• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on D-Day -1
    William on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    jmac on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    William on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on D-Day -1
    thewizardofroz on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    William on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    thewizardofroz on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    riverdaughter on Shiny Happy People
    riverdaughter on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    March 2012
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

Saturday: Obama Epic Fail on Slutgate #standwithsandra

Edna St. Vincent Millay

This is going to be a stream of consciousness post because I’m still trying to sort out what’s going on here.  But I think what we are seeing is something like what happened with Occupy last fall.  I’ll get to that in a moment.  Let’s address where Obama has gone drastically worng.

The NYTimes Caucus blog reports that Obama placed a call to Sandra Fluke last night to let her know, well, you decide:

The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said the president told Ms. Fluke that he stood by her in the face of personal attacks on right-wing radio. Mr. Obama believes, Mr. Carney said, that Mr. Limbaugh’s comments about Ms. Fluke were “unfortunate attacks,” and Mr. Carney called them “reprehensible.”

Ms. Fluke, 30, also drew support from the president of Georgetown University, who has differed with her in the past over the university’s refusal to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

The university president, John J. DeGioia, said in a statement: “One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position — including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels — responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

Mr. Obama phoned her just before she was to appear on MSNBC.

“He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women,” she told the program’s host, Andrea Mitchell. “And what was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot, because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me.”

Where to start?  First, the president didn’t do this at a press conference and condemn Rush in no uncertain terms for being a evil bully.  He places a personal call to Sandra.  Secondly, he calls the remarks “unfortunate” and “reprehensible”.  This is incorrect.  The remarks were unacceptable, evil and not representative of the values and behavior we expect of a good American citizen.  (You might want to take notes, Barry)  Thirdly, he says that Fluke’s parents should be proud of her.  Jeez, can you get any more patronizing?  This is a third year law student ferchristsakes.  That’s like saying that although the Flukes made a tragic error by letting Sandra out without her duena, they should at least be proud that their damaged goods has the courage to speak up and show her face in public.

But the worst thing Obama did here was assume that Fluke is the only intended target here.  Rush’s comments, and now Bill O’Reilly’s, have *two* intended targets.  Well, three, actually.  The first obvious target is Sandra and all women in America who have ever had sex outside of marriage.  That would include pretty much every woman in America.  We’re all sluts to Rush.  To women my age and younger (I came of age in the 70’s-80’s), we just don’t see it that way.  We don’t spend our days wringing our hands about all the guilt and shame we’re supposed to feel.  Many of us reasoned it out in our adolescence that those biblical rules didn’t apply to those of us born in the latter half of the 20th century.  So, Rush can say slut, slut, slut til the sun comes down.  Frankly, we don’t give a shit.  We are angry though that he feels like he can degrade us in the minds of his second and third intended targets and get away with it.

Rush’s second intended target is men who listen to his show, and men who are like them but outwardly have too much class to listen to his show.  It’s empowering to see their champion go after women who they have to deal with on a daily basis.  You know, those bitches who are at work who they have to compete with for salaries and promotions.  Life would be so much better if they weren’t sucking up all of the valuable resources that men used to have all to themselves a few decades ago.  So, Rush is feeding this misplaced anger about economic conditions and putting the blame on the feminazis.  And Rush’s beta male listeners are too cowardly to go after the real culprits, the alpha guys in the top 1% who are sitting on piles of cash and have not been rewarding working people for their productivity gains of the past 40 years.  It is much easier to pick on what they consider to be weaker.  It is beyond me why they haven’t asked themselves why Rush isn’t going after the guys in the boardroom.  Not only are they cowards, they’re stupid.

Rush’s third target, and this is where O’Reilly comes in, is senior women.  This is where the slut comments and characterization are really hitting home.  As I was reading Rush’s comments yesterday, something about them didn’t seem right.  Well, ALL of it didn’t seem right.  But gradually it became clear to me what seemed off about them.  Rush was saying that women like Sandra were having sex in the backseats of cars.  Now, Rush isn’t THAT old so he should know by now that women Sandra’s age wouldn’t be caught dead having sex in a car.  Ok, maybe once or twice for fun.  But this is not the way we shameless hussies arrange our illicit assignations anymore.  Oh, and the vast majority of women do not do drugs before sex.  Most of us don’t have to get drunk either.  No, adult women who are not married who enjoy sex do so on a regular basis in the privacy of their own bedrooms or their partner’s bedroom or somewhere in the apartment or in the shower.  But very, very rarely in the backseat of a car.   That would indicate that the woman in question was either very young, and hardly a slut, or didn’t have a place to go where they would feel comfortable.  And I had to think to myself, when would that have been a normal thing?  When was it the case that non-marital sex was occurring on a regular basis in cars, I mean, once you grew out of your teens.

