Deplorable Calls for Censorship and Double Standards For Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh’s recent dishonest and disgusting comments on Sandra Fluke, an unpaid citizen-activist who (despite Limbaugh’s lies) never asked for taxpayer money nor said anything about her own sexual needs or behavior, have caused an unsurprising firestorm in Democratic circles. Unfortunately, we are also seeing no small amount of double-standard behavior from Democratic politicians and left-leaning commenters; it appears that many of them cannot bring themselves to hold their own heroes such as Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann to the same standards. (Click here for examples.)

Warning: the following enlightening video contains considerable potty mouth quotations from TV shock jock and liberal darling Bill Maher:

We are also seeing deplorable efforts to have Limbaugh censored by the government, which should not be supported by anyone, liberal or conservative, who supports the 1st amendment. The answer to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

The fact that some three dozen companies have now pulled sponsorship from Limbaugh is utterly appropriate, but no one who cares about the 1st amendment should support using government power to punish him with fines, or worse, outright censorship. The 1st amendment protects everybody, including those who indulge in odious trash-speech like Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh.

And Democrats should be forthright in condemning and refusing to accept money from people who unapologetically behave like Bill Maher. The President’s supporters should be called upon to refuse campaign donations from people like Maher until they clean up their own act. If we want to clean up political discourse even a little in this country, we need to start by cleaning our own houses. If conservative stalwarts like George Will (link) and Peggy Noonan (link) can exhibit the right attitude here, so too can those on the political left be expected to clean their own house.

Stop defending the indefensible just because it’s from someone you like or generally agree with. Stop trying to use government-imposed sanctions and censorship to get what you want; the cure for despicable speech is more speech. And Democrats now gleefully taking advantage of Limbaugh’s contemptible misbehavior should, without any mealy-mouthing or weasel-wording, call out people on their own side when they act viciously. Ed Schultz gave an honorable example just last year; most people, left right or center, should take note.

Free tips for everybody:

1) Don’t change the subject
2) Don’t play tit-for-tat
3) Don’t make excuses
4) Make keeping your own house clean your first priority

Rush Limbaugh deserves every bit of criticism he’s getting. There are very legitimate ways criticize Sandra Fluke’s position, and reasonable ways to respond to such criticisms, without descending to the gutter. Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors have every right to refuse to be associated with him any longer. But censorship is not the answer, and neither are double standards.

(This item cross-posted to Dean’s World.)

*Update*: For those who claim there are no liberals attempting censorship, The Inactive Activist will set you straight. It apparently isn’t enough to censure Limbaugh; for some, it is necessary to censor him. I have to ask, is turning Rush Limbaugh into a martyr for Free Speech really the best plan?

The copyrighted cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Author: DEAN ESMAY, Guest Voice Columnist

Dean Esmay is a long-time associate of Joe Gandelman and The Moderate Voice. He is Managing Editor of A Voice for Men. He also blogs on a variety of issues at Dean's World, one of the world's first blogs and one of the few that was archived as Historically Significant by the Library of Congress for the 2004 elections. You can also follow Dean via Twitter here.

54 Comments

  1. Maybe, maybe there is a case for libel or slander here, but yea thats kinda silly for trying to get the feds to yank him off the air. We are free to be jerks, let the market deal with him. I’m still surprised Rush has as big an audience as he does.

  2. Hi, Dean, your post is a tit-for-tat.

    It ignores the fact that (1) Maher did not go on and on and on for more than three days (70+ slurs/references to sex life) and (2) that Maher’s show runs on HBO which isn’t on public airwaves.

    If you are going to tell the story, please tell the entire story.

    It also ignores that fact that TV commentators who say crappy things on public air waves (in the one-off, <10 second vein) were censured and their stations apologized.

    It is PERFECTLY legitimate to ask the FCC to investigate Limbaugh’s show. There’s a form for that on the FCC website. The FCC fined Howard Stern’s radio stations about $2.5M for his potty mouth.

    ‘It sounds like you aren’t happy that the Supreme Court has ruled that obscene speech on public airwaves CAN be regulated. That’s fine – figure out how to change it. But please don’t get huffy when citizens use the legal tools already at their disposal.

    Edited to fix typos and formatting errors

  3. I believe in the Bill of Rights, but I also believe that none of those freedoms was meant to be absolute- especially in the media. That is why we have regulatory agencies in the first place.

