Limbaugh: "Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk"
On the August 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of former Sen. John Edwards' recent disclosure of an extramarital affair: "I've got a theory about the motivations. Well, I don't know that I could -- I don't know that I can put this one on the air." Discussing his "theory," Limbaugh said, "We know -- we've been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That's part of the puff pieces on them that we've seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go." Limbaugh later added, "It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk." Limbaugh went on to say in a subsequent segment: "my theory that I just explained to you about why -- you know, what could have John Edwards' motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk."
Limbaugh also highlighted his comments on his website, RushLimbaugh.com (subscription required).
From the August 12 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Back to the phones. Winston-Salem, North Carolina, this is James. Nice to have you here, sir. Hello. Is he gone? James, you there? Aw, darn. He wanted to talk about Edwards and who knew and what were the motivations. And I've got a theory about the motivations. Well, I don't know that I could -- I don't know that I can put this one on the air.
JAMES GOLDEN (contributor known on-air as "Bo Snerdley"): Why not?
LIMBAUGH: Well, it's -- I mean, at some point, at some point, you gotta exhibit maturity and restraint. You know, and I do that constantly. But -- well, I don't -- look, let me see if I can run you through this and get you to think what I'm thinking without my actually saying it. That might be a pretty big talent if I could do that -- make you think what I'm going to say without my having to say it, therefore if anybody gets in trouble for saying it, you say it.
We know -- we've been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That's part of the puff pieces on them that we've seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go.
Well, you're -- Snerdley says he's missing something. If you're missing it, you're going to have to provide it. What are you missing? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
I can't close the loop on it. I can't close the loop on it. I'm on -- you know, I'm in a little quicksand already today talking about how the chicks are giving us boring pictures of the female athletes from the Olympics. Because I know -- you -- the diversity crowd's going to be upset. They're going to -- "Ooh, do you mean the Olympics are just so you guys can ogle wom--" Yes, because we do not care to watch 'em compete. But back to Elizabeth and the Breck Girl.
I'm sorry, my friends, I just -- I can't. It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: OK, we're back. Ladies and gentleman, my theory that I just explained to you about why -- you know, what could have John Edwards' motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk. I think I can back this up from her.
We have a sound bite. This is February 2007. She was on the tabloid show Extra. And this is what she said. Listen very carefully.
HUNTER [audio clip]: The whole experience was life-altering for me. One of the great things about John Edwards is that he's so open and willing to try new things and do things in new ways.
LIMBAUGH: "Open to new things." Folks, it is what it is. You get mad at me for bringing the truth to you, but it is what it is.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Yeah, I don’t like Rush’s theory either .. it was a joke in very poor taste. But let’s not forget the real lowlifes in this equation: John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.
Any man that that would have an affair with a woman while his wife is sick with cancer takes the prize for lowlife-of-the-year (only eclipsed by a president that gets a oral sex from an intern in the Whitehouse.)
Yes, lets focus all of our hate on Rush! Bad Rush, bad!
PS. Where’s the story on MMFA on Edwards affair?
Yes, John Edwards did a bad, bad thing. He cheated on his wife while she was incapacitated. We should all be extremely outraged, and MMFA should shake off it's mission statement momentarily to express its own fabricated 'outrage'
I mean, imagine if one of our current presidential candidates had done something like this? Wouldn't you be outraged, Max? Wouldn't you be so enraged that you couldn't vote for that candidate, even if he was a decorated war hero?
"I mean, imagine if one of our current presidential candidates had done something like this? Wouldn't you be outraged, Max? Wouldn't you be so enraged that you couldn't vote for that candidate, even if he was a decorated war hero?"
Exactly. I’m no fan of McCain either.
Aren't there really two separate and incommensurate issues here?
On the one hand, there's the matter of politicians having affairs. Oh, the horror. A bad thing? Absolutely. Selfish, heartbreaking, damaging to relationships and trust? Sure. But it's not exactly unheard of among the human race, and with few exceptions it's a matter best left to the people personally involved.