Then it hit me that this might have been the situation back in the 50’s and early 60’s.  There were probably quite a lot of women who were resorted to the backseat of the car because they had nowhere else to go.  Young, working class women didn’t usually have their own apartments and if they lived at home where pre-marital sex was absolutely verboten, there were few alternatives.  Not only that, but if you got caught, you really would be called a slut, sometimes by members of your own family.  And they could be vicious about it too.  Not only were you a slut, you were dirrrrrty.  That’s another thing Rush goes on about.  He makes a fun romp in the rumble seat with someone you love sound dirty, filthy and degrading.

Oh and here’s another telltale sign in O’Reilly’s defense of Rush:

…Now the progressive colossus is demanding payment for Sandra Fluke so that she can go through Georgetown Law School with an active, healthy social life.”

The words “go through” sounds like she’s going to “go through the football team”.  In other words, because a woman like Sandra may have sex, it is a logical conclusion that she is indiscreet enough to take on multiple sex partners, at the same time or one at a time.  It doesn’t matter, because she’s slept with the entire law school and they all talk about her and how she can’t get enough.

Like I mentioned before, the outrageous hyperbole doesn’t faze those of us who grew up guiltlessly having sex because we came of age in the right decade.  Very few of us have ever slept with a football team or an entire college.  We might have had our “Sex in the City” days but the fact that we even had a series called “Sex in the City” shows that this kind of slut shaming language has no meaning to us.  But to women who watch O’Reilly, it’s like we came from another planet.  The shaming doesn’t work on us, it works on THEM.

Now, why would Rush and O’Reilly put out all of the stops to call our mothers sluts and whores?  Because that’s what they’re doing.  They are calling our mothers sluts.  They are saying to those women who are in their 70s, “If you had non-marital sex, you are a slut, you are dirty, you should be ashamed”, and digging up all of those humiliating memories that these women should have chucked decades ago, and hoping that those women will project those feelings onto their younger cohort.  And it just may work.

I don’t know why they think it is necessary to do this to our mothers.  Maybe they fear that our mothers will start feeling just s teeensy-tiny bit of sympathy for women who without access to contraception will have more children than they want and will miss some opportunities.  Maybe it’s because the people who will get their sympathy are not the UNmarried women.  Maybe the senior women have sympathy for MARRIED women.  After all, a married woman has the legal document that allows her to have as much sex as she wants with her husband anywhere she wants and therefore, no church, state or pharmacist shouldn’t be restricting birth control from those women.  Just because a senior evangelical female in her 70s is against sex between unmarried partners and is totally against abortion, that doesn’t mean she is against contraceptives for married women.  That’s where the GOP has a weak spot.

So, the right wing is going to come down hard on unmarried women having sex with the expectation that senior women will be persuaded to join in and bash them for wanting to have sex and as a result, they will suddenly be on board restricting contraceptives in insurance policies and that will affect all women.

Now, the question is, who benefits? Well, there are several beneficiaries.  Who would have an interest in making sure that insurance companies do not have to pay for contraceptives for any woman, at all? First thing that comes to my mind is – insurance companies!  If some of them weren’t paying for it before and now they suddenly have to without any policy increase, well, that decreases the amount of money going to bonuses and stock values, right?  Can’t increase shareholder value if some of the profits are being eaten up by a zillion women all getting their pills for free.

Who else benefits?  Anyone who wants to make sure that no one sympathizes with the 99% or its constituent groups.  If it looks like women might be gaining some sympathetic ears, the right will just make them look dirty like they did with the Occupy movement.  Somewhere I read that the intended target of the smears against the Occupiers was not the Occupiers themselves.  The targets were the young families with kids in strollers who might go to an occupy event or an average middle class female.  The idea is to make the Occupiers look so unwholesome and dirty that the target audience would feel a visceral disgust with them.  That would keep the curious away from Occupy events and stem the swelling crowds at marches and rallies.  It worked.  It kept the 99% from getting together in a unified force and exchanging notes.  Characterizing women as dirty sluts keeps them at arms length from the very women who should be joining with them to push this nonsense back.

Who else benefits? The right wing keeps their crazy base and feeds them even more red meat.  This makes the right wing base even more dangerous.  I’m talking bordering on pre Third Reich crazy.  If there is no push back, the crazy will just keep ratcheting up.  If you want to see how this works, read the book, In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin by Eric Larson.  It’s an account of the last ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, before WWII.  Starting in 1933, Dodd and his family witnessed  the unraveling of society in Berlin and with each fresh outrage thought that surely the German people would push back vigorously and re-establish the rule of law. The Dodds were to be sorely disappointed. With each new law against Jews and each new beating in the streets and with average Germans feeling powerful in everyday life to report on each other and take what they wanted, Germany devolved to the point where political enemies could be assassinated without much uproar.  Each new event just made ordinary people more fearful and less likely to take action.