    A hefty fine might make him think a little before spewing his next transgression

  4. I think your conclusions need to be re-examined Dean. For one thing you can’t have a double-standard when there is no real equivalent to Rush Limbaugh on the left to begin with, meaning someone who has been poisoning the airwaves for as long, reaching as many people, or who has become the face of a party. The outrage being vented now is not only long overdue, but it will probably be met with deaf ears on the part of RL anyway and his apologists anyway. AFAIC getting him off the air would be like taking out the garbage. Also, I agree with a appreciate Kathy Gill’s comments on this.

  5. (please consider my typos edited) ;-)

  6. Federal Statute makes it a violation of federal law to broadcast “obscene, indecent or profane language.” 18 US Code 1464.

    The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, first proposed in 2004 to increase fines for violation of the law was met with this from Dave Ross, with which I agree:

    “The concern, of course, is that if Congress has the power to outlaw one word, it has the power to outlaw another word…. And the fact that it was indecency and not politics doesn’t make that much difference, because if you give the government the power to decide what you can hear, you’ve given them power over discourse.”

    That we have a Federal Censorship Commission [er, Federal Communications Commission] does not mean that we are compelled to encourage it. Bankrupt Limbaugh with defamation suits if one can. Bankrupt his show by convincing his sponsors to withdraw their ads if you will. But, don’t use his foul mouthed abuse as an excuse to encourage expanding the reach of government censorship.

    Just my view.

  7. The real problem has to do with the fact there is such a willing audience for RL in the first place. I say this with full realization that people have the right to fill their heads with all the hate and lies they want to.

  8. I agree that the FCC and government needs to stay out of this situation. When W’s FCC under Michael Powell over stepped, I was against the government censorship. If Obamama’s FCC tries to attack RL it will be equally wrong and an overstep of authority…

  9. I don’t like Maher and don’t like Olbermann any more than I like Limbaugh.

    But other than canceling my HBO subscription – I don’t have one anyway – and writing my displeasure to him and his network (both of which I’ve done) I don’t have much influence.

    If HBO had received mass threats of cancellations after his Sarah Palin “c”-word comment, I can assure you he wouldn’t be on the air.

    As for Olbermann, who watches Current anyway?

    And as for Limbaugh, the public could and did speak. They didn’t go after him or his free speech rights. They went after the people who advertise on his show and convinced them it wasn’t in their best interest to continue to do business with him.

    There’s no censorship here; Rush can mouth off about “sluts” all he wants to.

    He’s just going to make less money doing it.

  10. (Splitting up comment into 3 so the dumb spam guard won’t eat it.)

    I definitely don’t like the idea of legal intervention from the government, even for this absolute failure of a human being. I think Ms Fluke should be allowed to sue for libel and slander, and considering the extent of the damage, I would hope the settlement or judgment for her would be considerable. I also am glad to see his advertisers dropping him like so much hot garbage (last I heard the number is up to 45 advertisers who have dropped him).

  11. As I’ve said on other threads, while Bill Maher has used similar language, it was never the language Rush used that bothered me — at least he’s not dressing up his hatred of women in euphemisms like the rest of the GOP leadership. His ideas are well-established among the leadership on the right, as is his utter lack of knowledge of the subject of birth control in general.

  12. Using sexist language is not ok, and I don’t watch Maher because he’s a giant sexist jerk. However, his sexist language is only used as a colorful way to say “bad”, “stupid”, or “mean”, or any other number of superficial insults.

  13. With Maher, it’s rhetorical sexism, and with Rush, it’s actual woman-hatred. It’s like the difference between describing having to pay taxes as “rape” and actually talking about how rape victims are slutty liars because that rapist is actually a super nice guy. One is rhetorical sexism, and the other is straight-up hatred of women with real effects on women’s rights and safety.

  14. Rush Limbaugh does not have “First Amendment” speech on commercial broadcast airwaves. He has “commercial speech.” (Look it up.)

    The false equivalence argument always works by either suppressing quantity or quality. Quantity: Charles Manson is a criminal. Your grandma got a parking ticket. Therefore, since both share the quality of “law breaker” Your Grandma = Charles Manson.

