The Context of Rush's Statement that the Media Won't Report

"It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood," said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. "Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society," he added.

This comment was reported a full day before Rush made his comments on Bane, the bad guy in the upcoming Batman movie.  Of course the people on the left that are reporting this are leaving out this detail as well as taking Rush's comment out of context.  He outright says that there are people out there who are not very well-informed will make the connection when the hear name Bain Capitol.  And let's be honest here, there are many stupid people out there; sad but true.

Obviously I have not seen the new movie as it has not been released yet.  But I did see Dark Knight, and that was a story of good versus evil.  It attempted to make people to think about what you would do if you pushed to your limits and beyond by forces that are evil.  Would you go for revenge or would you do the Christian thing and forgive?  Not that it put it in a Christian context as such in the movie, but the premise remains the same.  This movie has been talked about as an extension of those themes.

Rush was responding to these comments as well as to liberal bloggers who made the connection.  The movie was written well before Romney was the nominee and Bane was a past character being brought back.  So there was never any connection intended.  But that didn't stop the left from saying so.  But all of a sudden Rush is a paranoid idiot when he discussed the left making the comparison.

Media bias much?  Hypocrisy is thy name.

Mika Brzeninskji's Pretzel Logic - Rush Limbaugh Responsible for Martin Shooting

Hey Mika, you forget Sarah Palin.  Didn't she cause it too?

What a twit.

Rush Changing the Narrative

There are many on the right who are very unhappy, to say the least, about Rush Limbaugh issuing an apology for calling Sandra Fluke a slut.  They shouldn't be.  The anger should be directed at him using the word in the first place.  Above and beyond how derogatory the word is towards women, it changed the conversation; and not in a good way.

I understand what Rush was trying to do.  He was pointing out the irony of her claim.  But the truth is we know nothing about this woman's sex life.  If you are thinking to yourself that you do, then when is the last time she performed a sexual act?  How many partners has she had in the past six months?  Is she heterosexual or homosexual?  Chances are you know none of the answers to these questions because she never discussed her sex life and what type of birth control (if any) that she uses.  She discusses the topic in a more generic conversation and talked about countless "others" who tell her their stories of woe.

What Rush and everyone else needs to be concentrating on is the first amendment.  The government trying to dictate to a church what is and what isn't protected by the constitution, not her sex life.  Seriously, are you all that interested in her sex life?  I am not.  I could care less what she does in her bedroom. As long as it done by consenting adults, it is none of my concern.  What is my concern is how she is trying to push her will and her view-point onto the Catholic Church and Georgetown University.  She chose that school for a reason.  She went there specifically to try to force them to change their policy on birth control.  She did this before Obamacare and the mandates were even an issue.  She has been working on this for almost three years.

Look, birth control isn't the issue.  I have used birth control in my life (which I paid for myself) and I can guarantee you no one will be accusing me of being a slut.  Newsflash; not all conservative women are virgins when the get married and therefore use birth control.  Newsflash;, not all conservative women are looking to have large families; so they use birth control.  The issue is does the federal government have the right to force a religious institution to go against the doctrines and teachings of the church that has been around for thousands of years?  These church teachings have been in existence long before the U.S. was ever formed.

The left set the trap and we conservatives walked right into it.  This isn't about sex, it isn't about birth control, it is about liberty.  We need to do ourselves a favor and stop talking about this woman's sex life and deal with the fact that she is trying to push her will onto the rest of the country; regardless of the constitutional protections that are in place.  We need to stop playing their game.  They wanted to paint conservatives as a bunch of people who think anyone who uses birth control is some sort of sexual deviant who needs us to tell them how to live their lives and what drugs they can and cannot put into their bodies.  That is a battle we cannot, should not  and will not win.  Americans don't want the right telling them how to live their lives anymore than they want left doing it.  What Americans want is their freedoms and liberties to be protected.  Our job is to tell them that they are being ebbed away by an over-reaching, ever more powerful federal government in the guise of discussion on birth control.  If we keep the discussion on birth control and Ms. Fluke's sex life they don't see that they are giving away their liberties willingly in exchange for a $9 pack of generic birth control pills.

Yes, Rush Went There

Because he didn't sexually harass anybody because she said stop, and he stopped; she said take me home, and he took her home.
I did notice that when we were listening to Bialek she said that she told him, "What are you doing, Mr. Cain, I don't want you to," and he stopped. She said no and that was it. No means no. . . . When Herman Cain drove the babe home she actually got there and is alive to talk about it. 