So, here’s where I think we are.  The longer it takes for Obama to step up and punch Rush in the fucking nose, the more likely it will be that the next outrage will also go unchecked.  Right now, Rush and his listeners are rabid dogs who are just barking.  But let this go and the next time, who knows what will happen.

I already can’t believe what I’m seeing from the Obama administration.  Barry’s call to Sandra was about the most tepid, ineffectual move he could ever make.  I can’t wait to see Amanda Marcotte get back on her bandwagon and salivate all over Obama’s brave defense of Sandra Fluke.  You know it’s coming.  You know who Obama reminds me of in this situation?  Michael Dukakis.  Remember the SNL skit where Jon Lovitz played Dukakis and was asked the infamous question about what he would do if Kitty Dukakis was raped?  And Lovitz came back with the most cerebral, weak and passionless, “I’m outraged” response.  I wish I could find this on youtube but damn the copyright crap, the clip is gone.  But here’s the transcript.  Just try to imagine Jon Lovitz saying these words as if he were ordering more toast with his feta cheese and spinach omelet:

Sam Donaldson: [ waving frantically ] Governor Dukakis!! Governor Dukakis!!

Michael Dukakis: Sam.

Sam Donaldson: Your leadership style has been described as technotronic, cool, emotionally dead. Even your closest admirers admit that sometimes you are distant and aloof, a bit of a cold fish. Pundits are saying that one of the reasons you trail in the polls is that you are uninspiring, and seem totally devoid of passion.

Michael Dukakis: What’s the question?

Sam Donaldson: Well, I suppose the question, Governor, is do you have the passion necessary to lead this country?

Michael Dukakis: [ unemotional ] Sam, that kind of asperation to my character, quite frankly, makes me – well, there’s no other word for it – enraged. Maybe I shouldn’t say that in the heat of the moment, but I can’t control myself. I apologize for flying off the handle. And I’m just sorry my kids had to see me like this.

What exactly is the problem with Barry?  Is it that he benefitted from using misogyny and sexism in 2008 so he can’t credibly quash Rush and O’Reilly now?  Is he still trying to thread this needle, trying to do just enough for women while retaining some of the evangelical vote?  The possible political ramifications are becoming clearer.  The right wing is going to continue to ratchet up the attack on women’s rights and ping Barry to take a stand.  And they know that he won’t do it because a.) he has about as much passion to defend women as Dukakis did to tear apart Kitty’s rapist  b.) he thinks he has the women’s vote in the bag and c.) he’s afraid to piss off the religious.  That leaves the right open to inflict an awful lot of damage to women before the election, damage that might come back to bite Barry in the ass at the polls for being fucking useless in the face of extraordinary national bullying of over half of the population.

The right isn’t going to stop with contraceptives.  If you don’t smack them in the nose on this issue, even if the policy remains the same, they’re going to pick on something else next, like protecting the jobs of pregnant women or the family leave act.  Yeah, I can see the family leave act getting some unusual attention next.  It will be something like, “In these tough economic times, businesses need to have the flexibility to hire workers when they need them.  They can’t be burdened with these regulations. Women who decide to have children will have to weigh whether that is in the best interest of their family or their jobs. And anyway, what’s wrong with women who don’t want to stay home with their babies?  Their sweet, precious babies who need them.  What kind of cold-hearted bitch goes to work and leaves her most valuable possessions in the care of strangers?”

You can’t see it coming?  You aren’t imaginating hard enough.

Anyway, Obama has an Epic Fail on his hands right now.  When Rush took to the airwaves on day two of Slutgate, Obama should have come out swinging and made absolutely sure that Rush was down long enough that he wouldn’t be able to get up.  Obama could have called his connections to put pressure on Rush’s sponsors.  He could have had a press conference and said he was clearing his schedule because this matter affected more than half of the population and it was that important to him.  He could have said that adult men and women are not accountable to Rush or anyone else for their sexuality.

He could have done those things.  But he didn’t.  And so the problem escalates.  The right starts calling out its second string and circles the wagons around Rush.  And now its RUSH who is untouchable.