    Quality: Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that he has “18,000″ advertisers (counting all local advertisers on all stations) and that losing 28 (or 32, he vacillated) doesn’t mean anything, therefore. Because, Granny’s Donuts in Keeblerville, Arkansas is the SAME as Sears or AllState.

    This post is a textbook example of the fallacy.

  15. To Kathy Gill: While there may be an FCC form for complaining about obscenity, that does not mean that the Limbaugh comments meet the definition of obscene. These are words that at one time would have been censored, but today have been used repeatedly in network programming without FCC action. So I believe that the market action of advertisers pulling ads and legal action of a possible libel or slander suit are the reasonable courses of action.

  16. Professor Gill:

    1) I have seen enough of the likes of Bill Maher over the years (some 20+ now) to know that he has made most of his money saying hate-filled, corrosive, and vile things, especially since the late 1990s and early 2000s. That he sometimes says nice things, or says things I agree with, does not change that. That’s the whole story that needs to be told on Bill Maher so far as I can see.

    2) The Supreme Court has ruled that many things which are pretty repugnant are legal. That doesn’t make such things right. It wasn’t right to do that to Howard Stern, and it’s not right to do it to Limbaugh either.

    This is a political and moral argument, not a Constitutional one. The idea that the FCC should police the public airwaves was always troubling but on balance it was once defensible; the number of radio and TV stations was very limited and alternatives and choices were therefore limited. But we now live in an era where anyone may find things far more offensive than anything Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern ever said with a few mouse clicks. It is crazy to say that today we need the FCC to protect us from bad words said on the radio.

    At this point I think Limbaugh’s taken his spanking. 36 (and counting) sponsors abandoned him. The pound of flesh has been extracted. I urge you to walk away with it before you turn this guy into a martyr for free speech.

    This item edited to remove a silly and pointless link.

  17. I have zero interest in calling in the FCC, lets not go back to Bush land please.

    On a separate note Maher is a stand up comic by profession. If we judged all comics like we are now judging Maher we would basically move back to the era prior to blue comedy. I would rather keep my Murphy’s, Robin Williams and Bill Maher’s because Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Cosby are much funnier on a sitcom than they ever were in stand up.

    Saying something once is called a punch line. Saying it 53 days is generally called abusive.

  18. Bah 53 times not 53 days.

  19. I think next time I hear someone asking for Maher’s head on a platter in penance for daring to question Rush I will ask for the heads of Ted Nugent, Dave Mustaine and Gene Simmons. They have a really really nice and well documented history of saying writing and in some cases acting out horribly offensive things and Simmons has a nice long history as a misogynist that is rather well documented.

    I mean if we are heading this far into the land of idiocy we may as well bring the entire family.

  20. TheMagicalSkyFather:

    Rush Limbaugh’s standing defense for more than 20 years has been that he is “just an entertainer.” That’s Glenn Beck’s standing defense too.

    By the way, I’ll be happy to drag Ted Nugent and Gene Simmons into this. I have no idea who Dave Mustaine is and I’m not sure I want to know. ;-)

  21. Some of the arguments are just pitiful. “Our guy isn’t as successful so it doesn’t count”. Really? That’s the argument you are making? “If you bring up my guy then we should also bring in other people who say hateful things”. Well if they are so bad then why haven’t you been bashing them? That just makes the point that what is currently feeding the fire is political because you put up with all kinds of hateful talk but take action only against a big political spokesman.

  22. Rather interesting, this is the first time my blog has been mentioned directly in another author’s post, I am tingling.

    The censoring I was referring to in my post was towards Hate Speech, there is no place for it at all in our society, if you choose to accept it you are accepting less than you deserve, that is plain.

    As for referring to Rush as a martyr, well it is interesting to note that all martyrs have one thing in common… they are dead.

  23. EEllis — It’s not a matter of who is more successful, it’s a matter of who is on public airwaves. HBO is a private channel; legally it’s the equivalent of any pay-for-porn TV channel. Certainly the difference in the level of legal scrutiny is clear. I would hope that those using the argument you’re complaining about are doing so in the context of why there may be a case for the FCC for Rush and not for Maher.

    And as for “If you bring up my guy then we should also bring in other people who say hateful things” I would hope you’re talking about Maher critics and not Rush critics, right?