Now, on the other hand, we have Rush Limbaugh taking a swipe at a cancer-stricken woman whose husband was cheating: maybe if she had used her smart mouth for something besides talking, Edwards wouldn't have cheated. That's not a joke: that's just ugly. You want to call out John Edwards for bad behavior? Be my guest, but it was nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh's tasteless and demeaning cheap shot at a sick woman.
Yes sir, two separate issues.
Rush was way out of line with that comment, it was really low.
Edwards and his mistress were worse IMHO as John was her husband and sworn to be faithful. I just have trouble envisioning Rush’s comments as 'being the story'.
"Edwards and his mistress were worse IMHO as John was her husband and sworn to be faithful. I just have trouble envisioning Rush’s comments as 'being the story'"
What Edwards and his mistress did is what happened, and it seems to me that it affects Edwards, his mistress, and their respective families. How Limbaugh narrated what happened to a national audience is, by definition, 'the story', especially for a website concerned with media criticism.
That's because you can stop your poliotical biases from overwhelming your common sense and reasoning ability.
So what are your feelings on Newt Gingrich?
And will you be voting for John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his wife because she was in an accident that crippled and scarred her?
Actually, Hillary would be a better choice than BO because we would have total gridlock for 4 years while we find a true statesman to take the office.
So you admit you have selective outrage? because Newt not only cheated on his wife while she had cancer, he sent divorce papers to her while she was in the hospital.
If Edwards is scum, Newt's lower.
Not at all, I’m mad as hell at plenty of Republicans for their infidelities. But we’re not talking about them are we? We were talking about how this post painted Rush as so insulting and I simply pointed out how the real lowlifes (in this post) were actually John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.
Your assertion that my statements somehow make me selective in my outrage is sophomoric.
I like Newt. He’s a very intelligent man imbued with a great deal common sense when it comes to politics.
So you're saying you like lowlifes? You certainly sound like a Republican...
Gingrich also got bl0w jobs from an intern while he was in the Speaker's office for the exact reason that he could say he never had sex there, then said that Clinton's bl0w jobs were sex in the Oval Office.
Hypocrite much, Newtie?
"We were talking about how this post painted Rush as so insulting and I simply pointed out how the real lowlifes (in this post) were actually John Edwards and Rielle Hunter."
Right, but this is a website devoted to media review and criticism. Did you confuse MMFA for Dr. Laura's website? It seems to me that MMFA has defensible grounds for highlighting Limbaugh's exploitation of this news story to take a cheap shot at Elizabeth Edwards. But for John Edwards and Rielle Hunter... What exactly would you have MMFA say about them? "Tsk tsk!"?
PS. Where’s the story on MMFA on Edwards affair?
Like far too many others, Max, you're missing the point of MMFA.
MMFA's mission is to highlight CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION in the way the media discusses current events - not the events themselves. John Edwards' affair will only be covered on MMFA if misinformation is put out there about it. Understand?
Wow, you’re absolutely right! I was under the false impression that MMFA was concerned with fairness and seeing that the truth—regardless of party—is told.
I now see it right in their mission statement:: "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"
I must be in the right place!
Even if MMFA were simply concerned with making sure that the "truth is told"... what would you have MMFA say about J. Edwards and R. Hunter? That they're real bad people? Honestly, I don't understand your complaint.
On the other hand, I would understand completely if you were just trying to turn the spotlight away from Limbaugh's cheap shot at a cancer stricken woman...
Actually, no. I've only been here for months, not years, and every posting conforms to their effort to either expose conservative information or echo others who are doing that or document how their efforts have made an impact.
You're lying about Media Matters. It's a sign of desperation, how much people were trying to distract from Rush's offensive comments about Elizabeth Edwards!
Great question. Since you feel so strongly on this issue, I'm curious to know who you support in the upcoming election: a man who is known to have cheated on his spouse or a man who isn't?
MadMax writes:
Any man that that would have an affair with a woman while his wife is sick with cancer takes the prize for lowlife-of-the-year (only eclipsed by a president that gets a oral sex from an intern in the Whitehouse.)>>>>>
You mean like conservative icon and hero, Newt Gingrich?????
Also, wasn't Jennifer Fitzgerald still servicing Bush41 in the WH?
I'm pretty sure he's not attracted to mermaids, according to this story.
That's the Rush we know and love.
