Rush Still Doesn't Get It

There must have been a major shitstorm in RushWorld after advertisers started pulling their spots from Limbaugh's show because of the crude, misogynist remarks he made toward Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke and her Congressional testimony. His "slut" and "prostitute" remarks were not based in any reality whatsoever. Advertisers let him know by pulling their ads and it looks like he was either scared enough or pressured enough by ClearChannel to actually apologize in a statement.

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.

But of course! Calling someone a slut and a prostitute is the height of humor. Ask and comedian and they'll tell you there's nothing like misogyny to get a crowd rolling in the aisles.

But this website apology only proves that Limbaugh never actually bothered to listen to or read Sandra Fluke's statement, and that he really doesn't understand how contraception works. So I'll try to explain in an attempt to make Rush and any dittohead understand what it is that he's railing about without any grasp of reality.

"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 think it would be absurd too, Rush, but that's not what they were talking about. If you bothered to educate yourself and actually listen to what they were talking about, you'd know they were speaking not of sex or sexual recreational activity (I know you're disappointed) but of the medical necessity of contraception. What about the woman who needs birth control to regulate her hormones because of endometriosis? What about the woman who suffers from polycystic ovarian syndrome, as Sandra Fluke testified?

"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities."

We're not. Georgetown University is a PRIVATE school buying insurance plans from PRIVATE insurance companies on which students PAY premiums, just like anyone else who has an insurance plan. Taxpayers are not paying for this. In fact, the mandate the Obama administration put forth in their compromise which effectively took the church off the hook required the INSURANCE COMPANIES to provide free contraception (i.e. prescription meds, not condoms because it's not about sex) should the religious institutions have a moral dilemma with it.

But since Rush and Co. don't understand how contraception works, this is falling on deaf ears. Some are moronically still insisting that this is about sex and crunching the numbers to calculate how much sex women are having per day depending on their contraception costs.

"...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."

Once again, Rush, it's not about nosing into someone's bedroom - and the only reason it reach the Presidential level is because it was you who made it about the private affairs of someone's bedroom even though it isn't about sex. President Obama actually called Ms. Fluke to support her after your misogynist attack. Do we see a pattern here?

"...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?"

Do I even have to go into comparing prescription medication to sneakers?

Rush doesn't understand. Rush will never understand. And the only reason Rush apologized was because he realized his words are hurting his wallet.

Must Reads

HuffPo: Warren Buffett Derides Chris Christie For 'Write A Check And Shut Up' Comment

John Heilemann: The Lost Party

Arthur Delaney: Drug Testing Bill Targets Florida State Workers, Excludes Lawmakers

P. Scott Russell: Rick Santorum On Religious Freedom: What He Has Forgotten Since Law School

Dana Milbank: Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech, in (mostly) his own words

Jim Wright: The Perversity of Extremism Tends Toward The Maximum

Steve Benen: A 'Eh, who cares' style of leadership

Jim Hightower: The Keystone XL Flim-flam

Matt Taibbi: Bank of America In Trouble?

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 3, 2012

Taking Control of Our Energy Future

Seriously, Dude?!

U.S. District Judge Richard F. Cebull, Montana's chief federal judge, sent an e-mail to some old buddies with a joke that implied President Obama was the offspring of his mother and a dog...

The message's subject line was "A Mother's Memory."

The Great Falls Tribune, which obtained the forwarded message, published it in its entirety:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

"A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'

"His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

This is a US Federal judge. But hey, it's okay right? We're in a post-racial nation now that we have a black man as president! How can you claim there's ANY racism in this country when we have a black president?!!

Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43

Since I've been working a lot more and blogging less these past couple of months, I didn't have a chance to express my thoughts about Breitbart's death until now. I did have a chance to read Chez Pazienza's well written post although in my opinion he was way too diplomatic. My co-blogger Jennifer tweeted "I'm not going to act like Breitbart over Breitbart. But I don't think he's equivalent to Anthony Shadid so I'd be OK if coverage were less."

For the most part, I agree with them both. But here's the thing: why is it that I should have any compassion for a man whose very existence in public life was nothing but the height of vileness? He walked the earth with the sole purpose of pushing his political ideology not by extolling the virtues on his own party, but by vilifying the opposition though lies and deceit. Why should I "mourn the man and not his deeds"?

He was complicit in destroying ACORN by flat out lying about them. Should the thousands of people who lost their jobs because of his doctored videotape mourn his loss? He set fire to the career of Shirley Sherrod and slandered her name with accusations of racism, then tried to wash his hands of it because he claimed didn't know that the "evidence" against her was edited as well. And I'm supposed to feel some kind of sympathy?

If someone makes their living as a flamethrower then they can't gripe when its turned on them. Live by the cheap shot, die by the cheap shot. In fact, Breitbart himself showed no respect after the passing of Ted Kennedy:

Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist who oversees Breitbart.com and BigHollywood.com, tapped into the anti-Kennedy vein in the hours after the senator’s death was announced, posting a series of Twitter messages in which he called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.”

"I'm more than willing to go off decorum to ensure THIS MAN is not beatified,” Breitbart wrote. “Sorry, he destroyed lives. And he knew it."

Sorry, Breitbart certainly destroyed lives. And he most certainly knew it.

Did I wish him dead? No. But neither am I saddened by his passing. There are still plenty of blowhards to fill the gaps. He won't be missed.