  24. He is the band MegaDeath kicked out of Metallica for being an abusive drunk…he made some great music.

    Rush is not a comedian nor even an entertainer, he is a propagandist like the rest of opinion media. Rush just so happens to be the one known as the voice of the GOP but I will even ignore that part. He lies for a living and went on an abusive rant about a single private citizen.

    That would be akin to publishing someones name and address on a hyperpartisan blog, meaning you are dragging them into the public eye specifically to savage them. I cant think of a comparable circumstance with a classic entertainer even beyond the political sphere, I am sure it has happened I just cant think of an example.

  25. A rare article that points out that if you really cared about the issue, you would condemn it everywhere, rather than just spin any example for your own side as “not as bad”. (Of course “not as bad” doesn’t mean “good” or even “acceptable” so even that is an attempt to get people to accept things they shouldn’t).

    In the end, however, it is just another example of partisan warfare and I’m not sure why I’m even spending my own time, let along all these media pundits. The only significant part are attempts to use government power to stop free expression, which is disturbing.

  26. As an addendum, I wonder how much of Rush’s ratings come from liberals listening to him so they can be outraged and how much liberal atacks (or “publicity”) brings in more conservative support. In the end, both parties depend on each other to both enable and excuse their own part in their endless partisan war.

  27. One thing this thread is doing a fine job of is showing how some folks will stick to their beliefs regardless of any and all evidence showing why said beliefs are flawed. As for the Rush martyrdom scenario, the idea that he would be worshipped as any sort of martyr is further proof that America’s political right has no threshold for embarrassment. And btw, bring it on.

  28. I always find it interesting in situations like this that, when someone on one side does something horrible, the other side has to counter with someone else that did something horrible.

    Sure Maher was wrong. But does that somehow give Limbaugh a pass?

    We all need to stop turning the tables around and around and around. Just stop all the hateful, vile talk. Stop character assassinations. Everyone.

    This “well he did it too” is so juvenile. If he did it too and it was so awful, then why are you doing it? For heaven’s sake just grow up!

  29. “Make keeping your own house clean your first priority.”

    In my opinion, this is the one tip that has been followed to some degree by employers of people who say controversial stuff from “the left,” but not so much on “the right.”

    Bill Maher has said some pretty outrageous things in his career as a comedian. He has also been fired when he crossed a line that was too much for his employers.

    If memory serves, Keith Olbermann was suspended and subsequently shown the door over something he said.

    Ed Schultz was suspended from his television show for comments he didn’t even make on his television show.

    Don Imus lost both his radio and television shows over something he said.

    Juan Williams said something that wasn’t even all that terribly controversial (when you look at it in context), yet he was unceremoniously (and some feel wrongly) dumped from NPR.

    To the best of my knowledge, Rush Limbaugh has NEVER been suspended or even reprimanded by his employers for anything that he has said.

    Clearly, his employers have no intention of keeping their own house clean.

  30. Wow, long thread.

    Dean, I think you hit it on the head saying that we should keep our own house clean first. Bravo.

    Maher is vile. Limbaugh is hateful. Olberman too. If there is legal recourse for anyone like them, I doubt that it will do any good, because they aren’t the real problem, their audience is. Legal action is not going to make that situation any better.

    I think the vile disgusting speech from the right is worse than from the left, but I have friends who say the opposite. That discussion won’t get anyone anywhere. Keep your own house clean and calmly denounce anyone from any side who crosses the line.

    I’ve always hated the idea of “hate speech” or “hate crime”. They require a knowledge of someone’s inner thoughts.

    I like roro’s distinction about rhetorical vs. real sexism a lot, but that also requires a knowledge of someone’s hidden thoughts, or at least a level of inquiry that far exceeds my endurance.

  31. Hi JDave, maybe I didn’t explain what I meant correctly. Inserting a sexist slur where any insult would as well is what I’m referring to as “rhetorical”. Using sexism to advocate for actual anti-woman ends is wht I’m referring to as hatred. I don’t see how one could possibly fail to be really hateful of women while advocating for what Rush does and did. I don’t care what his inner thoughts are. Even if he’s just kidding, or trying to make a stir, he’s doing so much damage to women that the distinction is really besides the point.

