Sara Palin vs. Rush Limbaugh

Resigned Alaskan governor and rightwing activist Sara Palin has come out strongly against those that believe tossing around the "R-word" is acceptable in public discourse and should be included into the modern lexicon. I strongly agree. Though I remain baffled as to why Sara Palin will not strongly admonish radio host Rush Limbaugh for doing exactly just that to a very large listening audience.

It all began with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel referring to congressional liberal as "f---- retarded," as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

A stern defender of the developmentally disabled, Sara Palin came out strongly against those who would use such derogatory language that hurts not just the people the insults are aimed at, but also injures the people that care for and love with all their heart developmentally disabled children as well.

"Just as we'd be appalled if any public figure of Rahm's stature ever used the 'N-word' or other such inappropriate language, Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities -- and the people who love them -- is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking," Palin wrote on her Facebook page.

While I would disagree that Rahm Emanuel should resign over his poor choice of words, I support Sara Palin in her indignation against this kind of language. It is important to note that Rahm Emanuel has apologized in public for his statement and there is no reason to believe it was anything but very poor choice of words and the expression of an honest opinion that illuminates exactly what I have long thought may be true of the White House chief of staff.

Under my observation, Rahm Emanuel is misguided in some of reasoning in so far as in my view he should be in support of the congressional liberal agenda and attempting to balance that against the presidential agenda if he were a "true blood" liberal / progressive himself. Somewhat like his boss, he is just not liberal enough for me. But I chalk it up to personal political differences between those of the "grassroots" left and the "big tent" left.

Enter conservative radio-talker Rush Limbaugh:

Limbaugh took the occasion to double-down on Emanuel's remark. On his radio show, Limbaugh made an even more derogatory comment, insisting that there can be no insult in "calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards."

The real news, Limbaugh continued, was that Emanuel had directed his "retard" comment at Obama supporters. "So now there's going to be a meeting," he said. "There's going to be a retard summit at the White House."

Not only did Limbaugh use this hurtful word repeatedly but he outright refuses to apologize to God's children for his venom spread as a public figure. What is more, Limbaugh has decided to use the words "retard summit" to embellish his point which removes the question if we are talking about Limbaugh believing others to be simply misguided in their thinking and he is slurring them in sport, or if he is talking about a group of people as "inferior" examples of humanity than himself. The question of if we are talking about persons or talking about ideas is made clear in Limbaugh's statement but Emanuel's statement could be taken either way.

This combined with the large difference in stature between a radio shock-jock and a White House chief of staff makes for a situation in which surely Sara Palin must see the need to say more about Rush's "slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities -- and the people who love them" as there is no doubt it was and remains to be "unacceptable, and heartbreaking" that slurs and vile contempt for fellow human beings is so widely accepted in modern political lexicon.

There seems to be some confusion in the Sara Palin camp as to the seriousness of this kind of language being used by public figures in our politics. She has decided to issue an statement through a representative in regards to the offensive words of Rush Limbaugh rather than, as I believe is the proper format for a public figure of her stature, post her thoughts onto her Facebook page in regards to these onslaughts thrown at God's children from the EIB studios.

This confusion persists as Sara Palin continues to hold her true feelings in about those who use mass media and public formats to attack the developmentally disabled in regards to this, possibly intentional, slight against her child and her family by Rush Limbaugh.

As it stands it appears that either Sara Palin was simply trying to score cheap political points by chastising Rahm Emanuel when "it doesn't matter who said 'r-word'" or she has merely yet to properly address the seriousness of Limbaugh's attacks against the developmentally disabled. There is no question that EIB & Rush Limbaugh thrown down the gauntlet against the rights of the developmentally disabled to be treated will respect and dignity. What remains to be seen is if Sara Palin will continue to waffle the issue by having her spokesperson, Meg Stapleton, speak for her or if she will stand proud and tall against all those who would cast such spiteful injuries unto those who deserve our greatest compassion in this modern lexicon.

==========================================

UPDATE!

Rush Limbaugh was won, unquestionably. Sara Palin has laid prostrate before his mighty slurs.

Peter & Dan Aykroyd with Alan Colmes

Find more videos like this on Alan Colmes Radio


--



--

Bill Clinton Downplays the Anti-Obama Rhetoric

Former President Bill Clinton appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press" and when asked about the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' that smeared him during his presidency he said this:

GREGORY: "Is it [the right-wing conspiracy] still there?"

