Limbaugh's sexist trifecta: called Justice Souter "a girl" and Jack Carter "castrated"; returned to disavowed term "feminazis"
Rush Limbaugh asserted that Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter is "a girl," and claimed that Jack Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter, "has been castrated by the feminization of this culture." Additionally, Limbaugh referred again to "feminazis" -- a term he previously claimed he had stopped using.
On the February 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter is "a girl," and claimed that Jack Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter, "has been castrated by the feminization of this culture." Additionally, during his February 20 program, Limbaugh again referred to feminists as "feminazis" -- a term he previously claimed he had stopped using.
Limbaugh called Souter "a girl" while discussing a February 19 Associated Press article on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's status, following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as the only female Supreme Court justice. Limbaugh subsequently qualified his characterization of Souter as "a girl," stating, "I'm talking about attitudinally, here, folks."
From the February 21 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: OK, so there's that. Lemme put that aside. Next little story, and this -- this actually is from Sunday. It's an Associated Press story: "Ginsburg bears burden without O'Connor. It'll be a one-woman show in the Supreme Court starting Tuesday. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the only female among the nine justices, and she's not so happy about it." So, resign. If you don't like it, resign. If you don't like being the only woman on the court, then go somewhere else. Besides, David Souter's a girl. Everybody knows that. What's the big deal? I'm talking about attitudinally, here, folks. You gotta -- you just -- Dawn [studio transcriber] agrees. She's nodding her head in agreement.
Limbaugh also called Jack Carter, the son of former President Jimmy Carter, a "[c]lassic example of the new castrati," claiming he "has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up." On February 6, Carter declared his candidacy for a U.S. Senate seat in Nevada.
From the February 21 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Speaking of Jimmy Carter, did you see what his son, Jack, said? "Jack Carter, 58 years old, the eldest son of former U.S. President Jimma [sic] Carter, has announced that he's going to seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate to represent Nevada." At his launch -- launch party, whatever, Carter spoke with reporters revealing his schizophrenic stand on abortion. He was speaking with, with Kathleen Hennessy of the Associated Press, and he described his views on abortion, saying: "I'm a personal-freedoms person. I don't want the government to come in and tell my child or whoever it is that they can't have an abortion. I'm pro-choice as far as a woman choosing. But I'm against abortion."
"I am pro-choice as far as a woman choosing. But I am against abortion." Well, there is a totally worthless view. This is just his version of, "I support the troops, but I don't support the war." Or "I'm against slavery, but I oppose freeing the slaves. I'm for jobs, but I'm not for Wal-Mart. I'm for open government, except when a Democrat's in office, and I want to have the power to do what I want to do without anybody seeing me."
I mean these people are just -- they are so -- just total wimps. Come on, Jack, tell us what you really believe, and stand for something, and come out and lead on that basis, Jack. This is -- "No, I wanna make sure I don't offend the women." This -- this is -- here you go. Classic example of the castrati, the new castrati. Jack Carter is -- has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up. He's -- he's three years older than I am. He was subject to the same pressures I was, plus probably even more, what with his dad being in there in the White House and so forth.
Additionally, in referencing an interview he conducted with National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne, author of Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports (Sentinel HC, 2005), Limbaugh reiterated his previous characterization of feminists as "feminazis." This marks at least the fourth time Limbaugh has used that term since Media Matters for America noted his June 22, 2005, claim that "I haven't used that term on this program in years." Media Matters has documented three other occasions -- here, here, and here -- where he used the term since June 22, 2005. Moreover, Limbaugh's claim that "I haven't used that term on this program in years" was false when he made it. Media Matters has documented numerous occasions between March 2004 and July 2005, in which Limbaugh used the term.
From the February 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: No, I didn't invent the gender gap. I -- in fact, I don't really -- we talked to Kate O'Beirne for the interview in the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter, and she makes the point there isn't a gender gap. That the feminazis just created all of this as a political wedge issue. And she's got the statistics to back it up. But I'll save that for when we publish the interview.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
It is a perfectly valid point of view to see abortion as a necessary evil. While I somewhat subscribe to the George Carlin/Bill Maher view that we are so overpopulated anyway (with stupid people mostly) that anything that keeps the population down is a good thing, abortion is a traumatic surgical procedure that can damage a woman both mentally and physically.