This sonnet by Edna St. Vincent Millay goes out to all women, young and old.  I stand with Sandra:

90 Responses

  1. The right isn’t going to stop with contraceptives. If you don’t smack them in the nose on this issue, even if the policy remains the same, they’re going to pick on something else next, like protecting the jobs of pregnant women or the family leave act. Yeah, I can see the family leave act getting some unusual attention next. It will be something like, “In these tough economic times, businesses need to have the flexibility to hire workers when they need them. They can’t be burdened with these regulations. Women who decide to have children will have to weigh whether that is in the best interest of their family or their jobs. And anyway, what’s wrong with women who don’t want to stay home with their babies? Their sweet, precious babies who need them. What kind of cold-hearted bitch goes to work and leaves her most valuable possessions in the care of strangers?”

    You can’t see it coming? You aren’t imaginating hard enough.

    I lived through this time period in 1968 when men got paid more because they had families to support and women were only working for “pin” money. I was asked by my first employer, a very large insurance company in NJ, if I were pregnant when I started working. I was so shocked and the only thing I could utter was that I wasn’t married. I got asked again and pushed back with “I’m Catholic.” And was asked a 3rd time and finally I answered no. I was 18.

    This particular company did not hire married women in the 40s or 50s as they assumed that the women would get pregnant right away. They also used to check to society pages to see if female employees were engaged or had gotten married.

    If younger women don’t think that this can happen again in their lifetimes, they should think again. 1968 wasn’t that long ago.

  2. great post — here’s another perspective http://jenniferbruni.com/2012/03/03/sluts-to-watch-out-for/

    • Yeah, but which party are you going to punish? If our reproductive landscape is just a smoking ruin by November, neither party should get rewarded for that.

  3. LOLs.Get help. Your hatred is killing you. Year Five. And get a job. Not that anyone would hire you. Not with your racist unhinged rants poisoning the web.

    • Anyone want to chime in on what Karen has just said? Does anyone else see a racist comment in this post?

      • RD,

        I believe Karen is obliquely referencing your use of the name “Barry” (as in “Barry Soetoro”) to refer to the President.

        • When everyone starts referring to our secretary of state as Secretary Rodham-Clinton instead of just Hillary, then we’ll talk.

          Barry seems like a natural shortcut for his name. It never even occurred to me that Sotero would be linked to it. I’m not sure I’m the one with an association problem.

          • Everyone should (refer to her as Secretary Rodham-Clinton, that is), but referring to everyone solely by their first names, or nicknames, is now the American Way.

            As for the use of “Barry” to refer to the President, its most common public usage is by Birthers and Bidenists. “Barack Obama AKA Barry Obama, AKA Barry Dunham, AKA Barry Soetoro AKA…”

            I think you can now see where Karen is going with this.

          • Barry Barry Not Enough Contrary? :mrgreen:

          • Actually, I don’t.
            We referred to George W. Bush as Dubya or Shrub
            We referred to Bill Clinton as Bubba and big dawg
            George Bush Senior wasn’t interesting enough to have a nickname
            Reagan was The Gipper

            Calling Barack Obama ‘Barry’ seems perfectly reasonable to me. The reader can always put a racist spin on anything. But that isn’t what was intended by the writer. I have always seen Obama as a Schmoozer first, African Ametican third.

          • “Dubya”, “Shrub”, “Bubba”, “big dawg” and “Gipper” are all nicknames, no?

            As I said, we refer to everyone by their first names, or by a nickname, as this is now the American Way.

            The use of courtesy titles and respectful language is all so very…Japanese. 🙂

          • Personally, I think that, while the Birthers and Bidenists WERE the first ones to employ the widespread use of “Barry” to refer to the President, it’s become part of the American zeitgeist now. Anyone who despises (and by that I mean DESPISES) the President–for whatever reasons–sooner or later will refer to him as “Barry”. It’s not a term that necessarily shows racism for its object. But it is a term that is meant to show utter contempt for its object.

            That’s been my experience, anyway.

          • Since I don’t go to birther or bidenist websites, and never have, I have no way of knowing that. It is regrettable that these sites have chosen to use that as their way of referring to him and that you flinch everytime you hear it. However, after our 2008 experience, I am fairly sure that there is absolutely no way we could refer to him other than President Barack Obama that would not get us slapped with the accusation of “racist”. So, I will use my own judgement on this. Sometimes, I will refer to him as Obama, sometimes I will refer to him as Barack Obama and sometimes, I will pretend that we are bosom buddies and refer to him as Barry as I’m sure his friends and wife do. It will depend on the context. I suppose I could call him Schmoozer in chief but that’s a lot to type. Maybe it would be possible for you to stop thinking that the word “Barry” has any relationship to birther websites. Is this not also a possibility? After all, he’s kinda like Bush Sr. He doesn’t really have a personality that we could hang any other moniker on.