Now, I am not a listener of talk radio very often.  While I do sometimes get useful information, I personally feel it more entertainment than substance.  But, shortly after the press conference I was in a car with a friend who was working on a local campaign to re-elect a state delegate doing a get out the vote effort for yesterday's elections.  He happened to have it on.  I thought then that Rush went too far, but I didn't really get to hear the entire thing.  


Jill over at Pundit and Pundette didn't take to the Rush dialog on this any better than I have:

Well yes, it's true, no one's accusing him of abduction or murder. But that's what I'd call a pretty low bar. Would Rush have the same casual response if someone treated his wife like that?

 She asks the question:

What she is accusing Cain of is worse than that. I've been out of the dating scene for a while and I know things have changed, but have we really sunk so low that a guy sticking his hand up a woman's skirt and pushing her head down to his crotch is just making a romantic overture?

There are many things about Ms. Bialek's story that I find troubling.  There are things that just don't make sense to me.  One being that what she was describing is not harassment, but assault.  That was a criminal offense and she should have contacted the police.  Digging to see if she has financial gain to making these allegations, is she prodded along to make them, and if so, by whom?  Those are legitimate questions to ask. Her credibility then becomes questionable.  But, for people to talk about her sexual history is downright low and disgusting.  Bill Kurtis has basically publicly called her a whore:

And lot of people [at CBS] know her and she has a history. . . . There's a lot more to the story that is just developing.

One of the constant themes you hear from the right in regards to the media coverage of the accusations against Bill Clinton once he started running for president was that the media attacked the women instead of dealing with the allegations against President Clinton.  That is exactly what Rush just did.  He now no longer has the credibility to go after the press for not doing their jobs in regards to Clinton.  


I believe that the first women's motivations for making the accusation need to be examined.  Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has pointed out an article done the by the AP on one of accusers who seems to have a history of making harassment claims.  She went on to make another complaint at her next job, in fact.  In that complaint she was looking for a raise and a promotion.  Apparently, the claim was eventually dropped, but one can detect a pattern of behavior with her that makes her complaint against Cain much less credible.  


As a woman, I find it just more than a more disturbing that the first line of defense is to call the woman a whore and to dig into her sexual history.  In this day and age most women have a sexual history.  Some may be more sorted than others, but few women were pure as the driven snow on their wedding nights.  The right or wrong of that is up to your own particular morals.  But if only a virgin or a woman who was on her wedding night can be a victim of sexual harassment or assault, most women better start not leaving their homes without a guard, because it will open season on many of us.  


I have to hang my head in shame to see where Rush took this conversation.  His sexual innuendo with her last name and saying that since she is still alive to talk about it is way over the line of decency.  I am with Jill in asking if someone stuck his hand up his wife's skirt would he just be grateful that she isn't dead, and to heck with the gesture?  


As a person who honestly believes that the media went too far in going after the women who accused President Clinton in a personal, demeaning, and disgusting fashion, I am no more pleased the some on the right are doing exactly the same thing.  Investigate the claims and look into seeing if they are being driven by money or a sick attempt at 15 minutes of fame.  But leave the woman's sexual history out of it.  It is none of our business.  

Rush, Liberal Trolls, and the Conservative Woman

I came across a post yesterday at Caffeinated Thoughts on Sarah Palin and Rush. Rush got a caller from Virginia who took issue with Sarah Palin's possible run for president due to her young children. She went on to explain how she couldn't support a woman who has very young children being POTUS. Rush didn't take to kindly to this caller and viewed her as a liberal troll. What makes me believe that she isn't a liberal trying to stir up trouble is because when he asked who she would support she said Mitch Daniels. Daniels isn't exactly on the liberal radar from what I can tell. If she had said Romney or Huckabee it would be easier to believe that she may have been a fake caller.


Rush dismissed her and her concerns out of hand

RUSH: You’re not disappointing me. You’re just a sexist.


CALLER: Am I? Well, that could be it, too.


RUSH: A little sexism going on here, but that’s fine, everybody has, you know, boundaries to allow some of that stuff to happen….

Is it really sexist to think that small children need their mommy? Jill from Pundit and Pundette doesn't seem to think so. She is the mom to a large family and has made being there for her children her priority. That doesn't make her sexist or a Neanderthal. There are plenty of women in this country who honestly believe that being a mother is the most important role they will ever have. My Gosh, even Natalie Portman called it her most important role. They believe that being there on a consistent and daily basis is the preferable way to raise children to become healthy and happy adults.


