No, Rush, “rapist” doesn’t equal “gay”
July 16th, 2013
There are few things that Rush Limbaugh enjoys more than pushing the buttons of “liberals” by turning language back on them. It matters little to him whether his jibes are based in reality, simply whether they can annoy and whether he can pretend to find them plausible.
But his latest is absurd, even for Rush. And worse, it plays on the most obscene and vile of anti-gay stereotypes.
On July 15, CNN’s Piers Morgan interviewed Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon Martin and a witness in the case. Here is a portion of the interview:
MORGAN: But you — but you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it — as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that.
Would you go stand there? You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, we’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.
Rush Limbaugh took that and turned it into something else entirely (the entire segment is quite long, but I can’t cut it without skewing it):
Yep, marriage is a certainty
June 15th, 2012
Sometimes it is the throw away comment that tells the story. And sometimes the source is the unexpected.
This morning Rush Limbaugh was ranting about how President Obama is being advised and directed by the very wealthy (which is an odd objection considering Rush’ wealth and the usual Republican fundraising sources, but I digress). And he had three examples.
“The least risky of these is gay marriage”
The next was contraception funding and he rushed to commercial break do I never heard the third.
I wasn’t sure I could believe my ears. Limbaugh declared that Obama’s marriage evolution was less risky than contraception? But then it got better.
Back from the break, Limbaugh asserted that the President was hoping to hold off endorsing marriage equality until closer to the election so it could be part of a media point but that rich donors forced his hand. I’m not sure whose ass he pulled that out of, but it sounded to me as though Limbaugh thinks that supporting equality is some campaign position that can win elections.
Which puts our readers in the rare position of hoping Rush Limbaugh is right for once.
Not A Parody, Continued
March 16th, 2011
Rush Limbaugh is not, by any means fringe. He is the highest rated radio talk show host in America. On the rare occasions when GOP politicians criticize him, they are made to heel and apologize. This is Limbaugh mocking Japan’s recycling programs and production of the Toyota Prius and Nissan Leaf (all of which makes sense in a country with ZERO oil reserves), and rejoicing over the widespread suffering there.
Will no prominent figure on the right denounce this?
The State of Our Union
January 10th, 2011
A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans. “There is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”
The vast majority of tea party activists, this senator said, ought not be impugned. “They’re talking about things most mainstream Americans are talking about, like spending and debt,” the Republican said, before adding that politicians of all stripes need to emphasize in the coming days that “tone matters.”
“And the Republican Party in particular needs to reinforce that,” the senator said.
In case you missed it, that’s a senior Republican senator who had to remain anonymous so he or she could “freely discuss” this.
Limbaugh confirms support for civil unions
July 29th, 2010
Before playing a clip from ABC’s The View, where former Fox News anchor E.D. Hill (refereed to as the “infobabe” by Limbaugh) is heard saying that John is “all about the money,” Limbaugh says that he and John share similar views on gay marriage.
“Elton John is not married to David Furnish, and Elton John is not a supporter of gay marriage,” Limbaugh tells his audience. “Elton John is on the same page as I am, as is Obama on gay marriage. He’s for civil unions, but he’s not for marriage.”
“Of course it had to be mentioned in the story that Elton John played my wedding reception … even though I am ‘vehemently anti-gay marriage and Elton John is married,’” he said, then added, “He’s not.”
Limbaugh is no fool. He knows exactly what his audience wants to hear.
So it would seem that Rush Limbaugh believes that his very conservative audience has moved beyond the position of “no recognition at all” and now favors recognition of same-sex couples, provided that they are lesser in status.
Hutch presided over Rush’s wedding
June 16th, 2010
I thought it peculiar that Rush Limbaugh would hire Elton John to perform at his wedding. But it now seems the wedding participants were even more unexpected.
The preacher who signed Limbaugh’s and wife Kathryn Rogers‘ marriage license, Washington State-based mega-church boss Ken Hutcherson, is an internationally known critic of the gay rights who believes that many of the world’s ills stem from homosexuality.
It would appear that Hutch has reinterpreted “God’s definition of marriage” from “one man, one woman” to be “one man, four women, sequentially.”
I have no problem with Hucherson officiating. In my opinion, Limbaugh can have whoever he likes at his weddings, be it this one or his next, or the one after that. I’m just surprised that they were able to squeeze that much ego into one room.