Rush has always been extremely insecure, especially involving the subject of women, he seems to attempt to strengthen his flaccid confidence by demeaning women and subjugating them to inferior status. Notice a pattern in his comments here- he attempts to mock Justice Souter by calling him a girl, and then ridicules Carter's views on abortion by saying the feminazi's have castrated him. Rush is so fixiated on his own impotent ideas that it permeates his entire philosophy. He needs an appointment with Dr. Drew.
You say, "It is a perfectly valid point of view to see abortion as a necessary evil."
RESPONSE: That's fine, but it's not the real ISSUE. It's essential for our Constitutionally directed democracy that we see GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE as an UNnecessary evil.
It's not whether abortion is necessary or is NOT necessary. It's that the decision needs to be made by the individual involved, and not by Jesse Helms or Rick Santorem. The issue is privacy, it's individual spirituality (or lack thereof), it medical, and it's PERSONAL. "Necessary" has nothing to do with it.
we see GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE as an UNnecessary evil.
*********************
Once again your government interference selectivity fails to pass the consistency test. On one hand you decry the government from getting anywhere near a woman and her right to an abortion, hands off you say. However, when it comes to increasing the tax burden disproportionately on those that earn their own money, you demand the government get their interferring hands deep in their pockets. Enough is never enough you say.
Off topic, perhaps..........hypocritical on your part, absolutely.
Aren't you being equally hypocritical? You don't mind the government in your bedroom, you just want them out of your pockets?
When have you ever seen me write I want the government anywhere near my bedroom? You are very mistaken. I want the government out of my life and way as much as possible, in all areas.
There is no inconsistency here, despite your mischaracterization.
You have argued frequently that overturning Roe v. Wade was not such a big deal because it would send the decision back to the states.
I have also seen you post against supposed drive-by abortion clinics. Just how presumably do you propose to stop this practice if not throught the long arm of government?
State government is still government, the only difference is that it would be in the bedroom again.
Whether people are for taxes, oppose gay marriage, gay adoption or abortion in some way, everyone is a hypocrite to some degree on this if your only gauge is government involvement. Myself included.
However, IMO there should be a reasonable basis or government interest in the intervention. Just pointing out hypocrisy on one level does not necessarily invalidate a point of view.
To answer your question, I have said Roe is bad law and should be decided by individual states.......as for drive by abortion clinics, I have never even used that word or commented here on the ease or difficulty in women obtaining abortion, only that I don't want to pay for it......so where you got that from????? I have no clue.
I do agree with you to a point about the inconsistencies in govt. involvement, however some hypocrisies are much more glaring than others.......obviously we need govt. in our lives for protection, police and fire, etc. What we don't need is over regulation and over taxation......govt is not the answer to any of our problems.
Tommy,
I don't think either of us are really that far apart. I prefer to see non-governmental or free-market solutions wherever possible as I believe you do. We simply have different thresholds for what kind of government involvement we find acceptible for different things.
I also believe the the government sometimes screws up and actually does something right once in a while.
So if someone is pro-choice or wants government to stay out of a woman's right to choose then they must be for more taxes. I'm not sure were your drawing this conclusion from other then your making an assumption.
plus you statement seem to be if someone has a priority that isn't on your short list of priorities its a "glaring " inconsistency, but your version of government intervention some how isn't?
So if government lets all of those hard working millionaires (Paris Hilton) keep all of their hard earned money (Walton family) to themselves what is the government going to run all of the items on your list of "approved" programs and priorities? Good will and love? All of those new weapons Rummy keeps asking for have a pretty hefty price tag.
i hope you are aware that the republicans give the rich tax breaks, while putting the tax burden on the middle/working class.
I agree with your view that abortion is a personal choice which should not be regulated by the government any more than other surgical procedures are. However, in regards to my use of the word "necessary", I feel it is relevant to the conversation because after all, abortions prevent fetuses from becoming living babies. The section of the book "Freakonomics" that got Bennett into so much trouble was the part that discussed how Roe v. Wade was likely responsible for the drop in crime rate during the 80's-present. The rationale of course, was that these unwanted babies (most all belonging to single mothers living at or below the poverty line) would have been committing crime at a much higher rate than the norm. From a pragmatic standpoint, abortion is necessary because many of the children that would come about if there was no abortion would "hurt society" for lack of a better term as they would be born into hard conditions and the majority would become criminals or drains on everyone else through overuse of social programs. Sucking fetuses through a tube is not a pretty thing, but in my view it is a necessary one.
