The Dittohead challenge: Please explain Limbaugh's "grab the ankles" quote
October 19, 2009 12:44 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Over the weekend, Limbaugh continued to express his complete bafflement at the idea that anyone associated with the NFL would think he turbo talker had a problem with race. Limbaugh, with the entire GOP Noise Machine nodding franticly in agreement, has declared his only take on race is that America should strive to be truly colorblind. In fact, National Review's Andy McCarthy* claimed Limbaugh treats people just Martin Luther King did--based on the content of their character! ("Kumbaya, my Lord...")
Limbaugh's not a race-baiter and there's nothing in his archives that would suggest he was. In fact, liberals had to invent nasty quotes from him, the Dittoheads whined, because they can't find any real ones because Limbaugh's record is so clean on this issue. Or so went the claim. (Not quite.)
So here's the challenge, and it's open to anyone within the right-wing; Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh himself. Anyone can take a shot. But could somebody from the right-wing please--please--take a few minutes and explain what Limbaugh was talking about when he made this comment earlier this year:
"We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
I realize that the GOP Noise Machine has avoided this quote for months and absolutely refuses to acknowledge its existence. Appearing on conservative radio talk shows this year, I've mentioned it a couple times and hosts simply will not discuss it. But in the context of Limbaugh's blanket denial about how he doesn't have a race problem, I think it would be helpful if a Dittohead addressed this quote and help remove any fears readers might have that Limbaugh's comment was patently offensive.
So that's that challenge. Could somebody please explain what mental image Limbaugh was trying to paint with this comment, and specifically why people were supposed to be bend over and grab their ankles for Obama? Please explain what Obama's father being black had to do with the bending and the ankle grabbing. And please explain why nobody connected with the NFL should take offense at Limbaugh's suggestion that they also bend over and grab their ankles on account of Obama's black father.
Dittoheads insist the talker's record is clean on the issue of race; that it's crazy to suggest Limbaugh traffics in ugly race-baiting. If so, then please explain the ankle-grabbing quote.
We'll wait...
*I originally attributed the post to National Review writer Mark Steyn.
I'm not a dittohead and I'm not defending Rush, I'm just familiar enough with their ilk to anticipate their response.
As for Limbaugh's constant references to "bending over", in my experience, the people obsessed with homosexuality are so obsessed for a reason...
That explanation wouldn't just be bogus -- it would also dodge the heart of the question: why does Limbaugh express fears of political defeat by Obama as fears of sexual domination, debasement and violence? There is a perfectly good answer, of course, but you'd have to be one of those pointy-headed elitist liberal college graduate ivory tower types who read subversive radical intellectuals like Frantz Fanon in order to subscribe to such an answer. And those people are just awful and hate America.
As far as the "grabbing the ankles" imagery, it's just a little more graphic version of saying you're getting screwed. Yeah, Rush's sodomy obsession is pretty bizarre, but his monkeys will try to explain anything he says. You've been around here long enough to know that their arguments don't normally make much sense, but they don't seem to care.
I don't see where liberals can act offended at a common phrase that means to accept what's coming your way whether you like it or not, but throw around the word 'teabagging' with regard to protesters as often and as freely as they do. It's simply being intellectually dishonest to pretend Limbaugh's saying what he did about bending over and snicker with delight at the teabagging phrase.
That's all you needed (In short, you gave up at "but").
The point made was that it's not a very good challenge because dittoheads will try to explain it using exactly the sort of meaningless BS you posted.
I don't think anybody's offended at the words in the "grab you ankles" phrase, it's the incoherence and meaninglessness of it that's being questioned.
As far as your being hurt by the word "teabagger", many clueless teabaggers used it themselves.
Pretty sure liberals have used the phrase 'bend over and grab your ankles' or it's cousin, that phrase along with 'and kiss your sweet ass good-bye' before too. So using your logic, it was perfectly fine for Limbaugh to use that phrase. Especially given that not only do childish and crude liberals use the term freely on their blogs, they've also got the nightly cable goons doing it too in Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Cooper Anderson, not to mention every Democratic strategist that comes on their shows to discuss the tea parties.
Would you or Eric care to explain what mental image Janeane Garfolo was trying to paint when she called these people, all of them actually 'nothing more than a bunch of teabagging, redneck racists'?
I have no problem with Rush saying "grab your ankles", I just find it strange that he uses it so often, especially in context like this where it doesn't make any sense. It seems like a childish excuse to say something naughty, appealing to a very immature audience.