When the caller brought up Mitch Daniels Rush then went onto to say that he is a father. Yes Rush, Mitch is the father of four girls. But, they are not girls, they are women. The youngest is about 25. Sarah Palin's youngest child is about three. There is no comparison between the two. A 25-year-old woman has her own life and the daily parenting work is now over. A three-year old who was disabilities and a child in elementary school have needs that his daughters do not. Frankly, I am little shocked that Rush would even say something like that unless he doesn't know how old Daniels' children are. Which is entirely possible, because I had to go online to look it up.


The women who believe that being there for your children are not ignorant enough to not realize that being a stay at home mom is possible for all women. There are plenty of women out there who must work. Some due to being single parents others due to the financial realities that don't allow them the luxury of staying home. The issue becomes when a woman like Sarah Palin's knee jerk reaction was to put people down for wanting that or preferring that. Calling someone a Neanderthal isn't going to win over people. When I did my original post on this many of the comments that followed was the fact that Todd Palin stays at home with the children when she is traveling. Ok, fine, but then that would make what she said even more perplexing. She can do these things because there is a stay at home parent. She should be embracing that instead of putting it down.


The idea of running a national campaign for the presidency of the United States and then spending four years doing a very stressful and all-consuming job when you have a three-year is going to turn some people off. One of the things that I actually did respect about Michelle Obama during the campaign was the fact that she refused to be away from her children more than two days at a time, and the girls were kept at home with a regular schedule. The day after their father was elected president they were in school. She still goes to her daughters activities. I respect that. She has made giving her daughters a childhood her priority. I don't agree with the Obama's on virtually anything, but they have tried to give their children the most normal childhood that they can considering they live in a fishbowl. Also, for the record, I did say way back when that I didn't think someone with very young children should be president. I don't think it is a healthy environment to raise children in. If that makes me some nut, then so be it. When you bring a child home from the hospital you have made a choice to be a parent. That choice comes with major responsibilities and yes it includes putting your desires on the back-burner at times.


Rush also went on to bring up Hillary Clinton

RUSH: It seems to me all this hating going on on Sarah Palin, for whatever reason, there are a lot of people who just don’t like the idea of a strong woman. Well, isn’t that what we heard in explaining the criticism of Hillary? We did.

Rush, this isn't about liking or disliking strong women. This is about the fact that Sarah Palin has two children under ten, one of which has yet to start school. Again, Chelsea is a grown woman who actually went out and campaigned for her mother. There are people in this country who believe that a mother of small children should put the needs of their children before the desire to be the most powerful woman in the world. There is a distinct role for mothers in the lives of their children. A role that fathers simply cannot provide.

Quote of the Day - Rush Limbaugh Edition

"...I wouldn't be surprised if Barack and Michelle have some maritial problems after reading this, it's obvious they're both in love with the same guy..."

Rush on Obama after reading The New York Times Magazine piece. 

Rush & Kathryn's Wedding Album

Kathryn looks beautiful.  I am not really into the strapless wedding gown thing; a little too naked for my particular tastes, but the gown and the veil are lovely.  They look very happy.  Best Wishes to them both for a long and happy marriage.  Maybe the third time is a charm for Rush. 

Shame on You Glen and Rush - Let Massa Go Away

Eric Massa, the now former congressman from New York, is getting all kinds of attention from conservatives.  Rush said on his radio show that he wants to make this a national story and Glen Beck will be interviewing him for the full hour on his Fox News show later today.  Hannity and Levin talked up his controversial statements as well.  This man is a disgrace not only to New York, but to all of us.  This is the type of person we elect to high public office in this country? 

Eric Massa can't even keep to the same story.  First it was for health reasons that he was stepping down, then it because he is being forced out by the democrats in order to pass the health care "reform" bill.  If he truly believes that he is the only way to stop this bill from passing then why is walking away?  He was not forced to resigned.  He left on his own accord. 

He has only been in office since last January.  In that time he has not gotten one piece of legislastion to the floor.  According to the reporting of Michelle Malkin:


“He’s been a progressive zealot and political opportunist his entire career,” Malkin wrote Monday afternoon. “He’s claimed conspiracy before, is intimately bonded with the nutroots and climbed the political ladder with backing from the odious, anti-war-hoaxer-embracing Gen. Wesley Clark. What Massa dismissively calls his ‘salty old sailor’ talk should raise bright-red flags about possible long-standing predatory behavior.”