  32. Roro, I thought you did a fine job of making that distinction the first time and it’s a a valid one. Too many people jump at the tit for tat, both sides, blah blah, etc. rather than take the trouble to understand the degree to which it’s a copout. Sure, we all want both “sides” to behave and act civilized, that goes without saying, but using that for a blanket response without applying the brainpower necessary to grasp why it doesn’t begin and end there is just plain lazy.

  33. Dean, I sympathize with your argument here but I think you contradict yourself. I don’t have any reason to doubt that your motives are admirable–to use this this moment as a “teaching moment” of sorts to get us all to think harder about the kind of rhetoric and arguments that we accept because those making them are on “our side.” I’d love for us to do more of that.

    But, I think there’s an inherent contradiction here. You advocate, correctly, that we should clean our house first. Absolutely. So let’s do it. Our task is to convince Limbaugh sympathizers, some of whom I may agree with on some political issues, to rise above him. The major offense is not just what Rush said (as has been mentioned, many people say offensive things) but the number of people who not only look the other way but actively defend him and repeat his message.

    Then, we need to be consistent and stand up for the equal treatment and respect for women, not only in policy but in our culture and in our speech. That doesn’t mean capitulating to the left on policy. We don’t need to do it in the same way that the left does. We can find our own way. Conservative ideas and culture can and should be perfectly compatible with respect for women.

    Once we’ve done that, consistently, then we can turn our attention to the likes of Maher. Until then, it doesn’t come off as a credible grievance.

    Yes, that means some on the left can get away with taking political advantage of the situation without addressing their own similar characters. But, the right has done it to themselves by giving some more extreme elements too much of a voice. Like you said, we have to clean our own house.

    For the record, I do think that Rush took it to a new low by viciously attacking a private citizen, so I think the equivalency argument is difficult to make anyway. I’m not a legal expert but I hope that she would have a slander case–a significant proportion of people believe her to be a slut because of something she is portrayed to have said that she didn’t say. Seems like she is due some compensation for that.

  34. tidbits wrote:

    That we have a Federal Censorship Commission [er, Federal Communications Commission] does not mean that we are compelled to encourage it. Bankrupt Limbaugh with defamation suits if one can. Bankrupt his show by convincing his sponsors to withdraw their ads if you will. But, don’t use his foul mouthed abuse as an excuse to encourage expanding the reach of government censorship.

    Thank goodness that Tidbits is here to inject some sanity into this discussion.

    What Limbaugh said about Fluke was absolutely vile and is yet another example on a long list of examples of how Limbaugh only seems to detract from political discourse in this country.

    However, I find it extremely disconcerting that anyone here (or at any other blog) would argue in favor of having the FCC step in.

    Free speech is free speech. People either have a right to say offensive things (so long as their speech does not involve libel or advocate violence) or they do not.

    It is intellectually inconsistent for people to claim that they support free speech while simultaneously claiming that congress/the courts/the FCC should be able prohibit speech that certain people find offensive.

    As civil libertarians constantly remind us, the First Amendment was never intended to protect unobjectionable speech. On the contrary, it was created for the specific purpose of protecting objectionable speech.

    To argue in favor of censorship of Limbaugh is to argue in favor of coercion against a person simply because you find his/her comments objectionable. That is the antithesis of the kind of behavior we should expect to see in a free society.

    And from a utilitarian standpoint, I don’t even see why censorship is even being considered. For once, Limbaughs sponsors actually seem to exhibiting some backbones, as exhibited by the numbers of sponsors who are withdrawing their sponsorships.

    As Dean correctly points out, “The answer to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.”

  35. Adelinesdad,

    For whatever it’s worth, coming from a Democrat, thank you for one of the most balanced and level-headed comments I have seen on this issue.

  36. Agree with Dorian, excellent comment.

  37. It’s not a matter of who is more successful, it’s a matter of who is on public airwaves. HBO is a private channel; legally it’s the equivalent of any pay-for-porn TV channel. Certainly the difference in the level of legal scrutiny is clear. I would hope that those using the argument you’re complaining about are doing so in the context of why there may be a case for the FCC for Rush and not for Maher.

    So if Rush was on Sirus you wouldn’t have a word of complaint? Of course the FCC has reason to regulate the airwaves and oversees radio in a way HBO doesent get. My take tho is on why people are upset with Rush and seem to ignore other “entertainers” and their excuses for doing so

  38. And as for “If you bring up my guy then we should also bring in other people who say hateful things” I would hope you’re talking about Maher critics and not Rush critics, right?