          • The Birther and Bidenist websites are an interesting case study in the “paranoid style” that is part and parcel of American politics. Unfortunately, the “paranoid style” seems to have become the predominant way of doing politics in America these days. A paranoid country…with 5,000 thermonuclear warheads at its command. Think about that for a minute.

            I say, if you have contempt for the President, by all means, call him “Barry”. It is the correct term to use in that case (as “Shrub” or “Dubya” were the correct terms to use to show contempt for the previous President). As I said, it’s not a racist term. Its originators have lost control of its usage.

            The President is most definitely a Schmoozer, btw. The problem is that it’s not a term of contempt. As often as not, it’s a term of endearment. By contrast, nothing shows more contempt for Obama than calling him “Barry”.

            And, for better or worse these days, American politics is all about contempt. Perhaps that’s all American politics ever was.


          • Monster from the Id writes,

            Barry Barry Not Enough Contrary?


          • I understand you were late to this blog so let me try to summarize my attitude to Barack Obama in a few short sentences:
            1.) I was driven off of DailyKos as part of a purge because I accused Obama supporters of acting like they were on jihad when they put other Kossacks to the sword for not supporting their man
            2.) When I started this blog in January 2008, I was more pissed off at his supporters than Obama himself. At that point, I still didn’t know how much sin he was willing to tolerate on his behalf. In fact, if you go back to my Kossack diaries for the day he decided to run and gave his speech in Springfield, Illinois, you will note that I even urged people to donate to his campaign because I thought it would give all candidates an equal chance of winning. I didn’t think it was good that Hillary was already the presumed winner and at that point I was an Edwards’ fan. All true, go check my diaries at DailyKos as Goldberry.
            3.) When I started this blog, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter but I would have been fine with Obama winning the nomination fair and square. I didn’t think he was ready to be president but if he won with honor and without cheating, I would get behind him. But at about the time of the debate in New Hampshire, I saw Barack Obama in a new light and felt that something was drastically wrong with the way the media and the party were covering him. After super Tuesday, I was certain that the game was rigged because of Florida and Michigan. Go through our archives and see.
            4.) I’ve always thought birtherism was stupid and I have never approved of racism on this site from my frontpagers or commenters. Anyone who ever posted here was given the prime directive from me: no racism, no character attacks, no posting of unfounded rumors. I’ve stuck to that and people who dealt with me personally in 2008 know that I have no qualms about telling a racist where to go, online, on the phone or in person.
            I’m not really interested in what birthers do. As far as I’m concerned, they let their anger get the better of their common sense. I never read my critics and I rarely let my squirmy readers influence the way I write.
            I mean to convey a certain sense of intimacy when I refer to him as Barry, not racism. Do I have contempt for him? Yes, but only because I think that people who subvert the voting process as a means to an end have violated a sacred trust between voters and their elected representatives. That and that alone is the source of my contempt. Nothing good comes of a bad seed.
            Oh, and he’s a lousy president.

          • I believe you.

            As for the nature of Obama’s campaign, I think he’s a “bare-knuckles” kind of guy, a street fighter, and always has been (something that was not well understood by his opponents until late in the game). His campaign reflected that, and I think that’s a big reason noone has dared to challenge him for the DP nomination in this election. But to tell the truth, “bare-knuckles” campaigns have been part and parcel of the DP nomination process since the early 1800’s. So his primary campaign was by no means unique in that regard. It might help if Democrats thought more deeply about what it is about the way they go about nominating candidates that naturally lends itself to “bare-knuckles” campaigns?

            You should take more interest in the Birthers and Bidenists, RD. Their version of the “paranoid style” reveals a lot about the current state of American politics. Is paranoia all that American politics ever was? No, but I think it may be all it has left.

            Personally, politically-speaking, you may have been a Democrat at one time, but my feeling is that your current political views makes you more of a Whig than a Democrat. If you want to become part of a third party, you should look into them. Seriously.


          • Barry is what his friends called him growing up, including his black friends in college. Were they racist?

          • teresainpa writes,

            Barry is what his friends called him growing up, including his black friends in college. Were they racist?

            Well, he’s out of college now, and the context has changed. Referring to the President as “Barry” is now an expression of contempt. If you have contempt for the man, there’s no clearer way you can publicly express that contempt (or immediately telegraph that contempt to another person) in one word than to call him “Barry”.

          • He was known as “Barry the Bomber” when he played second string on his Hawaiian prep school team. In the photos, he towers above his mostly Asian teammates, maybe that is why he was called ‘Bomber.”

        • Not to be a buttinsky (she said and acted just like it) but it annoyes me to no end how it’s always ok to name women by their first name. And first name only: Nancy, Hillary, Sarah, Michelle … Angelina, Meryl, Julia … etc. So why not Barry?