Except for late term abortions, I would agree with you.
I was just thinking about this the other day. I agreed with the Republicans when they argued in the 1990's agains one-size fits all government and that decisions and resources should be distributed to the states.
The theory is that even though you turn one big burocracy into 50 or so smaller ones, innovation and putting the decisions closer to the people will be an improvment and will impower citizens.
The problem I am seeing now is that Republicans just want that freedom to stop at the state line. They don't want freedom to get all the way to the individual.
I agree with you Tex, abortion is a decision that doesn't and shouldn't need government involvement. It should be left up to health professionals, individuals and their own consciences.
When Rushbo starts judging the relative manliness of other individuals he might as hand out hyprocrisy licenses. Avoided the Vietnam war, burned through three marriages, allowed drugs to get him through the night and LIES constantly to keep a fading legacy. There is no man in Rush.
Windbaugh refers to someone else's views as worthless?
Why do people take this Hindenburg reincarnation seriously? Hmm...most don't. That's promising.
As to Souter being a "girl," how creative a comment. It sounds like something I'd have heard in the early 1950s when Windbaugh and I were younger.
And, "she doesn't like it, why don't you leave then?...I don' t know. If I ever heard anything from Windbaugh that took more sense than a gradeschool diatribe, I'd be shocked.
Does it help that this guy's day is long gone? Next to go is bill o'lielly...
Limbaugh's rants are fascinating to parse: "Besides, David Souter's a girl. Everybody knows that ...You gotta -- you just -- Dawn [studio transcriber] agrees. She's nodding her head in agreement." Who's "everybody"? In fact, I would say MOST Americans don't even know Souter on on the Supreme Court, much less what his attitudes are. In this instance, "everybody" means Limbaugh himself, and his circle of friends and co-workers.
Of Carter he says, "This -- this is -- here you go. Classic example of the castrati, the new castrati. Jack Carter is -- has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up." Then, of course, is his old standby "feminazi". Limbaugh is almost childish -- and the amazing thing is that his devoted listeners probably can't even see it.
We have to hear this wind bag questioning someone's manliness. The only ones questioning manliness these days are men who did not pass the manliness test when they were on the verge of becoming men. While other boys were sent to witness hell first hand and become men too young, this human stain took the unmanly way out with his draft deferment for a boil on his rear. Now he has the balls to tell us who is and who isn't a man. There is no depth in hell to which they could send you Rush, that would be fitting for your crimes. Regardless of where you stood back then, at least have the courage of your convictions. If you were against that war and you oppose this war, you can claim to be a man. If you were for that war, served in it and are for for this one, you could claim to be a man. But if you did not serve in that war, and are rallying the nation to war now, you can never be a man, you can only be a hypocrite. But then you are in good company, with young George W., Dick Cheyney, Karl Rove and all of the other criminals in power today.
True to form, Rush, one of the most bombastic of all flag-wavers, is apparently incapable of understanding that Carter's support for the freedom of choiceis a separate issue from his personal views on abortion.
Rush - key word here: FREEDOM
Wow-Souter's a "girl", Ginsburg can quit if she doesn't like it, Carter's been castrated and there never was a gender gap.
Limbaugh must be having some tough times with the ladies. Maybe -just maybe- it's Limbaugh himself that's the problem.
No reason to comment on their positions since they've been so disproven in the past.
Question: What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh.
Answer: One's a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other's a dirigible.
**We can laugh at Rush, we can hate Rush, but apparently he's effective. And by the way, I'd like to hear the trolls on the board condemn him for his comments instead of sidetracking to abortion.
Not worth abasing myself to his level.
Dressed in your genuine SS officer uniform. Black is very slimming.
Rush won't put on a uniform. At least he wouldn't when he was younger. But you're right, black would make him appear slimmer.