CLINTON: "Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was, .. I mean, they're saying things about him [Obama] -- you know, it's like when they accused me of murder and all that stuff they did,"

I agree with the former president's assessment that we have changed demographically as a nation and that the virulence of the right-wing smear factory is as virulent as ever, but Clinton failed to touch on two critical points surrounding this current crusade of baseless slanders against these two democratically elected leaders.

Point One: The major platform to carry the broken logic of these claims was primarily talk radio when Clinton held the White House. Today these same kind of untrue slanders are carried by FOX News Talk Radio, FOX Cable News, and other talk mediums that include satellite broadcasting which did not even exist within the time he was in office. Then add on top of that a new spinster has come to rival Rush Limbaugh: Glenn Beck.

Point Two: The McCarthyist and anti-democratic rhetoric coming from the right-wing did not start until several years into the Clinton presidency but have begun almost immediately in the Obama presidency. Likely he seeks to try to disempower the media-jackals of FOX News, by evading the heart of the matter of the foundationless smears directed against President Obama he trying to avoid giving them bait.

But it must be said, these smears have propagated themselves in much more virulent manner and much sooner than they did for Clinton. It took them years to get around to accusing him of anything even half as extreme as some of the myths about Obama that have been floated around from several months back. What is worse is the very foundation of this conspiracy is not the same as the one that attacked Clinton. Only the tactics and one of the actors (Limbaugh) remain from that old sideshow.

This is far, far worse and I can not label it anything less than fundamentally un-American. It seeks to undermine our very system of democracy and our very system of public discourse.

--

The government is trying to kill you and everyone not with you is a "shill".

--

Or ... if it's not the wild conspiracy theories of those like Alex Jones, it's the equally wild claims of those like Glenn Beck.

--

The government is trying to control your life and everyone who doesn't think so is a "Marxist".

--

All of this is simply designed to sow fear and distrust for both anyone who supports any not of their opinion then simultaneously spread fear about the government at-large. In a democratic society we cannot afford to simply forgo coming to the table to discuss our positions with facts and reason then replace this with media-crusades and continuous vicious untrue labeling without dire consequence. Those who refuse to educate themselves except from known liars need to be recognized as dealt with non-credible.

--

The insidious plot that is in play here is of another caliber entirely.

--

It is a giant media body larger and the message is wholly anti-democratic then you add that we have race baiting going on against the first African-American president by both Beck and Limbaugh but nobody on the right wing ever cares that they engaged in it.

A certain element of racism exists not just in what Jimmy Carter said about some white people in the US not feeling a black man should lead this great nation, but also within this intense rush to judgment of Barack Obama in terms of the full scope of his presidency.

The matter of those on the right who wished to keep their children home from school because Obama would address the class in a video is more short-term example of this same rush to negative judgment.

I personally will allow no person to wrap themselves in this claim that anyone is saying that everyone anti-Obama is by value of that a racist.

What is disturbing is the number of people who obviously have never looked into what people are calling "racist" or "racialist" on the left but truly have a high level of indignation more about the fact that the issue is being discussed than anything else.

To not even entertain thought long enough to form any kind of argument begs the question if they are within heavy stages of denial.

Make no mistake, once these neo-conservatives no longer have an enemy to publicly defame and lie about they will go right back to trying to get people to vote for The Republican Party.

--

And the media in general is not helping by providing massive double standards in their intense questioning of Democrats, but constant softballs to Republicans.

Colmes Interviews

Alan Colmes -- Talk Radio

Frank Luntz is a Word-Weasel

Rightwing pollster Frank Luntz is out promoting his new book: “What Americans Really Want, Really” and getting his definitions completely wrong in regards to Political Science, which I seriously doubt is an amateurish mistake.

On Alan Colmes Radio, Luntz continued the conservative rhetoric that United States of America is a “center-right country” and his words in explanation of this were very revealing as to his own personal bias against getting the definitions right, even when those words might not serve your own political ends.

“This is a center-right country but the definition of ‘Center-Right‘ has changed. ‘Center-Right’ doesn‘t mean keeping government out of our lives anymore, .. now it means fighting corruption.”

This is the Word-Weasel at work.

Fighting corruption in both government and private sectors has always been the ideals of The Progressive Reformist Movement since it's inception and these ideals have remained as a fact of American Life since then. To attach his own ideological group to these values is outright inaccurate.

Frank Luntz is very good at catering messages that appeal to conservatives and work well for The Republican Party but I find the notion that he is not affected by political bias in most of his statements completely absurd.

Center-Right has, and always will, mean exactly what Luntz claimed on the air that it does not mean.