          Speaking in general and most certainly not lashing out at you ‘Kikka’. 😉

          • Oops! Landed myself in moderation. Should have known better. Which I do. Just forgot. 😉

    • I wonder in idle curiosity: Is “Karen” a drone of the Oborg Collective, posting to defend Dear Leader Obummer, or else a wingnut, posting to defend Dear Leader Limpbough? I would guess the former, since she attempts to sew the scarlet “R” on RD’s collar. OTOH, a wingnut Limbuaghtomy patient might find it useful to pretend to be anti-racist at times.

      Whoever s/he is (we don’t know if “Karen” is actually female, as anyone can pretend to be anything on Da Intertoobz), s/he can’t do simple math, since it’s been only four years since the last presidential election, not five. 😈

      • ARRRGHH! That should have been “Limbaughtomy”.

        I HATE not being able to fix my typos! 😡

        • I think a Limbaughtomy would be an excellent idea. I’ll fetch a scalpel.

          In any event, as Henry Kissinger once pointed out, the proper diplomatic form of address for a chief diplomatic minister should be “Her Excellency” , although the custom in the U.S. is usually to settle for “The Honorable” for all cabinet secretaries. ;-).

          Anyway, “Karen”, times are tough so I sincerely hope Axelrod is paying you more than he paid the 2008 trolls.

      • Where I’m from, tired of all the bile (here “we” apparently still haven’t discovered filters, moderators and such, heh) the biggest liberal newspaper recently made new comment rules: In order to be able to comment, readers should reveal not only name, address and mail address, but also birthdate ! (Which is why I’m no longer a commenter!) And to their surprise many former “female” commenters turned out to actually be … male, lol.

        But the point of that deceit totally escapes me. 😯

    • Rush, is that you?

      In any case, the Obots are out in full regalia. First time I have encountered one since the election. If you don’t agree that Obama knows best, be on the lookout.

      I was accosted on facebook. I have to say, I forget how unpleasant they can be.

      • Apparently, the Dear Leader–or his leaders on Wall Street–decided they got clobbered in 2010 because their drones weren’t unpleasant enough, rather than they lost because their drones were SO unpleasant in 2008 that many people were still PO’d at them in 2010.

      • I got accosted on facebook by two of my siblings. that is even more unpleasant. I said something about Breitbart being dead from toxic hate leaking from his brain and Olbermann being next. So my brother jumped in with a whole lecture that I shouldn’t compare the two and I should get over the last election blah blah blah, cause that’s why I hated Olbermann and my sister said “yah, what he said”…….so of course I let them have it and told them several times that if they don’t want to hear about the last election they don’t get to bring it up. Obotism….so much worse when it has taken over your family.

    • I had to go re-read the post and I know I’m slow but could someone point out the racism in the post please because I could not find it . Not even implied . Karen may be off his\her meds. I really do dread the Obot season again.

    • I think Karen is prejudiced against Sino-Peruvian Lesbians.

    • Karen, not everyone can types comments from the basement of the white house, or work for near minimum wage. Is that the new script you are using? I think I see a typo.

    • Ad hominem. Bzzzt. If you have an actual argument, please feel free to make it. Otherwise you’re simply name-calling, presumably in the hope of derailing the conversation or for the sheer fun of it.

      Thanks for playing, “Karen”!

  4. Obama calling Ms. Flake was more inneffectual than, say, doing nothing at all?

    • No matter what Obama does/did etc….she’ll post a hate filled rant about him. 🙂 It simply does not matter.

      • Because I expect him to be forceful and competent?

        If you expect nothing, you get nothing. You sure as hell aren’t going to get respect from the Republicans

      • OK, this answers my speculation from above. It sounds like RD has finally caught the attention of the Oborg Collective.

        Resistance is fertile. We will not be assimilated. :mrgreen:

        • It’s troll squashing season. So, much fun!

          • LOLs. Yes. So much fun. Someone other than the five of you pathetic haters reading and posting in in the cow webs over here! 🙂 I know this wakes you up and gets you going. Hate and misery do that for you. So here to help. Once a year

            By the way, if you think I care who a racist moron votes for? You are more ignorant than I thought. I assume you will not vote for Barack Obama, and that is fine with me.

            I can see why you’re not able to find to find a job though. You’re pretty toxic.

            Only sad bitter PUMA’s would start screaming I’m from Obama’s oborg. Idiots. 🙂

          • So, let’s see. Your purpose in coming here is *what*, exactly, Karen, if that is your real name?

            BTW, katiebird, it looks like we have to tune up our filters.

          • Karecutus of Oborg fails to comprehend the distinction between hatred and contempt.