Your second paragraph is sort of confusing, you started off on the "grab your ankles" bit, but seemed to shift without notice to "teabagger", and your complaint about bloggers and tv people using it. Again, it was started by the teabaggers themselves, if you expect that nobody is going to go along and have a laugh at them, you don't have a very good sense of humor.
I'd say that Garafalo was trying to create an image of teabagging redneck racists. The same image created by many of the teabaggers themselves. Are you going to keep harping on people for accurately describing these nuts, or would you rather go talk to some teabaggers and suggest they quit making fools of themselves?
The metaphor is that it's a juvenile term, one that a middle schooler would think humorous and an amusing taunt, but not professional news anchors or respectable journalists. I see the humor in it, and can see why the liberal blogs would get a big kick out of it too... for about two days, but now it's a common occurence, even in the MSM. Just yesterday, EJ Dionne used it on ABC's This Week.
As to Garafolo, they're not all teabagging redneck racists. Not even close. Just because idiots with nothing better to do attend these rallies with their video cameras and search out the most far right fringe people who are attracted to these events to film them, doesn't mean they're all that way. None of them 'teabag'. You have no idea how many of them are rednecks, and you have no idea just how many of them are racists.
Some of them were oblivious enough to the sexual meaning to call themselves teabaggers, and to attach teabags to themselves just to kick it up a notch.
The humor isn't so much in directing a juvenile taunt at somebody, as it is about the utter cluelessness of these people.
Another metaphor, in spite of your assertion that only the most far right fringe are sought out, I've seen countless interviews as well as reporting and websites by conservatives as these tea parties have gone on, and I have yet to see any rational statements.There seems to be a lot of confusion about what they're mad about, and what they're trying to accomplish.
The participants, and the promoters (Fox, am radio)seem equally ill-informed, hateful and confused. They are hilarious in their ignorance. The cherry on top is that this group of presumably right wing, family-values, gay-hating Christian types are so out of touch that they dubbed themselves with the name of a gay sex act, and didn't even know it.
Get it now?
Do you somehow think that the overuse of this sex act to describe Americans you disagree with and think are stupid, redneck racists is not offensive on any level, yet you and Eric Boehlert can't believe your ears when Rush Limbaugh says a harmless colloquialism like 'bend over and grab our ankles?
I'm wondering where your sense of humor is. I also wonder between the two images you call sex acts, bending over and grabbing your ankles or placing one's scrotum in another person's mouth (teabagging), which side uses sexual imagery more, liberals or Rush Limbaugh?
You decide.
As I wrote earlier;
I have no problem with Rush saying "grab your ankles", I just find it strange that he uses it so often, especially in context like this where it doesn't make any sense
and TheCat wrote;
is not offensive because of the 'bend over, grab the ankles' part.
now you write:
you ... can't believe your ears when Rush Limbaugh says a harmless colloquialism like 'bend over and grab our ankles?
You seem equally confused about the difference in the two phrases, but since you don't seem to read or comprehend much, I'm going to cut my losses here and wish you good luck. Maybe somebody else can help you out.
Just by way of clarification, the quote:
We are being told we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles... because his father was black. (Rush Limbaugh)
is not offensive because of the 'bend over, grab the ankles' part. Rather, what makes it offensive as well as racist has to do with the last portion: because his father was black.
Does that help?
Somehow, I think you know this.
Here's what Boehlert asked.
"So that's that challenge. Could somebody please explain what mental image Limbaugh was trying to paint with this comment, and specifically why people were supposed to be bend over and grab their ankles for Obama? Please explain what Obama's father being black had to do with the bending and the ankle grabbing."
Truthfully, to the best of my knowledge.
This, as I understand it, is the question Eric Boehlert presented. (Mr. Boehlert, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken) In an effort to provide you with some clarification, I summed it up.
You have not explained what Mr. Limbaugh meant, hoosier. Your argument was, 'But they do it too!' See:
"Pretty sure liberals have used the phrase 'bend over and grab your ankles' or it's cousin, that phrase along with 'and kiss your sweet ass good-bye' before too. So using your logic, it was perfectly fine for Limbaugh to use that phrase. Especially given that not only do childish and crude liberals use the term freely on their blogs, they've also got the nightly cable goons doing it too in Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Cooper Anderson, not to mention every Democratic strategist that comes on their shows to discuss the tea parties."
I merely pointed out that you missed the entire premise of the question, Mr. Limbaugh's obvious racism, and have now repeated myself in the hope that you finally see what is under discussion here.