    I was refering to, when the subject of Maher also being hateful, a commentor mentioned a list of others that he seemed to believe canceled out Maher. As if it were about scoring points in a game. It makes the outrage expressed by some seem a little fake when “Points” are more important than anything else.

  39. When Democratic politicians cower before a Maher or an Olberman the way Republicans wither and wooble in the face of Limbaugh, I’ll consider your point. Limbaugh virtually dares Republicans to disagree with his views, and he contributes to the radical right agenda that has paralyzed Congress and the country. Limbaugh doesn’t apologized to Republican politicians–they apologize to him.

  40. I agree that the FCC shouldn’t get involved. I disagree strongly with those who think Maher is in any way equivalent to Limbaugh. Limbaugh only pulls out the “I’m only an entertainer.” line when he get called out for behavior like the Fluke controversy. No, he did not invent Feminazi for humorous reasons. He meant it as an insult to feminists. The same is true of most, if not all, of the insulting things he’s put out over the airwaves. In addition, I notice that not one conservative anywhere that I’ve read admits that Limbaugh holds a place of importance in the Republican Party that has no equivalent in the Democratic Party.

  41. When Democratic politicians cower before a Maher or an Olberman the way Republicans wither and wooble in the face of Limbaugh, I’ll consider your point. Limbaugh virtually dares Republicans to disagree with his views, and he contributes to the radical right agenda that has paralyzed Congress and the country. Limbaugh doesn’t apologized to Republican politicians–they apologize to him

    I think your comment proves the point. The reason you seem concerned is because of the power or influence he has and you dislike that. You don’t mention a bit of what he said or anything but politics. It’s a chance to diminish the influence of someone you disagree with and you will take this or any opportunity to try and do so. Personally I find his comments deplorable, dishonest, and way over the top but by making this a political witch hunt it devalues the original complaint. You can’t pick and chose who you like and expect everyone to continue to believe.

  42. @MSF

    LOLO You know of political metal heads over multiple generations. Isn’t metal and some of it’s similar genre.

    What about Pantera and Dimebag Darrell?

  43. I’m one of those who think that there is a “growing, open hostility towards Christians” and a “quiet but active effort to repress the participation of religious people in the democratic process”.

    Boy, would it be easier to say “War on Religion”. But I won’t, and that’s how I try to keep my house clean.

    We all like the ocassional rhetorical flourish. It makes things fun. Taking it too far is detrimental to public discourse.

    If we are serious about keeping our house clean, some words should only be used very carefully.

    Use “war” when you mean “killing opponents by the thousand”.

    Use “hate” when you mean “to feel intense dislike”. Any other use gets caught up in spiraling misunderstandings

    A: That’s hate speech.
    B: They don’t hate them. How do you know what they’re feeling?
    A: I wasn’t talking about feelings…
    B: But “hate” IS a feeling!?
    A: I was talking about the consequences of their proposed policies
    B: I’m confused…

    And that’s the best outcome. Usually such imprecise discourse just leads to angry shouting matches.

  44. “I’m one of those who think that there is a “growing, open hostility towards Christians” and a “quiet but active effort to repress the participation of religious people in the democratic process”.”

    Frankly I think that’s mostly a narrative taking on a life of it’s own based on repetition. Try being openly atheist and watch how religious people react. You’ll have your eyes opened.

  45. Zephyr, those two phenomena are certainly not mutually exclusive. My take on it is that the hostility and intolerance work in both directions.

  46. Yep, I’m with CS. Lots of hostility both ways. I could counter your dismissal of my concerns, Zephyr, but that’s not what this thread is about.

    In my real life I have a few dear friends who are very liberal atheists and a few others who are very conservative Christians. We know and trust each other. We can discuss things constructively without wasting time constantly proving to one another that we’re not hateful monsters.

  47. “War on religion”

    Zephir says:

    “Frankly I think that’s mostly a narrative taking on a life of it’s own based on repetition. ”

    Agreed, just like the so-called

    War on Christmas
    War on poverty
    War on terror
    War on drugs

    And, yes, “War on women” (Although there are reasons why women may feel their rights are being attacked — rightly so)

    How about waging a “War on war.”