It is clear to me that he feels free to change the definitions of words as he sees fit in order to further his own personal political agenda. If he cannot admit that the nation obviously shifted to Center-Left with the election of a Democratic President, and the ambitions of sixty House seats being attained by The Democratic Party then I am left to question the very conclusions of his work.

No doubt he has attained a great deal of significant data in his 6,000+ focus groups he used to compile his recent book, but if the standards of recognizing professional bias and personal bias are ignored then the conclusions of the body of work become suspect.

This is a Radio-interview Review, not a Book Review, so that body of work is not my focus and I invite anyone interested to avail themselves of this literature.

My only point is that if Frank Luntz is going to change the definitions of sound science to fit his image on a radio show, it begs to question other matters of credibility as well.

In his credit, I don’t believe he ever joined in the hateful mantra of “socialist” aimed at liberals, Democrats and mainly Obama.

On the list of all the partisans out there, Luntz is a minor offender.

But I still find it the worst of offenses to change the words to fit your needs, and considering they call him ‘The Words That Work Guy’; I think maybe it should be elongated to ‘The Words That Work No Matter What Guy’.

Frank Luntz is a smart cookie. But I’d personally almost compared him to Karl Rove, myself. Dancing around the truth has never been part of The Scientific Approach.

--

What Americans really want, really, is for pollsters to stop telling them what they think when it’s really just what the pollster thinks about what you think.

Alan Colmes on The O'Reilly Factor

Find more videos like this on Alan Colmes Radio

Rusty Humphries is a Fascist

Rusty Humphries is a disturbed individual. He sought to express to his audience today that for the first time since his wife passed away, a year ago, he felt as if tears would well up into his eyes. What caused him this moment of anguish and misery equal to the loss of a loved one? The images of recently released Guantanamo Bay terror suspects, referred to as Uighurs, to Bermuda.

One more radio pundit has lost his mind in the age of a return to American justice and the US Constitution being enacted under President Barack Obama. The partisan hate and ignorance of the fundamental values of American Democracy is disturbing and leads to only one conclusion: Rusty Humphries supports fascist policy.

RUSTBUCKET: “These guys [Uighurs] had every intention of doing terrorist acts on China.”

One has to prove this in a court of law if you intend to detain any person. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental difference between American and Fascist Ideals.

RUSTBUCKET: “China has made it clear they will execute and make example of all terrorists.”

This is true. They are also a nation guilty of endless human rights atrocities. It is clear to me that this particular radio-jockey is a pro-fascist and anti-democratic pundit.

This is the US, not China.

Those who lose their country seek to protect the US Constitution.

Those who love fascism seek to defend torture and detainment without trial.

His hatred for President Obama and all things American is so great, and so vastly partisan, that he continues to jeopardize and threaten the nation with his dangerous and unconstitutional rhetoric.

Rush Limbaugh is Dr. Evil

The Radio Comedian Rush Limbaugh is best understood as a real-life version of the character Dr. Evil from Austin Powers.

Plotting and scheming in some ceramic bunker with his inner-circle of minions, his many Snurgly clones of course, gathered round to hear his daily machinations delivered via flashy jumpsuit!

In The Comedian’s case the issue is just to constantly stay in the news and stay relevant to someone, somewhere.

A lot of people seem to think we need an Anti-Limbaugh, or an Austin Powers, to appear and vanquish this foe. I think that Dr. Evil’s Empire falls apart when people start catching on to his game.

It’s all a house of cards of his own making. His own minions would throw him away if he ever had a level-headed view of anything to do with President Obama. The jackals would consume their master in a heartbeat if he stepped off his ‘ordained’ path even in the slightest.

So Dr. Evil plays his game and works his magic but when people can see the same of tired bag of tricks again and again, they tend to catch on.

“Pet my Snurgly! Pet him!”

There Will Be No Radio Fairness Doctrine

Former President Bill Clinton can now be added to the list of big name Democrats that have eluded to or outright mentioned the Fairness Doctrine in radio-media.

I will boldly speak out turn and say now that there shall not a return to the arcane legislation of the Fairness Doctrine where an opposing opinion must be made time for after any political opinion is expressed.

Though John Kerry, Bill Clinton and other figures speak of a need for media regulation I think the issue was already addressed by President Obama when he requested that conservatives stray away from partisanship like that of The Radio Comedian Rush Limbaugh.

This is the clear stance of this administration that partisanship is any form is counter productive in politics. The partisanship found on FOX Network airwaves and conservative-talk radio was challenged thusly by the Executive Branch. I see no moves from this office toward this matter beyond what we have already witnessed.