While his statements make good theater, he is nothing but yet another disgraced politican that doesn't deserve this 15 minutes of fame.  Let this sad, disgraced little man go away.  The last thing that conservatives should be doing at this point is giving this nutjob a stage. 

Let's Call a Rino a Rino - Romney Endorses McCain

Much has been made of Glen Beck’s keynote speech at CPAC. Bill Bennett, Mark Levin and Rush have all weighed in; saying he was too critical of republicans. Levin was especially unhappy that Beck didn’t hurl insults at the likes of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; like name calling is productive. The gist of what Beck was saying was that a track record of policy initiatives and a proven voting record is what matters more than party affiliation.



Today the news broke that Gov. Mitt Romney has endorsed Sen. John McCain over J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona primary for the Senate seat. While J.D. is certainly not without sin, he is the more conservative of the two.


This is precisely what Beck was referring to; Mitt has jumped on the party establishment bandwagon. John McCain is patriot and an American hero, but he is a ‘when it suits me’ conservative.


Recently the senator has had a mea culpa of sorts with his support of TARP and Cap & Tax. His withdrawal of support of TARP is especially maddening. Where was this conservatism when it was really needed? I would lay odds that had he voted no in the fall of 08 he would be president today. Not that I am saying that would be a good thing, but I do believe it to be true.


Glen Beck very specifically called out McCain in his speech Saturday night. Not by name of course, but the reference was unmistakable to anyone who knows McCain’s affection for Teddy Roosevelt. McCain has a long and much proven track record of veering to the right during the election cycle, then going back to his true roots as a “progressive republican”; a phrase most recently coined by his daughter Meghan. It’s so sweet that she takes after her daddy.


This is the time that strong conservatives are sorely needed; now more than any other time in our history. Our government is addicted to tax and spend policies that are jeopardizing the future of this country. We are all too quickly headed towards Zimbabwe like inflation. The out of control spending cannot possibly be sustained. As such, we should not be accepting of politicos who have proven track records of big government policies. Nor should we be accepting of politicos who endorse them. I think that Rush, Bill, and Mark owe Glenn an apology, don’t you?

I Double Dog Dare You - Go ahead Al, file that lawsuit

Rev. Al Sharpton has threatened to sue Rush Limbaugh in regards to his op-ed piece in Sunday’s issue of The Wall Street Journal. In the piece Rush was being Rush and went after Al Sharpton with little mercy.



I am personally not a huge fan of Rush. I find him more than a little arrogant and I don’t think that he can bring himself to admit when he is wrong. I listen to him from time to time; mainly when a big issue comes up just to hear his reaction. If one is being honest they would have to admit that Rush tends to be a race baiter. Now, that is very different than being a racist. There is no evidence that Rush is a racist. He has a shtick and being very provocative is part of that.


There is nothing that Rush does that Al Sharpton does not do as well. Sharpton has said some pretty horrible things over the years. He has spent decades trying to divide people instead of trying to bring them together. I grew up in Southern Connecticut, which is the same as being a suburb of New York City. So I have heard from Al Sharpton ever since I can remember. When he was walking around in his sweat suits and spewing racial hatred. I used to think he really disliked white people.


See I think that Rush needs to keep talking. Push Al to file that lawsuit. Wouldn’t you just love to have him under oath? I would really like to know when exactly he knew that Twana Brawley was a lair. Was it before or after all the racial tensions in New York City was coming to a boiling point? I would like to know exactly what he meant when he called Jews Diamond Merchants. Was it a put down? Because it certainly sounded like one at the time to me. I would like to know why he doesn’t feel any sense of responsibility for continuing the riots that occurred after the tragic accident in Crown Heights. I also would like to know why he felt the need to write the letter to the NFL at all. I heard him being interviewed the other night and he said that was just taking the side of the minority players. Did they ask him to get involved or did he just take it upon himself to get back at a man that has repeatedly made fun of him? And just for a few more laughs, I would really like to know why he feels that he speaks for the poor when he has in the past hawked himself for pay day loan companies. That is something that never really was in the news. I have insomnia issues and saw a commercial of his and was shocked and appalled that he would do something like that and then have the audacity to say he speaks for the poor and under-privileged people. If he truly felt that way would he take money from an organization that preys on the poor to make huge profits?


There is an old Chinese curse – May you get what you wish for. So go ahead Al, file that lawsuit. Rush has plenty of money. He can hire the best attorneys in the country. I personally would pay money to watch him under oath during depositions. Seriously, someone could make a fortune if that were put on pay for view. How much would you pay to watch him being deposed?