No. No, the words came from Rush's own lips, and they were not humorous, they were not forced, and they have not been taken out of context. They simply provided an accurate and clear window into a small and hateful soul. It can't be Mr. Limbaugh's fault, can it? I mean, it's not like he's a champion of personal responsibility or anything... Except he is. For everyone else. Guess what, Rush? Your turn is just beginning. I hope you enjoy the taste of crow.
If any of them show up here, they might take a shot based on ideas that have been programmed into them by Rush in the past, most likely, as Bamaman said above, involving favorite wingnut buzzwords like "politically correct", "White Guilt" and "lol".
There will be no evidence supporting the explanations, but those who follow Rush aren't concerned with minor annoyances like reality or truth.
One of the funniest things I've seen here recently; Another MMFA item listing several of Boss Hogg's racist remarks, and the rebuttal by one of his faithful, a quote from Rush explaining that he isn't racist.
I don't mean 'The List', either. Your words, your explanation.
So I'll know exactly what a racist is. The folks here only seem to call his remarks 'racially-charged', so I was wondering what leap of faith you took that you're so convinced, and maybe you could convince others too.
There's no "leap of faith", Rush's racist remarks are well documented. Interesting that you want to prohibit "the list" while asking for evidence that Rush is racist. Seems like you really know the answer.
Racism is subjective, and it can be found in varying degrees. Maybe everybody is a little racist in some way, but Rush is a prominent, famous person who makes racial remarks in order to divide people, and distract them. He makes a lot of money doing it.
What you've described, though, is a race-baiter, and that's a lot different than a racist. Rush donated once $4.2mm to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Families Fund. 4.2 million dollars. A significant portion of the people that would directly benefit from that type of donation are minorities. I don't remember any leftist blogger informing us that Rush stipulated that the money only go to benefit whites. Do you?
Tell me, do racists make those kinds of gestures to people they supposedly hate. Do racists have many, many African American friends that swear they aren't racist?
There's an added benefit to Rush; this donation can be used in the future to counter charges that he's racist. Some of his followers may even feel confident posting it on a website as proof that Rush is not racist.
I don't think I've ever said Rush hates all black people. Racists don't necessarily need to hate anybody. Sometimes it's fear, sometimes ignorance, and in Rush's case, I think it's just utilitarian.
I would guess, based on my listening to his show, that Rush doesn't like a lot of people, including black people, but he may not hate them in general, he just knows his target audience is made up of a lot of people who enjoy a little racism.4.2 million is chump change for somebody with RL's net worth to pay in CYA money. It worked on you, didn't it?
I have no idea if racists have many, many AA friends who swear they aren't racist. That's a strange question. I imagine if the racist could hide it well enough, or find some friends who would defend him for enough money, it's quite possible. Are you talking about anybody in particular, or is this a rhetorical question?
If calling a racist a race baiter makes it softer and more comfortable for you, I won't try to stop you. It's all opinion, as I've said.
It's pretty safe to have the same attitude about Limbaugh. Even besides "take the bone out of your nose" and "they're 12% of the population, who the hell cares?"(which is racist beyond any reasonable doubt), there are any number of comments which sound racist, but are defended with "it's out of context" or "he's just joking". After a while, it's difficult to give him any benefit of the doubt.
At the very least, Limbaugh brings up race when there's no real reason to do so. His comments about the Somalian pirates, for instance. What did race have to do with that incident? What's the evidence that Obama would have done anything different if he knew they were black? So what's the purpose of that? It's possible that it's for political purposes, but the racial nature of it would seem to clearly stoke racial hatred. Do you think he's not smart enough to realize that, or do you suppose that maybe he doesn't care?
I even saw one of the wingnuts, presented with a list of RL's offensive statements, demand that somebody else "prove" that the statements were racist. She may as well have asked for proof that her husband was stupid or her child was ugly.
A few Rush defenders here have just gone with "you really don't understand why we have to bend over and grab our ankles because Obama's father is black?" because they can't make any sense out of it either, but they know it makes sense to them.
Funny that they totally "get" his remark, but need some sort of objective proof, aside from all of his racist remarks, that Rush is a racist.
www.merriam-webster.com is where I usually go for definitions.
racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination
A racist is one who displays these tendencies.
Rush Limbaugh, bemoaning the idea we are all expected to bend over and grab our ankles because Barack Obama's father is black, for instance. Note that there are likely many ways to express this thought, but Mr. Limbaugh chose a racial frame of reference.