My Son on Those Who Love President Obama & Those Who Don't

POSTED BY JHW22

My son divided his stuffed animals into two groups: those who like President Obama and those who don't and he articulated the differences. Pretty spot-on for a kiddo. We did a few of these because he likes watching them on the computer afterward and I decided not to post the one where he said the ones who don't like President Obama steal his underwear and pants.

Why We Never Get Through

POSTED BY JHW22

So many times I have great discussions with other Democrats and inevitably someone says something to the effect of "Republican women won't stand for that" or "Republican voters are sick of this". But when we step back and think about it, we are applying Democratic values, perceptions and priorities to their thinking.

For example, Democrats were sure that Republican women would be offended by the war on women being waged over the past year by their own party. But why? Why would we think that? Republican women don't think like Democratic women. It's not that they love their kids less or that they are heartless bitches. But, really, Republican women have different views than we do. So why would we expect a Republican woman to see the contraception debate the way a Democratic woman would? We see it as an assault on our rights. They see it as an assault on their rights. But we each have a focus on different sets of rights.

Then take Ron Paul. Democrats were convinced his newsletters would be the end of his campaign. Why? Why would we think that Republicans would see the newsletters the way we see them as opposed to the way Paul sees them? Do we think they'll all of a sudden think like us because it's such a big deal issue? No. Republicans aren't going to drastically change their life experiences and conclusions taken from them just because WE as Democrats are offended by something. There's no sensible basis to expect it. So why do we?

Today Democrats are outraged by Rush Limbaugh and his vile comments about a college girl who stood up for a woman's right to have access to birth control. He implied she is paid for sex, is a slut and apparently he wants to watch sex tapes with her in them. Democrats are appalled for good reason. But here's the deal, I don't know any Republican who listen to Rush who will say "that crossed a line". The people who listen to Rush have crossed that line plenty of times before and don't care. They do not care. So, as offended as I am by this, I wish Democrats would stop pretending we'll get through to a certain voting block by assuming they can possibly see it our way just because we think it's a big fucking deal.

Folks, if these people could see things our way, they'd be Democrats.

Happy February 29th!

Let's Be Blunt

POSTED BY JHW22

What would you do if your boss said he was morally opposed to providing health care plans that cover pregnancy if you are in your second marriage because you were divorced from your first? And then you got pregnant with your new husband. Would you have to quit your job? Find a private policy to cover your health care? Scrape the money together? What if a female business owner thought prostate cancer was something she didn't want to cover in her company-provided plans? What would her male employees do? This Blunt amendment could mean YOU don't get health care coverage through your job. So, where ya gonna get it?

Did Romney Win Michigan?

For the first few hours, the GOP Michigan primary was too close to call. Mitt Romney, who was raised in the state and whose father was a former governor, was neck and neck with Rick Santorum. Then the call was made: Romney was declared the winner of the Michigan primary. But did he really win?

Rick Santorum claimed a partial victory Wednesday when final results showed he and Mitt Romney evenly split Michigan' s 30 delegates, even though Romney got more overall votes in the Republican presidential primary Tuesday.

The latest estimates from CNN showed both candidates with 15 Michigan delegates, while Romney was ahead in the popular vote with 41% to Santorum's 38%.

If you strictly look at the numbers, then yes, Romney won the popular vote and the delegates were split 50/50 because the race was so close in a state in which he should have cleaned up. But in a state in which he should have cleaned up, was this really a win for Mitt Romney? Yeah, I don't think so either.

Davy Jones Dies at 66

HuffPo: The Monkees singer Davy Jones has died at the age of 66, TMZ reports. A rep for Jones revealed that he passed away Wednesday morning after suffering a heart attack.

President Obama's UAW Conference Speech

BOOM! goes the dynamite. Watch and enjoy.

Quote of the Day

“Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama.’ Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess.’”

~Republican strategist Ed Rollins

(Via Bob Cesca)

What A Dick

Here's my governor (unfortunately) with full pomposity on display on Morning Joe clashing with Jonathan Capehart over the issue of gay marriage among other things. Good luck trying to stomach the 20 plus minutes of video.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Santorum's College/Religion Dogwhistles Are Wrong

"...62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it."

~Rick Santorum

That would be completely wrong. But did you actually expect it to be correct?

"...multiple studies have found that the opposite is true — including the one that Santorum has reportedly been referring to.

A study published 2007 in the journal Social Forces — which PBS reports that Santorum’s claim is based on, although his spokesman didn’t respond to TPM’s request for confirmation — finds that Americans who don’t go to college experience a steeper decline in their religiosity than those who do."

I just can't understand Santorum's latest crusade against a college education when studies in fact do show that a college degree does lead to a more successful career. But I suppose it's all part of the Republican attempt to dumb down America. How else would they get votes? And when all else fails, use the indoctrination boogeyman.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard everyday and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that [tries] to indoctrinate them."

At least he called him, "President Obama." But it's funny, I don't remember anyone railing against "indoctrination" in our nation's schools until we had a Manchurian Candidate, Kenyan anti-colonialist, illegitimate President. But Santorum goes on.

Pressed by moderator David Gregory whether he encouraged his children to go to college, Santorum said he encouraged them "to get higher education." "In fact, if college is the best place for them, absolutely, but you know what? If going to a trade school and learning to be a carpenter or a plumber or other types of skills or an artist... or musician, all of those things are very important and worthwhile professions that we should not look down our nose at."

Who said anything about looking down our nose at those who don't go to college? And "higher education" is what the President exactly said.

George Stephanopolous: All he said was he wants, quote, "every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training."