This issue simply doesn’t rate high enough on the presidential ‘to do list.’ The outcries from the far right wing that this inane legislation from days gone by are paranoid delusions created to fabricate the image of ’persecuted’ conservatives.

The right to Freedom of Speech has always challenged Americans in terms of what they will accept in terms of their politics and their news media. Those like myself who have educated themselves on some aspects of modern media know about the Radio Fair and Equal Rule.

In the Fair and Equal Rule a political campaign that receives airtime must have due consideration and / or equal airtime.

I foresee no threat to the talk radio medium spreading further into FM, satellite and internet formats.

Though I also would not predict any ‘explosions’ of talk radio, but rather just a gradual integration. The Politic-Talk Medium will always remain, no matter what paranoid conservative pundits say.

Loyal Opposition No More

For many years I have felt that for all our disagreements between liberal and conservative individuals there was a shared position by both sides. A loyal opposition to the opposition.

For the time being I believe the majority of the conservatives of America have thrown down this national system of civil loyalty in politics in place of a pure obstructionist agenda.

I have not heard any amount of logical rebuttal to an Obama policy or policy proposal, except in very rare cases.

I find I cannot listen to the standard bearers of GOP right wing radio these days. Like most people I have my ‘hang-ups.’

Dismissive attitudes and screaming people down end up on my list.

Every time I have been listening to conservative talk radio, or GOP responses, since the election of Barack Obama I am disgusted by the complete lack of integrity and grace in politics.

Reducing everything down to simply ‘name-calling’ is not the issue. Though it is important thing to avoid as much as possible.

Not sticking to the facts about our democratic representatives and our recent national historical history is unpatriotic.

I wish it were not so. And no group can claim to innocent of some form of vitriol in these times.

But not having an actual political dialogue and instead presenting vague facts along with connect-the-dots logic is simply dirty pool.

Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative?

We hear this question posed often in our lives, if we are a political person ourselves.

I recently heard a response to this question on the radio that I disagree with, but I still believe desires to be heard. I offer it as but an anecdote:

Question: "What is the difference between a liberal and a conservative?"

Response: “Think in terms of kind and unkind.”

While this sentiment starts to address the huge gap between these ideologies it only touches the most bare and stereotypical edges of the matter.

The truth of the matter is more that historically both liberals and conservatives morph and relocate themselves throughout the political spectrum in all nations. Only certain key values and standards define each group and it is easier to grab one specific location and timeframe than to just say all liberals or conservatives are so.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of separation of church and state.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of the use of military budgets and international policies.

These kind of statements are the only real response to this question and it is obviously verbose to try to answer this question with what sounds like reading a textbook at someone.

It is said sometimes that these groups are defined by the members they attract.

I believe this only partly defines the ideology and the group.

The common views and desires are the true backbone of every movement.

Some claim the liberal movements to attract the more ‘fringe’ elements of society while conservative attracts a more ‘common’ element of society.

That may have been true in days past but in our world, right now, the conservative movement has attracted the truly fringe elements of our society in the past national campaign and to this day on talk radio and certain websites. Unquestionable willful destruction of non-partisan debate is expressly un-American.

I think my own answer to this question is more like an answer one might get from a wandering mystic:

Response: “Ask me again when you know which one you are.”

I think if someone is even asking this question they are just fresh into politics. All political types, even myself, must claw backwards into our memories to a time when we were mostly apolitical and remember that nobody comes out of the womb with a position on taxation rates.

We form all these things we call ‘opinions’ as we go. So cut a break to people who were spacing out on their nation when we needed them the most, because we still need them now that they are paying attention.

Does Limbaugh Offer Any Solution To Unions?

“Do you want to accept the conditions in the workplace as is no matter what or do you want to work to change them?” Rush Limbaugh, 12/19/08.

Rush was speaking about an incident from his broadcasting past in which a station owner told him to stop saying the word ‘therefore’ and a caller, Faith, had posed a question about unions to him.

“Unions are not the answer [we should] support the American worker.”

Unions began in the spirit of supporting the American worker.

Bringing us child labor laws and safer workplaces.

If any Republican agenda includes removal of unions from our country should include some kind of solution to the workers who would lose representation. Without an alternate outside of the ‘let the market handle it’ mentality to the issue of the UAW, the GOP is proving that they do not support the American worker

How exactly do you go about changing the conditions in the workplace without any kind of representation?

Rush has completely lost his ability to decry unions as the source of all corruption as a union that strikes into thousands of American homes comes in danger of dissolving with dire consequences, and still he wants the auto bailout to die in the Senate.

I question if any core GOP member or Rush-type even cares about this country beyond just a place to tout to their ideals.