The McNabb quote? "Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." Get it? The only reason Limbaugh can think of has to do with McNabb's race. Therefore, Mr. Limbaugh is demonstrably racist on air. Whether he is in real life or not is open to debate, as I have not met the man, but at least when he is on the air, he is in fact a racist.
There's no leap of faith required. It's simple logic, based on agreed-upon definitions. If these were the only two quotes, then perhaps there could be a debate. But there are hundreds. Remember 'The List' you mentioned?
Patrick O'Heffernan
Progressive Co-host, The Fairness Doctrine
wdisam 1170, Boston, Norfolk
Other than that, a pretty silly defense of Rush and his audience. None of them are racist, they just sit around making racist jokes because it makes more of them listen and they imagine it "stirs up the left"?
Seems like pretty strange behavior.Wouldn't it be better for ratings, and pizzing off leftys, for Rush to come up with some coherent political ideas, or maybe some intelligent discussion explaining why conservatism is so great?
I guess he tries that too, but it must not be very convincing if he has to pump up the audience by putting on blackface and making jokes from the 1940s.
I doubt Rush really "stirs up" many on the left. I can only speak for myself, I enjoy seeing Republican leaders making fools of themselves and exposing their problems.Not just on ideology, as Rush wants Obama to fail, but for the good of the country and the world. I'm optimistic enough to think that the demographic that's hungry for more low-level racial comedy and right wing propaganda is getting smaller every day.
Could it be that he wants to be wide receiver, and have the tight end, go deep and go long to the end zone?
I don't know what Garafalo said.
The Tea Partiers were categorized as "concerned Americans" by some of the media, but were obviously frightened hicks, elderly right wingers and racists to anybody who can see clearly.
"Explaining" this quote by asking a few meaningless questions, and adding that anybody who doesn't understand it is ignorant or dishonest is completely worthless. But not a bad try for a Dittohead. "Completely worthless" is a passing grade in El Rushbo's world.
MMFA didn't tell you what Garofalo said? What a surprise.
$5.00 says it goes something like the above...
It is the left that told us to praise the nation for electing an African American. On the right we try to be colorblind.
It was the left that has attacked Obama critics as being racist for opposing every policy the Marxist in Chief is trying to implement, whether socializing medicine in the name of reform, pushing reparations with climate change, etc.
So Limbaugh asks, are we supposed to just accept Obama's "fundamental transformation" of America into Amerika because if we don't, we will be called racists by people who have no other argument to defend what is happening?
The answer is, hell no we aren't going to take it, simply because Obama is black and the left will call us racists for opposing a black man, who happens to be a Marxist bent on destroying our economy and Capitalist society and remaking it in the image of failed socialist regimes around the world. And hopefully it can be fought off without a repeat of what Mao did in China killing 70 million, that apparently is considered acceptable by many among Obama WH advisers and adorers who think Mao was some sort of hero of the people. I guess that would be to the people he didn't kill.
You're colorblind, hence the appeals to latent white fears via dog whistle comments and other forms of race baiting.
As for taking pride in our nation electing its first African American president, has it ever occurred to you that there really is something to celebrate when a member of a race that has been systematically oppressed for two hundred years is elected to our highest office? I don't know about "colorblind", but you guys are definitely blind. African Americans still face systematic discrimination in our society and to ignore it is to implicitly support it.
"It was the left that has attacked Obama critics as being racist for opposing every policy the Marxist in Chief is trying to implement, whether socializing medicine in the name of reform, pushing reparations with climate change, etc."
Don't be an idiot. The left has critiqued a lot of the bulls*** that has come out of your mouths on principle and has offered up "racism" as a potential explanation for the loony behavior you folks have been exhibiting for the past year.
By the way, when has socialized medicine been pushed in this country? A public option for health insurance payment is a far cry from a socialist medical system.
On a side note, has it ever occurred to you that Obama and the rest of us AREN'T Marxists? Have you ever considered the possibility that we are all capitalists who support our economic system and that we mostly are looking for ways to keep it strong? That, in fact, our economic policies are what keep capitalism RUNNING in this country while your policies, whenever implemented, always seem to inevitably bring us to economic collapse unless corrected?
I know these are hard concepts to grasp. Understanding them involves turning off Fox News and Rush, reading a bit, and actually listening to what we say rather than depending on others to tell you what we say.
It's a novel concept but worth trying, I promise you.