Rush Limbaugh's a bunghole. Everybody knows that. What's the big deal? I'm talking about attitudinally, here, folks.
"I am pro-choice as far as a woman choosing. But I am against abortion." Well, there is a totally worthless view. This is just his version of, "I support the troops, but I don't support the war."
1. Carter's view is actually a very common one: personal discomfort combined with the reluctance to impose criminal penalties. "I don't like abortion, but I don't want women who have abortions, or doctors who perform them, to be tossed into prison."
2. So, Rush, it's not possible to "support the troops" unless you support the war? Thanks for the explicit expression of the rightwing's b.s. on the matter.
I remember watching Rush in the early nineties and he expressed the exact same view. He was pro-choice (although he never called it that), but he personally thought abortion was wrong (he emphasized that part).
I was quite stunned by what he was saying, but it became obvious to me that Rush isn't so much listened to by his followers (who surely would have been enraged to hear such a view). Rush is more frequently translated or absorbed into the minds of many rightwingers and most rednecks.
Rush, like many conservatives, lacks the critical thinking skills to understand that being personally opposed to abortion is different from thinking the state should make it illegal. I mean, I'm personally opposed to the sewage that flows from Rush's mouth, and wish he'd go off the air, but I don't think he should be silenced by the state. Maybe if we put it in those terms he'd get it (but probably not).
Re: Limbaugh's remark that Ginsburg ought to quit if she doesn't like being the only woman:
When Clarence Thomas' long-overdue book comes out next year, will he comment about being the only black person on the Court? If so, I will go really far out-on-a-limb here and predict that Limbaugh will not suggest that an unhappy Thomas resign.
You assume that Clarence Thomas will voice his unhappiness about being the only black person on the Supreme Court.........I have seen no such indication.
Contrary to your reply, I didn't "assume" anything. I asked a question and stated a prediction.
"Will [Thomas] comment about being the only black person on the Court? If so, I will go really far out-on-a-limb here and predict that Limbaugh will not suggest that an unhappy Thomas resign.
Count to ten before clicking "post".
Considering Rush's testicles have yet to drop, I find his comments more hilarious than usual. Unless hiding behind an anal cyst somehow makes you John Wayne.
Calling Souter "a girl"?
Oh, the misogyny. A woman that would date such a man as Rush is a misogynist. And a man that would hang with such a man as Rush is a misogynist. And people that would listen to such a man as Rush are misogynists.
It's time for women to start saying "NO!" to all fellas that denigrate men by considering them female.
And it's time for women to flash bedroom eyes only at men that honor women.
than being a girl in Rush Limbaugh's mind. Sleeping with one.
It's amazing that some how the worst insult of all is to call a man a "girl", I guess Souter can be thankful that Rush didn't call him a "little b-itch' . Swchazenneger's "girly men" comment is also indicative of this sentiment that is still all to prevelent in our society. If you think this doesn't give the message that females are considered less than males, well you brain is very similar to Limbaugh's.
"He's -- he's three years older than I am. He was subject to the same pressures I was..."
The same pressures I was?
What does that mean? Pressures? What are you saying, Rush?
Imagine this fat, lonely, unloved kid, growing up in some small town somewhere: never fitting in, never feeling loved, never feeling worthy. No talent, except an ability to pump himself up with false bravado. That's why he went on unemployment when he couldn't find work - he didn't have any talents "on loan from God" worthy of a paycheck.
What were his pressures? That women didn't find him attractive? That he was so unsure of himself, he could never open up enough to have a meaningful, intimate relationship with anyone?
What happened to that kid? Three failed marriages? Battles with his weight? Drug addiction?
How sad. How utterly, totally pathetic.
And yet, because he has this one talent - a talent to inflate himself with the gas of his own low self-esteem - he is able to connect with a small group of losers just as lamentable as he is.
A small, mean, nothing of a man. A man who will leave nothing behind when he leaves this world. A man who meant nothing to anyone; a man who championed no cause other than his own enrichment at the expense of a pathetic band of rubes who "dittoed" his words without any thought to their consequences for their own lives..
Just... sad.
Please e-mail this to Rush, I know he probably won't read it but please try to send it to him
RIGHT ON!AL FRANKEN KNOWS LIMBAUGH.