Translating Rush Limbaugh
May 28th, 2010
Even on those times that I agree with Rush Limbaugh on an issue, I can hardly stand to hear the man. He’s boorish, rude, arrogant, and childish. He’s much more inclined to attack the messenger than debate the message and, far more frequently than I can stomach, the topic of his monologue is himself and how wonderful he is.
If you like a daily dose of how stupid, foolish, unpatriotic, and hateful towards our nation are Democrats in general and President Obama specifically, Limbaugh is your man. If you like nudge nudge, wink wink humor, spiteful parodies, and coy race-based ‘comedy’, Rush is there to provide. And he’s made a fortune doing it.
Say what you will about him, Limbaugh is no fool. He’s stayed prominent in the business when many many others with similar viewpoints and similar methods have come and gone. And one way he’s survived is to be as careful about what he doesn’t say as he is about what he does say.
And I’ve noticed, over the years, that Limbaugh is cautious around gay issues.
Yes, I know that our community sees him as Satan incarnate, but if we look at his most objectionable anti-gay comments, they tend towards mocking, school-yard humor and tend not to be based in opposition to specific gay issues.
In fact, over the past few days while our legislature has been taking steps to reverse DADT, Rush has had a lot of opinions about the administration’s response to the oil spill, Obama’s socialist agenda, illegal immigration, and the usual rabble-rousing, but missing from his broadcasts seems to be any fiery denunciations of the terrible effect that allowing gay soldiers would have on our military.
So I was not particularly surprised to read that Limbaugh’s personal beliefs and positions are not radically different from that of many of our supporters. A new biography of Limbaugh (promoted on his website) states that Rush does not buy into the ideology of many of his followers.
As reported by the wacky anti-gay “news” site, World Net Daily
Limbaugh is also in favor of homosexual civil unions, according to Chafets.
“He regards homosexuality as, most probably, biologically determined, and while he opposes gay marriage as culturally subversive, he has no problem with gay civil unions – which is the stance of President Obama and Hillary Clinton,” the author explains.
That may, however, come as a surprise to many in the gay community. Having felt the sting of his “humor” many times, having heard the jokes at Barney Frank’s expense, it feels strange to hear that he is in favor of civil unions. It is easier to imagine that Limbaugh is right there with Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
But I think Rush is too smart for that.
Some may say that Limbaugh really does agree with the extremists but only has put out a more moderate message for public consumption. And that may be true, we have no way to know.
But even if so, what Limbaugh’s position clarification reveals is that he knows that anti-gay extremism has no future. Even conservatives who delight in a daily dose of hate-on-Obama are tired of blame-the-gays and embarrassed by wacky Nazi claims and frothing homophobia.
Conservatives Seek to Make Republican Party Even Smaller
October 27th, 2009
Much attention is being paid to the 23rd Congressional Seat in Upstate New York. This Republican district, previously held by current Secretary of the Army John McHugh, may well elect a Democrat; and it may well be entirely due to the extremism of far right conservatives.
Although a rural New York district, the 23rd borders Vermont and Canada and is less invested in ultra-conservative social policy agenda items than, say, a rural Alabama district. Consequently, the local Republican Party leadership selected Dede Scozzafava, a moderate candidate, to represent the party in the mid-term election.
This did not sit well with the social conservative wing of the party. And wingnuts ranging from Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin have endorsed Doug Hoffman, the candidate running with the backing of the Conservative Party. They would rather split the Republican vote and destroy Scozzafava’s campaign – in order to “send a message” – than allow a Republican to be elected who dares stray from their tight agenda.
And Scozzafava’s sins? I’m sure you guessed them. Dede is pro-gay and pro-choice. In fact, she has voted twice in the New York House to legalize same-sex marriage. GASP!!
Well. They. Can’t. Have. That!! Can you imagine it? A Congressional Republican who supports marriage equality?
So extremists from around the nation (but not so much the district) are financing and pushing for Doug Hoffman as hard as they can. Not because he can win, but because they hate the idea of Scozzafaza winning.
Folk like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Dick Armey aren’t interested in a big tent of diverse people sharing some general sense of fiscal policy and the role of government. They’d rather have the Republican Party be a pup-tent of the “ideologically pure”, having no role in government other than that of the whining outsider. But, then again, that is what puts money in Rush’s pocket.
As commenter Matt notes below, Scozzafaza is the only supportive candidate in the race. The Democrat, Bill Owens, is a committed enemy of equality which certainly plays a part in Limbaugh’s efforts to sabotage Dede.
If you’ve ever said to yourself, “I’d never support a Republican”, here’s your chance to make an exception. You can contribute to Dede’s campaign here.