that right today, but may not in the future if Republicans who hold the Beck and Limbaugh mindset regain control of the levers of American political power. Remember, when conservatives talk about taking their country back, they also often mean taking women’s rights back to the 19th Century.

12 responses so far

Older posts »