  48. Darn commenting system.

    The “rightly so” above does not refer to women’s rights being attacked, but rather to women feeling that their rights are being attacked. Sorry ladies.

  49. rudi-I have an odd knowledge of muscians, comedians and writers political leanings and it is almost utterly useless knowledge unless we decide they can no longer make political contributions because Rush did something abusive lol.

    Again I will state because my post has been used to build a cross for EEllis to hang herself from I have no issue with comparing Rush to Schultz. I have no issue comparing Dennis Miller to Bill Maher and I have no issue comparing Springstein to Charlie Daniels what I take issue with is #1 comparing two people that work in utterly different industries and then claiming that Maher must do what Rush isnt even being asked to do, not financially contribute to the political process.

    Of course in theory maybe people are just not reading what I wrote but in reality my guess is that what I am saying just harms a rather silly argument that some, Fox, Right Wing Media and the Rush support crew are pushing in the hope that we forget that Rush ever said anything bad but remember that the evil Maher said something bad.

    I would also note that everyone is merely discussing coarse language targeting females while again utterly ignoring the same done to males, and often of a sexual variety and I see this habit as sexist.

    As for athiests vs christians want to know the major difference? According to surveys athiests would and do vote for religious pols but christians and many other religions would not vote for an athiest.

  50. “So if Rush was on Sirus you wouldn’t have a word of complaint?”

    EEllis, by all means go back and read the comments I’ve made. I do not support an FCC investigation, and I complain a lot about Maher. I was trying to explain to you other people’s comments. Those who call for an FCC investigation into Rush would not have the same grounds or motivation to do so for Maher because he is on private TV. Those same people may or may not “complain” about Maher, but there’s a difference between denouncing someone and thinking that there should be some sort of criminal consequences to his actions.

    “I was refering to, when the subject of Maher also being hateful, a commentor mentioned a list of others that he seemed to believe canceled out Maher. As if it were about scoring points in a game. It makes the outrage expressed by some seem a little fake when “Points” are more important than anything else.”

    The only reason Maher is being talked about in the first place is that Rush supporters brought him up as a (false) equivalent to Rush. He’s only involved at all because the right did exactly what you’re saying you don’t like. Once the “your side does it too” game was started by the right, the left was suppose to just accept that Maher is just as bad (he’s not, for reasons explained above), forgive Rush, and not volley back? C’mon.

  51. Dabb says:
    March 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    I always find it interesting in situations like this that, when someone on one side does something horrible, the other side has to counter with someone else that did something horrible.

    Of course, the first side uses the previous misdeeds of the second side to excuse their own. And the the second side tries to use the current controversy to distract from their own misdeeds. After all, its not like one side is any better than the other and, ironically, the long term effect of this is to allow both parties to get away with the unacceptable (enabling each other in a wierd synergistic way).

    What is the difference between partisans and those who actually care about principle? The article addresses this. You don’t excuse either side based on the misdeeds of the other, but neither are you blind to the other side attempts to ignore and distract from their own. You just remember that things that are unacceptable and you clean your own house before you try and clean someone else’s.

  52. The only reason Maher is being talked about in the first place is that Rush supporters brought him up as a (false) equivalent to Rush. He’s only involved at all because the right did exactly what you’re saying you don’t like. Once the “your side does it too” game was started by the right, the left was suppose to just accept that Maher is just as bad (he’s not, for reasons explained above), forgive Rush, and not volley back? C’mon.

    BS. Dean is bringing this up because he’s a Rush supporter? I haven’t listened to Rush for more than 30 sec in ten years and have already condemned his statements he made about Fluke. I mentioned Maher because I believe much of the outrage against Rush is contrived. Real outrage is fine but a majority seems to be about hitting someone people view as a political “opponent” rather than real concern. So be it I barely care to be honest but using an issue for political gain is a sure way to turn some off and lose them later. But hey you slightly hurt Rush!!!

  53. Whatever, EEllis. You just want to argue with yourself here if you won’t admit that Maher has done nothing of note since Palin was running for veep, and his name has only come up as a false equivalency to Rush. You’re doing exactly what you condemn. So you go on and have fun with your hypocrisy. I’m not interested in being your sounding board for that one.

Submit a Comment