      • Hey Karen, GUESS what?!? We’re still NOT voting for him! ha ha ha

    • I don’t really think Obama is “inneffectual”[sic]. On the contrary, I think he’s the most successful Republican President since Ronald Reagan. I really don’t understand why the Republicans are even bothering with primaries and caucuses this year, since they seem to be able to get everything they want from an allegedly Democratic President and an ovine Senate.

      • Prop, you sound as if you’re thinking along similar lines to me. I suspect the Malefactors Of Great Wealth who control BOTH corporate parties have already decided they want four more years of Obummer, so they’ve ordered their GOP to take a dive this time.

        And yes, if the Reptilian Party had not been taken over by its racists, Talibangelicals, and other assorted overlapping flavors of reactionaries, then Obummer would have made a good president for the Reptilians.

        • In another time, Obama would have been a Rockefeller Republican–a civilian version of Colin Powell (another great schmoozer, btw). But there’s only one remaining Rockefeller Republican in the RP: John Huntsman, and we know how his campaign turned out. So there’s no place for Obama in the RP, just like there was no place in it for Colin Powell.

          It was inevitable that the RP would be taken over by its reactionary wing. That wing has gradually been getting bigger ever since Goldwater. They’re now in the driver’s seat, and the rest of the RP will soon give up even struggling to hold on to the steering wheel.

          • Yeah, probably

          • I disagree. He’s far to the right of any Rockefeller Republican, including Mitt’s dad. He’s far to the right of Richard Nixon, for that matter. One need only compare Nixon’s health plan to the Insurance Company Bailout Act to see that.

            Oh, he can certainly spout vague, namby-pamby, pseudo-progressive shibboleths in front of a crowd – but when you look at what he’s actually *done* he’s pretty much a Goldwater Republican.

  5. I found a pic of Karecutus of Oborg. 😈

    • Gotta deal with real life for a while. Ciao for nao.

    • You are treading on dangerous ground, monster. My kid *LOVES* Derpy Hooves. Do not tarnish Derpy’s image or you will break her heart.

      • OK, that’s a good point. I have never had the opportunity to watch MLP:FIM (Hub costs extra on our cable system down heah), but I also love Derpy, and meant no insult to Derpy. I apologize to Derpy and Brooke.

        Here’s one of Derpy and her daughter, Dinky. D’awwwsome.

  6. First off, I don’t see anything racist in RD’s post and never have for that matter. However, in this case, I think the political calculus is 100% wrong.

    Let me see if I have this straight. You want the President of the US to get into a public pissing contest with that lousy Pig of a talk show host? If that’s true it violates the First Rule of Pigs. Don’t get down in the mud and wrestle with them because you only get dirty and the Pig likes it. The winger blogs are already largely supporting Limbaugh, that would gain him more support and gain virtually nothing.

    I know you hate Obama but your post makes no sense at all from that standpoint. He thanked and encouraged her for what she had said in a public way. Right now groups are boycotting Pig boy’s sponsors and 5 of them have dropped him like a hot rock. It won’t stop there so there is a way for you to get involved, or not, as you see fit.

    • Epic fail, huh?

      Rush Limbaugh Apologizes To Sandra Fluke

      After days of criticism from the left and Democrats — and the loss of several advertisers — Rush Limbaugh has apologized to the Georgetown law student he called “a slut” on his show last week. In a statement posted to his website, Limbaugh says he “did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”

      “My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir,” Limbaugh says in the statement. “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

      • You call that an apology? You didn’t read the whole thing. And he didn’t just insult Sandra Fluke. He insulted everyone who has a vagina.

        I call it unacceptable. It’s time to shut this gasbag up once and for all and exile him to blogtalkradio.

        It just occurred to me that Rush serves a useful purpose to Obama. He can’t get rid of him completely because where would the outrage come from on the left? Does it matter to Obama that women keep getting the brunt of this feminazi bullshit?
        No, it does not.

        I want Rush prostrated, humiliated and deballed in front of his beta male audience. When he gets to that point, then his apology may be accepted and not a second before.

    • As a matter of fact, I already got involved 2 days ago. My focus is Carbonite. As far as I know, Carbonite hasn’t dropped him yet.

      I don’t hate Barry. I just think he’s a lousy president. But as long as he is president, I expect him to do a better job of protecting and defending the rights of EVERYONE. Enough of the political games.

      The last thing Limbaugh wanted was a pissing match with the president and in this case, a pissing match wasn’t even required. All he had to do was condemn Rush in no uncertain terms and call on his connections to terminate all relationships to anyone who sponsored him. Because you can bet that as soon as our backs are turned, the feminazi bullshit is going to reappear. And I don’t know about you, Ralph, but as for me, a woman, having heard it for nearly two decades now, I want it to stop. Permanently.