And, just who is Rushie attracted to?
Dunno...but it is kind of hard not to notice, judging from his comments over a period of time, that he has a fixation with anal and oral sex. Remember his comments about bending over and grabbing the ankles...?
he spits out his hate toward women
Smart women, in particular...you know, they nag and try to control everything instead of orally servicing their men, according to Rush.
Whatta classy guy. A mouth for sucess, a clean windshield and a shoe shine.
The spirit of social culture is in the bathroom with the dry heaves.
Is this how a cultural war is won?
For some reason, this is almost as sickening to what Edwards did. Oddly enough, I hadn't turned his show on for a few days now. But that's another topic entirely...
But to hold it to the same standards of the other side, if a Republican senator was caught in an extramartial affair and a liberal talk show host said the same thing, would there be the same amount of disgust on display?
yes, that has happened;
"and a liberal talk show host said the same thing"
no,that didn't happen;
therefore, you have no point.
IF. Hypothetical land. If it were to happen would there still be the same outrage? As you mentioned it hasn't happened, but if were to...
And yes, I periodically visit hypothetical land, but not as much as I visit fantasy land to preserve my sanity. :)
Fantasy land... where things are the way they ought to be :)
I take it you're unfamiliar with the Stephanie Miller "comedy show?" I say comedy show because anyone who takes her political commentary seriously has to be kidding. She makes fun of conservatives and Republicans all the time.
Anyway, I'm not even defending what Limbaugh said, except to ask, WHO CARES?
And as usual, Philib sets the bar low for the rest of us to sail over with ease.....
(A simile in the Olympic Spirit....)
Do you ever add anything other than perusing around this site responding to conservative posters with your thrifty smart @ss remarks?
If you actually bothered to READ these threads, you would see that yes, I do. But some people (such as Philib, Dawuss, Taz, and Science101) deserve nothing more than an off-hand smarta$$ remark, based on prior history.
You can't make a honest argument without discarding your transparent bias against the "right."
You say the "rights" jokes are cruel ONLY because they are aimed at those with whom you agree.
There are plenty of what some may call distasteful jokes being slung around on Air America as well.
The Stephanie Miller show, as I said above.
No, specific examples, such as cruel things she's said about republicans. I'm more than willing to condemn her for saying stupid outlandish things, but you've not proved your point at all. You keep saying Stephanie Miller, but you don't post anything that she's said.
It's one of those, put up or shut situations don't you think?
There is humor and there is cruelty. The two are not the same. If Limbaugh had even a little sensitivity, he would never, ever say ugly things about a woman with an incurable cancer, or a man with Parkinsons. I didn't hear anyone on the left trashing Tony Snow when he was so sick. Limbaugh's specialty involves mocking the poor and powerless or sick people. Or intelligent women.
If you can't tell the difference; if you think in your mind that what Limbaugh does is funny, we're sorry for you and hope you get better soon.
Limbaugh's specialty involves mocking the poor and powerless or sick people.
Yes, that is what a coward targets. Anyone unable to fight back.
Let's see, the difference between Rush and Stephanie...
Rush gets invited to the whitehouse to meet with the president often.
Rush gets a phone call from Bush and Bush Sr. on his radio show.
Rush gets congress to pass bills praising his service to the conservative cause.
Stephanie gets...
Nobody has "free speech" on a message board owned by someone else. You have no inalienable right to post here, you have to comply with the rules the owners set up.
Go pretend to be a liberal at FreeRepublic or LGF and then come back and tell us about how liberals are always censoring free speech. Or is it acceptable for them to kick out anyone who opposes them politically, while this site allows conservatives?
"You have no inalienable right to post here, you have to comply with the rules the owners set up."
You mean, only conservatives have to comply with those rules. Liberals constantly break them and that is considered OK, since they express opinions that follow lock-step with the general consensus of the rule provider.
How is comparing Edwards trists with Clinton's breaking any rule on this forum? Here's a quarter...call someone who cares.
"Or is it acceptable for them to kick out anyone who opposes them politically, while this site allows conservatives?"
And, you are wrong. Liberals (as you pointed out) post on those other sites until they are kicked out. So, what you are saying is that this site is no different than the right wing sites? This site will kick out anyone they feel the need to...just like the right wing sites? As long as someone (here) keeps their political leanings to themselves they will be safe from retaliation. Once it is known, then unwarranted complaints are amassed and used as the "reason" to banish. Very good defense of your favorite site.
>>But to hold it to the same standards of the other side, if a Republican senator was caught in an extramartial affair and a liberal talk show host said the same thing, would there be the same amount of disgust on display?
There are three main differences between this affair and the standard Republican affair:
1. The third person is female.
2. The third person is of legal age.
3. The third person was a willing participant.
Wonder what type of mouths the fat one sought on his Viagra Vacation?
It's pretty offensive no matter who the source is.
I'm not sure exactly what you think your point is, surely conservatives would be outraged, right? If you think some liberals would defend that sort of thing, then that's the same as the conservatives that blow off just about anything Rush says as "humor", as if that's above any criticism. So even under the best circumstances it's the same on both sides.
That being said, consider the lack of anyone like Ann Coulter on the left. There are people who make fun of conservatives, but I haven't seen anything like the inflammatory and outright eliminationist "humor" that is accepted by many conservatives. Why is that? I'm not sure that there's anyone even along the lines of Limbaugh, it's just not something liberals seem to be very interested in for some reason.
Maybe because Dems don't want to go back in time to the days when sexist and racist "jokes" where acceptable. Most of Limbaugh's favorite "jokes" involve one or the other. In order to "get" them - and even consider them "a joke" - you have to still be living in a 50's and 60's mindset, like most conservatives.
I guess you won't find that. Since there was no affair. It turns out to be a liberal lie for whatever reason. What proof do you have of a John McCain affair? While the likes of Edwards and Clinton will brag about their conquests, if you are going to make accusations such as that, bring some proof.
Or are you another typical liberal who simply needs to accuse and doesn't feel the need to provide proof to back up their lies?!?
In those divorce papers, he said that he had "cohabited" with Carol until January 7, 1980. But he'd been dating Cindy since he met her in April 1979 (when she was 24 and he was 42), which means he wasn't, in fact, separated from Carol before he took up with Cindy. Not by a long shot.
In fact, when McCain obtained a marriage license to marry Cindy, on March 6, 1980, he was still married to Carol — and would be for nearly a month longer.
Why don't you make some effort to learn about these things yourself?
"In fact, when McCain obtained a marriage license to marry Cindy, on March 6, 1980, he was still married to Carol — and would be for nearly a month longer."
Was that license issued in Utah? I thought it is illegal to be issued another marriage license when you're already married? So, your proof of an affair is an illegal document? I guess I'm back in the park!
"Was that license issued in Utah? I thought it is illegal to be issued another marriage license when you're already married? So, your proof of an affair is an illegal document? I guess I'm back in the park!"
Polygamy has been illegal in Utah since the 19th century. It was a condition of their statehood. I don't think it's illegal to get a marriage license while married, It's just illegal to actually get married. If you're in the process of getting a divorce, then you have a good faith argument that you're not intending to keep two spouses simultaneously, so getting a license doesn't violate the spirit nor the letter of the law.
Besides that, is your contention really that an illegal document would not constitute proof? Even if it were really illegal, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean forged. It would still show that McCain was unfaithful, obviously. This is quite possibly your stupidest argument ever, and that is really saying something.
"I don't think it's illegal to get a marriage license while married, It's just illegal to actually get married. If you're in the process of getting a divorce, then you have a good faith argument that you're not intending to keep two spouses simultaneously, "
Ok, provide proof that happened. That McCain married another while already married. Ooops, your arguement just fell on its face.
I didn't say that he got married while already married. You don't have to be a polygamist to be an adulterer.
Did you forget that you were disputing McCain's infidelity, or did you think you were going to fool me into thinking that I was supposed to prove polygamy?
"But to hold it to the same standards of the other side, if a Republican senator was caught in an extramartial affair and a liberal talk show host said the same thing, would there be the same amount of disgust on display?"
Nope, Republicans are the party of "family values" so this is an extreme reach to even assume as a possible hypothetical.
Why hasn't any of Rushs' ex-wives been interviewed? How much extra do they get paid to not talk? Are divorce agreements public information for public people?
Rush, being a true American, you should not pay to have your ex-wvies freedom of speech squelched. Please be a man and allowed these , I can't say poor, woman talk about their lives with you.
As you have preached, "If you have done nothing wrong, why are you afraid of what they may say?" I think Karl Rove and Jeffie Gannon said the same thing.
Normally divorce records are public records and can be viewed by public persons. However, the court can be petitioned to "seal" the record in which case it cannot be viewed by the public.
I would guess that Rush's divorce records are sealed AND his wives have signed on the dotted line that they will forgo any alimony, etc if the talk about him.
But really, I would think they could make more with a tell-all book that they would get from him in hush money.
I find it amazing that someone who channels Howard Stern, who always regresses to his "shock jock" roots, is viewed by the GOP as some sort of elder statesman.
What would Jesus do to Rush, other than wash his mouth out with soap?
Can we please send this guy back to where he belongs, where he makes a lot of money being crude (like Stern) but doesn't influence things that matter?
...must be that talent on loan from God.
The vulgar pigboy earns his nickname everyday.
The vulgar pigboy earns his nickname everyday.
Indeed....
"Talent on loan from God."
The Lord giveth, and the Lord has long since takeneth away.
I always thought this was an odd... slogan? (Is that the right word?)
Personally? My talent was God-GIVEN. (Not LOANED.) And as I live and grow and learn (IOW - INVEST my talent) it increases in scope and value.
It seems that whatever "ASSET" his [loaned] talent was, he has long since EXPENDED it, and now owes God interest on the loan.
The interest on the loan cost Rush all of his talent. There's none left.
Who says God works in mysterious ways? It seems to me that the goal was to drain Rush of talent.
And it's worked.
I ______defy__________ _anyone_ _______who has worked in sportswriting/broadcasting to claim, with a straight face, that their profession has higher moral standards than that of politicians or any other profession.
Actually, I am pretty sure that Sports/Pundit-casting is the second oldest profession.
What's the first, lying about them?
Congratulations for being a member of the oldest profession.
I think not.
Sorry, the dozens I know are a hard-gambling, hard-drinking, womanizing lot...a robust group of characters.
This is not a lie, nor is it a moral judgement, just an observation of facts.
Did I forget to mention the heavy smoking?
And considering that Limbaugh started out as a sports caster I just thought I would take the opportunity to point out that his hypocrisy is glaring.
tell me again that sports-casters have never had extra-marital affairs?
please
What's up with that picture of Ole Fathead?
It looks like he's babbling--Drooling?--and acting like a complete moron.
Oh, I'm sorry! Of course, that's exactly what he is doing.
It looks like he's babbling--Drooling?--and acting like a complete moron.
Oh, it's no act - Jeff Christie really IS a moron. :-)
Looking at that picture on MMFA's home page again, it looks like Jeff Christie is constipated. Which makes sense, seeing as he's so full of s**t.
:-)
He's just broadcasting from the Golden EIB Throne.
It's well-known that he produces way too much crap for it all to come from his mouth.
LIMBAUGH: It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.
THIS says it all!
What Rush Knows About Pu**y
Including his three ex-wives, none of whom evidently managed to successfully impart that being offered a bowl of tuna by a horny hillbilly heroin junky, reeking of cigar smoke and sporting a chemically-induced hard-on, isn’t technically foreplay. One suspects that Rush’s idea of The Perfect Woman includes a Pavlovian response to the sound of the can opener.
To explain the tuna part: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2006&base_name=what_rush_limbaugh_knows_about
Good one Pearl...
Rush has become a caricature of himself. The logical question is: How do you become a caricature of a caricature?
Put simply, he's become a complete SH*THEAD.
Pearlene, maybe the fact that Limbaugh has a mouth that only knows how to talk would explain why he's never been able to keep a woman... ;>)
Read the whole post...great comments by RW and STEVE....
Hope they are posting on MMFA...
Anyone who believes that the 'caller' who suddenly let the line drop was ever really there in the first place, I've got a bridge to sell you real cheap.
Limbaugh has the most scripted callers ever. He has certain talking points he wants to hit, and he uses his callers to enable that scripting to go forward. Sometimes he wants to raise a point, and he needs to get there however he can, including pretending that a caller was going to raise a particular issue so that he can go off on some Democrat. He then blames the caller.
And the last line, that 'people' get mad at him for bringing them the truth? People get mad at him for saying that Elizabeth Edwards is a nag that can't or won't sexually satisfy her husband with her mouth, so it's her fault that John Edwards had an affair.
You can't get any more offensive than that, Rush!
Anyone who believes that the 'caller' who suddenly let the line drop was ever really there in the first place, I've got a bridge to sell you real cheap.
Along the same line, anyone who believes there is really someone in the studio named "Mr. Snerdly" that Jeff Christie keeps talking to during the show (but is never heard on the mic), I know of some lovely swamp land in Florida you might be interested in buying.
(I know from personal experience - working on my high school's FM radio station - that those microphones are very sensitive,and pick up EVERYTHING....)
I think it's going to take another election failure or two.
He's going to be popular once Obama wins as a sounding board for the racists and the Demo-phobes, but the independent voters are learning. Some people are untrainable, but they're going to lose their power once they lose like they're going to this election and the next.
Once those failures happen, the reasonable conservatives will revolt and take over the Republican Party. That's my hope for America.
Edwards reckless regard for his own marriage vows shows a distain for Elizabeth.
Not excusing Limbaugh...but maybe you better start with the source of this scandal.
And funny enough, they have appeared to have worked through it, and are still married 2 years later.
Not condoning what he did, it was bad, and he was not true to his wife. But things like this, I believe, are of a personal nature, and I wish that they would be handled as such, but on the other hand, these are public personas, and they have to imagine that stories like this are going to come out about them unfortunately.
Edwards and Elizabeth have moved on with their lives, and their marriage, maybe we should as well?
"Edwards and Elizabeth have moved on with their lives, and their marriage, maybe we should as well?"
Amen to that.
I think the mainstream media can learn something from tabloids like the National Enquirer.
What if the mainstream media had the same tenacity for digging up and exposing the dirt on politicians that really affects US and the kitchen table issues we face? I wonder how much different our nation and our world would be, and how many more American fathers, sons, mothers and daughters would be alive today.
Ah, I see.
Those who inflict the wound understandably must be held to account.
Those who dump salt on the wound are simply a product of market forces.
Who Do You Think You Are Fooling
You statement: "Not excusing Limbaugh...but maybe you better start with the source of this scandal" is misleading. At every opportunity, you bash left wing ideology. I would bet you are part of a greater effort to discredit media matters all together. I am always intrigued by someone who says they don't want to do something and then proceed to do exactly what he just noted he did not want to do.
So, after assignment Media Matters, who is next? What Liberal site will be blessed with your overblown sense of righteousness?
Joseph
What scandal Jeter? Edwards is a rich White guy. Women throw themselves at rich white men. Repubs and Dems alike. Even in our so called enlightened society, women are still concidered possessions. Even by women themselves.
Thanks for that link to the NYT story about a man who died in extreme pain while being denied treatment by immigration authorities. These kind of stories should be on the front page and highlighted by every media outlet. But they're not. T
he cruelty of the immigration process is overlooked by buffoons like Limbaugh and others, who want to demonize immigrants. But Limbaugh creates the climate for this kind of acceptance of cruelty, and whether the incident seems trivial, it's important because it sets a tone. When the "liberals" were ignoring people like Limbaugh, they were multiplying and spreading their poison without challenge.
True, it is dangerous to ignore Limbaugh and his ilk completely. It is also dangerous to get in the gutter with them and trade disgusting insults, however tempting that may be. Our society is in need of more thinking adults and fewer leering morons.
Shouldn't you devote your time reporting on something more serious, like the relative paucity of media attention devoted to stories like this?
You mean like Keith Olbermann did last night?
I think it's hilarious when a fat guy with erection problems and three divorces tries to talk in a way that implies that he understands sexual relationships at all. Anybody who sleeps with Rush does so for the money they get in return, either directly or indirectly.
Talking down to women and smoking cigars doesn't make you a real man; just ask any of his ex-wives.
You have just hit on Rush Limbaugh's biggest audience - White male losers who need to be constantly reminded of their (perceived) superiority over women and anyone else not like them - and provided excuses and reasons why they are losers.
This sort of talk is just fodder for his fans - and they eat it up like pigs at a trough.
And what is it that Rush put in his mouth? What comes out is pure crap !!!
Rush, do us a favor. Go back and watch the Just say No ads.
This is Rush's pea brain. This is what;s left of Rush's pea brain on oxycontin.
And what is it that Rush put in his mouth?
A response to Freudian analysis goes, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Not true in Rush's case. I believe that cigar is a surrogate for something else entirely. Maybe that's why he defends Larry Craig so vigorously.
I often wonder about what kind of "values" people like Rush Limbaugh have.
When did America lose its perspective on what decency means to most of us? If I had to guess - it would be about the time the right wing talk shows took over the airwaves. And from there the rabid hosts implanted hate and fear in our brains.
If we all followed this example of the so called "right wing values" and its propoganda, we would be doomed as a nation. Thank God I am a Democrat!
Are we brainwashed yet?
LIMBAUGH: In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up?
I think perhaps we are overlooking the really offensive part of Limbaugh's remarks. Smart wives are nagging and controlling is what Limbaugh is saying.
That's what I said last night, so you and I are on the same wavelength.
And the last line, that 'people' get mad at him for bringing them the truth? People get mad at him for saying that Elizabeth Edwards is a nag that can't or won't sexually satisfy her husband with her mouth, so it's her fault that John Edwards had an affair.
You can't get any more offensive than that, Rush!
Thanks, POW. The main reason I keep posting the Jeff Christie references is that I know SOMEONE in his organization is monitoring MMFA, and bringing the references to his attention. It must drive his little OxyContin-addled brain crazy.......
How about it, "Great American Truth Detector"? Why don't you tell your dittohead listeners the truth about YOURSELF, Jeff?
I was ready to say Edwards screwed up and he just has to take his lumps like anyone else (although I think this story is getting far, far to much play) but I had no idea that anyone would direct an attack at Elizabeth Edwards. WTF? Limbaugh is beneath contempt.
What should be done about him?
OMG you are kidding aren't you?
What does he need to step down from? He's not an elected official for, well, anything.
What would you do to him? He and his wife worked it out, and they're still together. Imagine that eh? Isn't this an issue that should be discussed between Edwards and Elizabeth? And hasn't it been discussed between the 2 parties and their family members? Yes, it has. They stayed together.
Seeing as how an argument about Rush Limbaugh and his crude (not cruel) jokes has turned into an argument about abortion and ad hominem attacks, can we all just get back to the facts of the matter? What it comes down to is Edwards and his infidelity to his wife...- b_qwyatt / Wednesday August 13, 2008 12:27:44 PM EDT
No, it doesn't come down to that! It only comes 'down' to that when people who support Rush and attack Obama try to change the subject.
The subject is not John Edwards. The subject is Rush Limbaugh's terribly cruel comment that Elizabeth Edwards is too smart and too nagging, and her husband had to go elsewhere to get sexual satisfaction. That's not crude at all. It's cruel and demeaning and incredibly offensive.
So are you.
the moniker tells it all
b_qwyatt / Wednesday August 13, 2008
Yeah, please be quiet, b_qwyatt !
"sorry she has cancer, but she helped that bozo perpetrate a fraud on thousands of supporters. so what if he takes a shot at her."
You think Limbaugh is taking a shot at her for helping to perpetrate a fraud? Where do you find evidence of that in what Limbaugh said about her finding a better use for her smart mouth?
A stunningly clever comeback.
Think that up all by yourself?
Pat yourself on the back.
wow limbaugh was crude...that is misinformation how?
Edwards ignored one oath, why should i trust him to another? I havent seen a candadate this season that was very exciting. Every one will spend money that may never arrive. At the very least McCain could offer to sell drilling lecenses to pay for his ideas.
MCCAIN ignored one oath, so why should you or I trust him to uphoold another?
You con's are such GD hypocrites (or just so pround of your ignorance) it's astounding.
Rush Limbaugh must have said that what he said was "crude".
It wasn't crude. It was cruel and demeaning and typical of him.
I do not care for Limbaugh but I used to get a kick out of his broadcasts because they were so funny and he used such "Big Important" words.
What Happened? He sounds like a child trying to be insulting and witty now but just doesn't have the intellectual capacity.
Being a recovering addict myself I would not wish for Limbaugh to have a slip and start using again but he did seem more intellectual and funny when he was stoned.
This is not an article about the Edwards. There are plenty of news reports about the scandal that do not degrade women. There is a much larger picture here.
Limbaugh's comments equate saying that women who are intelligent and voice their opinions deserve, or at minimum risk, their husbands' cheating on them. In other words, if you want to keep your husband, shut up. In other words, if you dare to speak your mind, you have to expect him to cheat. That is why it matters. That the comments were about the Edwards is incidental.
As far as "if the shoe were on the other foot" theories go, I can say when Reagan died, as well as Falwell, there were a few less than kind comments on certain liberal blogs. Those comments were quickly decried as being uncalled for by fellow liberals. I can't say that rule applied on every site, but the ones I witnessed certainly maintained a self-policing policy that demanded humane civility.
So, now can we all agree that the limborgh is totally pathetic? Even with his new 400 million yada yada contract, he's still, well, PATHETIC!!
Why cant they get rid of this man...(sorry...hes not a man...hes a pig)
What Imus did is nothing compared to how Limbaugh regularly operates.
Bo Snerdly...talks down to Obama as a Yo boy from the hood...
VERY RACIST...it doesnt matter that Snerdly is Black...it is foul
I am tired of blowhard...no heart people like Limbaugh on the Public Airwaves.
In America it seems for the most part...the most Ignorant people with
the Least worthwhile to say...GET RADIO SHOWS!!!!
They should be in Detention...for what comes out of their mouths...
or is Implied...All Snide and Sickly Comments....Limbaugh is King.
He says he has half his brain tied behind ...his back
All his heart is back there too...(I am pretty sure he doesnt have a heart)
People even Limbaugh can say what they want....
BUT DONT GIVE THEM RADIO SHOWS!!!
What not have smarter people on the airwaves!
Also in Germany...One person had too much to say....Hitler
and didnt brook dissent...
Just like Limbaugh...
how often...does anyone really disagree with him on his show...
Rarely...very Rarely.
He doesnt believe in Free speech at all.
perhaps only free blowhard speech..I guess
I may add...I am not crazy about Howard Stern....
But he isnt doing near the Damage Limbaugh is...
I say that to say...an unknown fact..that they share the same B-Day
January 12
That's because it was a ridiculously cruel thing to say about someone. Placing the blame on the victim. An example. Say, I break into your house, and I shoot you. Well, maybe you shouldn't have had such nice stuff in your house, then I wouldn't have broken in. Another example, saying a woman got raped because of the way she was dressed.
Limbaugh says a really cruel and callous thing about a woman who is no doubt about 20,000 times smarter than he is, and we react? You bet. It's called taking him to account for his ridiculous words.
No, what's ridiculous is that people like you think you have a working 'thinker'.
The analogy was blaming the victim. It's a sure sign of ignorance that you couldn't understand that.
Or was it that you wouldn't acknowledge that it was an analogy that made sense?
I really dislike Rush Limbaugh. And I don't think he does this country a service.
That said, what I dislike even more is the thought of one of the final three in the Democratic primary knowing that he could be derailed at any time (October '07 OR '08!) if this became public and still running with a straight stare and genuine eyes. This year, above all others, is incredibly important. He knew it, he didn't care.
Edwards did this and his public career is over because of it. It also opens him up to all kinds of ugly criticism from people like Rush Limbaugh and he better get used to it, because it won't end any time soon.
I am glad Limbigot is on the air. I know he's a liar and he says things that hurt people. But think about it. He shows us every day what a coward he is. A coward who can't stand up to a fair debate.. You know like CONSERVATIVES........ COWARDS!!..yfb
"I've got a theory about the motivations."
Marital advice from Rush, the man who has three divorces under his belt?