      • Here’s a post-‘apology’ statement from the CEO of Carbonite:

        A Statement from David Friend, CEO of Carbonite as of 6:45pm ET, March 3:
        “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

    • By making the phone call he has already got involved! People don’t need his pity and apologies they need him to take action. And it’s bigger than just Sandra – he won’t take a strong stand on birth control, etc. If he is a democrat then start acting like one! Women’s rights shouldn’t be up for discussion.

      • Doesn’t this sound like, “why are you so mad? I was kidding. Can’t you take a joke? Are you on the rag again? ” at which point, he brushes the dirt off his shoulders and gives us the finger.

  7. ‎”Having to fight to keep the status quo—having to “win” things we already have, like the right to FUCKING BIRTH CONTROL, is not a victory. Every time we are forced to revisit settled questions, the very best we can hope for is to hold our ground. That is a brilliant strategy, and exactly how the anti-choicers are advancing their agenda. We have to exhaust ourselves just to stay still, or slide slightly backward.”


    • IMHO, this happens because fauxgressive men such as Obummer himself won’t bother pushing back because it’s just a “women’s issue” anyway.

      Maybe women should just adopt the Lysistrata strategy, and make it a male problem. 😈

      I DO enjoy being a gender traitor. :mrgreen:

      • wouldn’t that kind of be cutting off our noses to spite our faces? Oh I know we don’t really need men for that, but some women find it more worthwhile when men are involved.
        Most people know by now I favor just cutting men out of the electoral power position, women taking over and having our own way for several hundred years. So I will spare everyone the lecture.

  8. ‎Rush Limbaugh Apologizes To Sandra Fluke For Calling Her A ‘Slut’: “What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?”

    Ahhhhh, it’s called contraception. You know…when a woman takes personal responsibility and accountablity for her reproductive status and decides to use contraception? And, golly gee….sometimes a man does the same thing.

  9. Off topic: The recent storms in the Midwest and South have left many people in need. The Red Cross is asking for donations:


    • Thank you for that reminder, monster. It’s very thoughtful. Maybe we can do a fundraiser tomorrow for the RedCross and maybe A+, for non-believers giving aid will have a donations page by then like they did for Joplin last year.

  10. Oh, and the vast majority of women do not do drugs before sex. Most of us don’t have to get drunk either.

    I’m sure that the vast majority of women who have had sex with Rush have had to do both.

  11. So what these guys are saying is that health insurance is for MENS medical needs. And if a woman’s medical need matches one of theirs (men) then it could (not necessarily would because you know – the money) be covered by health insurance. But, otherwise – these men don’t want to be a part of any insurance pool that covers it.

    Well, what if we all looked at it like that? (young people wouldn’t want to be in the same pool as older people for example) The more you break up the Pool the more worthless ANY health insurance. Then it really just a really expensive bill paying service.

    This libertarian sh!t is hitting the ill-logical conclusion wall.

    • Via commenter cgeye at Violet’s place:
      Senator Turner Introduces Legislation to Protect Men’s Health.


      • Love this part:

        Senator Turner explained. “We must advocate for the traditional family, protect the sanctity of procreation, and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options–including celibacy as a viable life choice. This legislation will do just that.”

        • I *LOVE* Nina Turner! Can we get her to run for president? She’s a threefer (brilliant, black, babe).

        • The comment section is also worth reading. So many women are truly concerned with men’s health. Gosh, they make me feel so insensitive for ignoring it for so long.
          I’m sure Santorum will be pleased to hear this.

        • One commenter recommends a waiting period before the man obtains his prescription. I think this is very wise. But you know, he still may not know if it’s the right thing to do. He should consult his family and minister and get their moral input before he does anything rash.

    • Katiebird,

      Funny you should mention this:

      young people wouldn’t want to be in the same pool as older people for example

      since the Health Insurance Company Bailout Bill (aka “Obamacare”) legalizes rate discrimination against older participants in group plans.

      • Yeah, it’s a laugh riot. I can’t tell you how many times I find myself chuckling about that very thing. I’ve been laughing myself sick over it.

  12. This whole topic makes me CRAZED!!! It is just a ginning up of the base by both sides because apparently we women come running every time they do it. What about this point of view:


    • Let’s put it this way: If there is a war on women, the Democrats fired the first shot 4 years ago and in the interim, neither they nor Obama have lifted a finger to help us fight it. If Rush was forced to issue an apology, it was because we women made him do it. And we would be stupid if we accepted anything less than his complete and permanent exile to blogtalkradio.
      As for male politicians of either party, fuck’em. I’m not playing games anymore.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: