Citing NY Sun, Limbaugh wondered who would design Edwards' "inaugural gown"
On the March 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh referred to a March 8 New York Sun article, "Could [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] Become the First Woman President?" to repeatedly mock Edwards as "the Breck Girl," who is "on tap now, according to one of the nation's largest abortion rights supporters, to become the first woman president in the United States." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, the phrase "first woman president" was that of Sun reporter Josh Gerstein and not from any of the story's sources. Gerstein himself, in a post on the Sun's politics weblog, characterized the "first woman president" phrase as "just a colorful way of summarizing" the "over-the-top rhetoric" of Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and a senior adviser to the Edwards campaign.
Limbaugh declared that for "any further John Edwards news, we will use" Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman" and "Sisters are Doin' It For Themselves" by the Eurhythmics and Aretha Franklin "as official update theme [songs] for the Breck Girl," and later discussed "who would design and make Edwards' inaugural gown." Limbaugh asserted that Edwards "may not qualify for a Vera -- ahem -- Wang -- ahem -- model. You're listening to this, Ann Coulter. But there are plenty of other designers out there that the Breck Girl could use to design his inaugural gown." Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter touched off a firestorm March 2 by referring to Edwards as a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Discussing Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Limbaugh said that "if the Breck Girl is going to be the first female president, then an actual Hispanic cannot be the first Hispanic president if he's elected. He's got to be something else." Limbaugh later declared that Richardson would be "the first North Korean president" because of his "affinity for Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, the little pot-bellied dictator." Additionally, according to Limbaugh, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "might be the first male president the Democrats have had in a while" because a "[t]esticle lockbox [has] been accumulating" recent Democratic presidential nominees.
As Media Matters has previously noted, Gerstein reported on March 8 that Edwards had been endorsed by Michelman, described in the article as "a veteran of the abortion-rights movement." Gerstein noted that author "Toni Morrison famously dubbed President Clinton America's 'first black president,' " and added that "the comments of a prominent feminist" -- Michelman -- "are provoking debate about who may lay a similar claim to the title of America's first woman president." Responding to the Media Matters item, Gerstein wrote in his blog post:
My story today about John Edwards's efforts to be as pro-woman as Senator Clinton has stirred up some hornets in the blogosphere and apparently even on the radio.
Media Matters sees the piece as part of a Right-wing conspiracy that involves questioning Edwards's masculinity by calling him the "Breck Girl" and by slurring him with an anti-gay vulgarity, as Ann Coulter notoriously did the other day.
My suggestion that Edwards' camp is offering him up as the next woman president was just a colorful way of summarizing Kate Michelman's over-the-top rhetoric about how supportive Edwards is of the female gender.
As Media Matters has noted, a conservative smear of Edwards as the "Breck Girl" often surfaced in media coverage of Edwards' 2004 bid for the White House. Indeed, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd referred to Edwards as the "Breck Girl" as recently as her February 14 column.
In addition to Limbaugh, under the banner "Another First," The Washington Times' Greg Pierce highlighted Gerstein's article in his March 9 "Inside Politics" column:
Another first
"Toni Morrison famously dubbed President Clinton America's 'first black president.' With that barrier broken, the comments of a prominent feminist are provoking debate about who may lay a similar claim to the title of America's first woman president," Josh Gerstein writes in the New York Sun.
"The candidate being touted as a torchbearer for women is not Senator Clinton, but one of her former colleagues, John Edwards. At a rally near the University of California, Berkeley campus this week, a veteran of the abortion-rights movement, Kate Michelman, asked and answered the question she gets most frequently about her decision to back the male former senator from North Carolina," Mr. Gerstein said.
" 'Why John Edwards, given the historic nature of our extraordinary campaign for the presidency this year with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and all the others?' Ms. Michelman asked as she warmed up the crowd for Mr. Edwards. 'I've gotten to know a lot of political leaders over the years that I've been an advocate for women's rights. I know the difference between those who advocate as a political position and those who understand the reality of women's lives.'
"Compared to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards is short an 'X' chromosome, but listening to Ms. Michelman, that is easy to forget. 'As a lawyer, as a senator, as a husband, as a father of two daughters, he understands the reality of women's lives. He understands the centrality of women's lives and experience to the health and well-being of society as a whole. ... He understands that on an extremely personal level,' she said.
"Her comments drew some quizzical looks, though if she had extended her argument to suggest that Mr. Edwards understood the plight of African Americans as well or better than Mr. Obama, some audible dissension would surely have arisen."
From the March 8 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Try this headline. Ann Coulter, if you're out there listening, listen to this headline in The New York Sun today. "Could John Edwards Become the First Woman President?" [laughing] It's by Josh Gerstein in The New York Sun. "Toni Morrison famously dubbed President Clinton America's first black president. With that barrier broken" [laughing] -- Obama, you hear that? The first black president barrier has been broken.
"With that barrier broken, the comments of a prominent feminist are provoking debate about who may lay a similar claim to the title of America's first woman president. The candidate being touted as a torchbearer for women is not" Mrs. Bill Clinton, "but instead one of her former colleagues, John Edwards." The Breck Girl. "At a rally near the University of California, Berkeley campus this week, a veteran of the abortion-rights movement, Kate Michelman, asked and answered the question she gets most frequently about her decision to back" the Breck Girl.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Still, Michelman "acknowledges that some of her enthusiasm for" the Breck Girl "springs from an intangible affinity she can't quite explain. 'It's hard to describe. I'm inspired by' " this guy. So John Edwards on tap now, according to one of the nation's largest abortion rights supporters, to become the first woman president in the United States. And of course, the first -- the barrier is down. The first black president, Bill Clinton. That barrier is broken. [laughing] Sometimes all you can do is laugh at these people.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: This is interesting, too. This is from the Politico.com today. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's 2008 presidential campaign -- what -- if he's elected President, he'd be the first what president? It can't be Hispanic because he is Hispanic. And the way the Democrats identify for - I mean, if -- if the Breck Girl's going to be the first female President, then an actual Hispanic cannot be the first Hispanic president if he's elected. He's got to be something else. Bill Clinton was the first black President, but he's not black. So you can't say he's going to be called the first Hispanic president if he were to be elected. I don't know what first he would be, but to the Democrats, everybody running on their side's a first something.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: We figured it out during the commercial break. If Bill Richardson would happen to be elected the first -- if he'd be elected president, we'd have two choices. He'd be the first Jewish president or the first North Korean president. And we've opted for the first North Korean president. We don't know because Kate Michelman says he's got -- the Breck Girl has an affinity for women and understands their issues. And I don't know whether Richardson has that affinity for Jews and Jewish issues, such as Israel and that sort of thing. But we do know he's been in North Korea a lot, and he's got affinity for Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, the little pot-bellied dictator. So if Richardson happens to be elected president, we'll call him the first North Korean president, ladies and gentlemen.
Also, we've decided any further John Edwards news, we will use this tune as official update theme for the Breck Girl:
HELEN REDDY [audio clip of her song "I Am Woman"]: I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore, and I know too much to go back and pretend. Because I've heard it all before, and I've been down there on the floor. No one's ever gonna keep me down again --
LIMBAUGH: Are you listening, Ann Coulter?
REDDY: -- whoa, yes, I am wise, but it's wisdom born of pain. Yes, I paid the price, but look how much I've gained. If I have to, I can do anything --
LIMBAUGH: All right, c'mon. To the chorus so I can get out of this!
REDDY: -- I am strong. I am invincible. I am woman.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: All right, we're thinking of adding another tune here to the John Edwards update rotation. As you know, Kate Michelman, if you've been listening to the program since the beginning today -- the former abortion babe, Kate Michelman, she's still pro-abortion, she's just not a member of NARAL anymore. She's out there saying that Edwards is the best guy qualified on the Democrat side for women. He could be the first female president. Ann Coulter, you're getting this? Kate Michelman essentially saying that John Edwards, the Breck girl, could be the first female president.
So we've got -- we've got [conservative parodist Paul] Shanklin working on now "I Am Woman," sung by John Edwards, the Breck Girl. And we're going to throw this one into the mix. The is the Eurhythmics joined by Aretha Franklin, and it's called "Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves." Thought about trying to sound like Barack saying that.
AUDIO ["Sisters Are Doin' It for Themselves"]: Now there was a time when they used to say that behind every great man, there had to be a great woman. But in these times of change you know that it's no longer true. So we're comin' out of the kitchen 'cause there's somethin' we forgot to say to you. Sisters are doin' it for themselves, standin' on their own two feet, and ringin' on their own bells --
LIMBAUGH: It's a John Edwards update theme.
AUDIO: -- sisters are doin' it for themselves.
LIMBAUGH: All right, so that's the Eurhythmics with Aretha, and we'll throw that into the rotation as well. [laughing] I mean, it's funny. Bill Clinton was the first black president. If he's elected, the Breck girl is going to be the first female president. Democrats talking. And so we've decided if Bill Richardson gets elected, he'll be the first North Korean president, because whatever you are, you cannot be the first real thing. Hillary will not be the first female president. She'll be something else. Yeah, you can say Hillary might be the first male president the Democrats have had in a while. Testicle lockbox been accumulating them.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: ["Fire" by the] Crazy World of Arthur Brown, and the Wicked Witch from wherever. And one of three tunes in our global warming update theme. By the way, before we get to the global warming stack, a quick question. As you know, we opened the program an hour ago with news Kate Michelman, big time pro-abortion babe, formerly of NARAL Pro-Choice America, has been out there saying, you know, of all the candidates, the guy best oriented for women's issues is John Edwards, which prompted a headline today in The New York Sun: will John Edwards be the first female president? Which is typical with Democrats. Bill Clinton's broken down the barrier being the first black president. Bill Richardson, if he were to be elected president, we've decided he'd be the first North Korean president since whatever you are is not what you will be when you're elected president.
But -- so Edwards would be the first female president. First woman president in the country. Mrs. Bill Clinton would not be. Inquiring minds have asked -- we're asking ourselves this -- who would design and make Edwards' inaugural gown? And some say you couldn't have Vera Wang do it. Edwards may not qualify for a Vera -- ahem -- Wang --ahem -- model. You're listening to this, Ann Coulter. But there are plenty of other designers out there that the Breck Girl could use to design his inaugural gown.
This is becoming so sophomoric... Very lame... very, very lame.
Yawn inducing.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Witness the beginning of the end for Rush! His audience shrinking, his credibility is gone with the main street listener. His credibility is shrinking with the evangelical; his relevance to the RNC is diminished as is most of the Rightwing Radio Punditry with most of the center of American opinion. Rush has only a fringe listener, and America's Corporate Media is loosing its credentials with a vast educated audience that knows how news was delivered, and how news is delivered. The gig is nearly up; it's up to our voices to put the conversation back into the realm of reality, facts, and objectivity, and out of the hands of a cabal of corporate interests, and Neo-Conservative political ambitions.A Freedom Loving America must have a "Free Press" for a Free Society, for Freedom to flourish. Pundits like Rush will always be entitled to his platform, only he'll be held accountable for his lies as any other citizen!Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, restore a Free Press to America, and restore our democracy. I will not tolerate Fascism in place of our Democracy only for the lust of a Neo-Con for power!!Wow, "Save democracy vote democrat"? Are you serious? The fairness doctrine is a direct censorship to freedom of press/speech and the fact that democrats are already moving to erase the secret ballot for unions (currently in congress) and want socialized medicine (hasn't worked that well in the VA), the line should read "Save democracy, research the candidate and vote independent". The current democratic party is far more socilist than any party with great power in America. Hillary admited as much with her "take the profits" take on big oil. I think you're serious, I'm sure you enjoy democracy, I just think you're unaware who's really sapping it from you.
Yes, let's talk about the VA. It was so obvious that conservatives were going to frame the neglect and abuse born of cost cutting market principles as some mythical liberal screw-up. Yet, shamelessly the right will attempt to conflate the cost driven denial of care for veterans with socialism.
Also, you're probably talking about HR 800 [link to www.sfgate.com] which has already passed. Only in conservative lala land is removing the ability of companies to blunt the democratic process a bad move for employees.
Healthcare? Conservative plans for healthcare, or I should say lack of plans, has only exascerbated the angst of medical insecurity for working Americans. Only the few can afford the cost of healthcare but I'm not suprised cons oppose universal health coverage as they worship a social hierarchy which affirms wealth as morality. Progressive liberals believe in equality of access to healthcare as a moral certitude, a guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just take a look at the lives of these two people and tell me healthcare should be sovereign domain of the privileged few who can afford coverage:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Interesting, however your articles and arguments are moot considering I have something you do not, a first hand experience of VA hospitals. The current problem is much deeper even than the problems at Walter Reed and anyone who yearns for socialized medication should TRY to get an apointment at a random VA. I'll describe it for you, call on Tuesday, get an appointment.....three weeks later. Come in for appointment....2 hours later you give blood. Three hours later you see a nurse who takes your vitals and finally an hour after that you see a doctor who prescribes medication which you are promptly informed will take 2 more hours to fill. Total time from first symptom to medication...3weeks 7 hours. VIVA SOCIALISM!
Your shameless conflation of neglect with socialism only serves to prove your allegiance to the fundamentalist market principle of profit over people.
However, I see absolutely no difference in your scenario than what I experience at any given private for profit hospital I have ever been to. So your point is moot as well.
It takes 3 weeks for you to get a doctor's appointment? You need to find a new provider. Do we need to fix healthcare? Yes. But do we do it through socialized medicine? No. We do it through looking at the insurance companies. CEOs for a company that is supposed to provid3 the money for health care should not make comparable salries to that of service/manufacturing industries. We alos need to address tort reform. When somebody gets rewarded 250 mill for the death of a loved one we've let our emotions overpower our logic. Not to say that a wrongful death shouldn't result in a lot of money but it should at least have a limit around 10 mill. Plus, there is the fact that some people can't afford med insurance because of their own actions, this is the same reason that the minimum wage increase was ridiculous "people can't feed a family off 6.25 an hour" no s#it! If you can't afford diapers you shouldn't have kids
Moreover, you failed to address the "fairness doctrine" and the union bill currently in congress. Socialized medicine is not the worst of these three proposed measures, at least it has SOME good
I did talk about HR800, "Only in conservative lala land is removing the ability of companies to blunt the democratic process a bad move for employees." See my first post to you above and associated link.
I care about the fairness doctrine inasmuch that conservatives misrepresent the nature of it, otherwise I could care less about it.
Your framing of health coverage is dishonest and exposes your predilection to punish the working poor for being poor. The healthcare payment system is broken not the healthcare system. We are not talking about "socialized" health care, however, but universal health care, with free choice for everyone to go to the facilities they want to. The central question is how health care will be paid for. As it works now, the insurance companies and HMOs make huge profits and make medical decsions at the expense of actual care. That's very similar to problems at Walter Reed where everything must go through layers of approvals and paperwork.
You're saying some folks can't afford health coverage because of their own actions. Maybe, maybe not. Is it a person's fault they slipped at work broke their leg and got fired? Or is it a person's fault they worked, unknowingly, in a hazardous environment contracted a catastrophic illness and was left with no medical benefits? What you are trying to assert is that a substantial portion of the 47 million uninsured citizens have no health covrage because they lack self discipline. Not suprising. Yet, you would fight to break the same labor unions that fight to protect worker's rights, you cons are shameless.
HR 800 takes away anonymity and makes voters subject to coersion tactics. Only 13% of polled workers wish to lose their right to secret ballot. I do agree that the insurance companies make too much money, as I've already said. But what of tort reform? and no, I don't think it's someone's fault for breaking their leg but it is someone's fault if they are living above their means or have to many family members to be able to afford insurance.
Check, that, found more legit source, a Zogby poll states that 78% of workers wish to keep the current system
Baseless assertions my friend.
[link to www.govtrack.us] 'Employee Free Choice Act - Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit. '
Why do I not interpret this bill as granting coercive power to companies? Why would Democrats seek dismantle labor unions in the manner you suggest? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit the conservative narrative that liberals pander to labor unions. Be consistent, please.
Furthermore, poll results are far too dependent on the phrasing of the questions to simply be cited as gospel.
So now polls don't count? WHEW, I guess Bush should be happy with his 75% approval rating, since polls don't count.
Government by poll, public perception of everything by poll--hilarious.
Before a pollster begins his questions, perhaps he/she should pose just a couple questions, such as--I dunno--how about 1) Is the United States a Democracy or a Republic? 2)How many Senators per state? 3) What are the three branches of the Federal Government? 4) What's the U.S. capitol--New York or Boston? Or L.A.?
The answers WOULD be hilarious. So much for polls.
Rule by mob. We're getting there.
1 man, 1 vote. Uninformed people have interests too and disenfranchising them won't help.
Bush has a 75% approval rating? What bizarro planet do you live on?
Walter Reed is a Socialist institution?
Bush has a 75% approval rating?
"I have something you do not, a first hand experience of VA hospitals."
-----
Your posts are always good for pointing out logical fallacies. Anecdotal evidence is useless. My father has had very good experiences with the VA. He's 82 and a WWII vet. So, by using your severely limited logical skills, that means you have nothing.
"The fairness doctrine is a direct censorship to freedom of press/speech"
Oh, now I have to hear this. Please explain it. I'm especially anxious to hear how the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule - you know, those pesky rules that gave the subject of the attack the right to see just what was said and gave him the right to respond on air, for example - please tell us how that censors free speech? Or are you supportive of using the media to spread false lies and innuendos unchallenged to the american people? (aka the "goebbles effect")?
So who's going to be the first dittohead-wingnut apologist here to allege-once again- that this is just a "joke"?
Oh, what a surprise, the boy-humping pill-popper is cracking gay jokes to cover up his deep, deep desire to dress up in something frilly and prance around.
What a surprise.
Please don't even mention his pilonidal cyst. Oops, guess I did.
Rush,
I got an answer to that....he can retrofit ONE of your WIVES wedding gowns. Unless they burned them after the ETERNAL VOWS ended. Another joke from Rush...the sad thing is that his listeners would probably "laugh" at anything this common tater says. It is too bad that they are missing so much of their own lives since all they do is follow the goat path designed by Rush. SAD.
Ok, Limpbaugh, let's get down in the dirt.
Edwards has kids and you don't - not man enough, is that the problem limpbaugh?
Agreed -- it is a curious thing, isn't it?
Of course, it wasn't John Edwards who dressed up like a girl on national television, nor was it John Edwards who was airlifted by his personal cargo-lifting jet to the Dominican Republic, sans wife (but with PLENTY of Viagra). Nor has John Edwards been in rehab, nor has he been divorced umpteen times.
I swear, America will never regain its sanity with Hannity and Limbaugh -- we are going to HAVE to have these sick creatures deported.
Quit resorting to reality, Tabkhan. Edwards is a girl, and that settles it.
Oh Stop it. You might make Edwards cry.
So clever. What are you, 8 years old?
Come on Dave. you've got to understand that today's "Compassionate Conservative" is permitted to ridicule someone who cries at the loss of a child. To them, crying is unmanly.
Just look at their leaders and those in the media who support the conservative cause. Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage.
A more manly bunch you could not find.
I guess Edwards will have to deal with this issue. Humour would be the best way I suppose. I am not clever enough to come up with the solution, paging Al Franken. There has to be a way to turn this to his advantage, an ever so sublte jab at the originators somehow. Like, if they want a lunch date all they have to do is call. Or, I'm happy to give out my barbers number (see, real men go to barbers not "stylists") Or, this is one girly man that can keep his marital vows and father children.
For the party of family values, why are the insuling the one with his first and only wife, has children, and is a good father. But they love Newt, the worst of the worst.
barlila, it's been pointed out by others (most recently on Real Time tonight) that between Newt, McCain and Giuliani, there are 8 wives, andRomney, the Mormon, is the only one with one wife in the crowd.
This is the best they have?
The Progressive message of effective government, mutual responsibility and broad prosperity is replacing those tired old conservative memes. These guys cannot touch us on the environment, on healthcare, education, workers rights, women's rights, gay rights, energy independence or foreign policy. The elemental conservative message is being dismantled. In the last twenty years we have all endured the failures of market fundamentalism and individual alienation.
Republicans are finished. They failed.
Rush is in no position to criticize anyone for their appearance.He is a fat, pompous,egotistical,bloviated douchebag who can't get enough of the sound of his own voice. Megadildos to you Rush,which I'm sure you'd enjoy.
I apologize if my comment on Rush was a little over the top. It just infuriates me that this man has a public forum to say this kind of crap every day.
Not even Dennis Miller could have come up with that one. Sounds so first gradish !
Mr. into man-on-boy-love Domenican style has really lost her mind. Such tired material, such a tired message screaming of desparate. And this is their heavy-hitter, this is all they got left.
He's tired, time for the Fairness Doctrine to replace his BS.
That crazy Rush. I wonder who's going to design his retirement mu-mu.
Oh man, Limbaugh never ceases to amaze me at how tasteless, offensive, evil and nasty a human being can be. He and Ann Coulter are the two most disgusting slugs to ever be given a public forum.
The Rush to Swish or Silently Spew…
Gee, you’d think Rimjob-Rush would be all a-glow by now. That “inaugural gown” was just what Rushy needed for his decollation!
Anyone who listens to the pill-poppin' pigboy is an unlikely Edwards--or Richardson or Clinton--voter anyway, so let him sink in his own slime.
I don't know who this Gerstein guy is, but I'm sure sick and tired of writers more in love with their own wit than getting the facts straight or treating important issues with the seriousness they deserve. The worst, of course, is Maureen Dowd, the Titania of Trivia. That the Times gives her space, along with such bloviating nitwits as Brooks and Friedman, is all the indictment needed for "the paper of record."
Bravo & Boffo RL,
-->The largest satellite of Uranus, read: Maureen's...
Just goes to further show that the GOP has nothing to offer America in 2008
Hahaha... Now that is funny.
It would be funnier if there weren't millions of Americans who haven't figured that out yet. That's a little bit sad. :(
Their offer to America is an endless, unwinnable war that others need to fight for them-with inadequate equipment. An offer that Americans rejected in '06. The GOP has a losing agenda. They want more-not fewer-deaths in Iraq. They are a party led by hatemongers Coulter and Limbaugh, adulterers like Gingrich, and chickenhawks like Bush & Cheney. Pathetic.
Limbaugh is jealous of any man(Clinton/Edwards) women find attractive. This may stem from his high school years of being rejected by females because of his wieght and or his childish personality/behavior. Think of Limbaugh as the obnoxious high school student who tried to fit in while secretly idolizing the handsome quarterback who got all the babes.
Later in life he would be able to stike back at the quarterbacks and demean them (Clinton and Edwards). He could ridicule them the way he was laughed at. He seriously thinks all he has to do to emasculate Edwards is to call him a Breck Girl. Edwards, who started from scratch and has faced tough courtroom opponents is not your everyday chump. Look for him to profit from Limbaugh's antics.
In all Limbaugh who craves love (married three times) will even defend torture to remain in the good graces of the White House. They give him what he wants...respect. Not because they like him but because he has something better than babes and wavy hair, he has power. Take that John Edwars and Bill Clinton.
DSmith, I think you're right. Loser guys have always used the "gay" insinuation to attack other men to whom they feel inferior.
Think about some of those urban legends; Rod Stewart/Mick Jagger/ getting his stomach pumped and discovering "evidence" (I'm guessing everybody heard this, I won't spell it out), Richard Gere and the gerbil, etc. These stories were always about guys who were very popular with women at the time the stories were concocted.
Pretty safe bet who starts these- guys whose girls( or the girls they can't get) dig the targets of the attacks.Maybe in their simple little reptile brains, if they can convince women that Mr. X is gay, their odds get a little better.
Rim-job Rush Limpaugh...the sophomoric pill popping boy-humper...the tasteless, offensive, evil and nasty a human being...the pigboy getting down in the dirt while wearing something lacey...promoting his "Domenican" man-on-boy lifestyle while hiding behind a huge boil on his ass speaks up about the first woman president issue.
Does that about cover the reaction from mmfa posters?
Well, Limbaugh doesn't need me to defend his behavior or comments...he's perfectly capable.
Prior to this dust-up, I would have described Edwards with words like twinkie, lightweight, and pantywaist...so I got a huge lmao about the inaugural gown comment.
Edwards as president? Whoa Nelson!
None of the Rush mummies ever seem to comment on their President who wears a hairpiece. But they cannot get their minds of anything physical concerning Democratic candidates. Is this the reason no Democrat should even run for President?
Sorry Republicans but your "boys" don't have any redeeming qualities about them. They cannot hold a marriage together but they want to run a country. Look what a village idiot has done to the country. Your goose is cooked...come over the the Bright side where you can think for yourselves. Repubs always stick together whether right or wrong...now that is noble isn't it...
That would make a great campaign slogan - you can't hold your marriage together, what makes you think you can hold the country together? Priceless!
Callin' all Churchladies....lighten up! You're getting very Falwell-sounding, making all your pronouncements about people's marriages and such.
It's called pointing out hypocrisy. We don't think marriage success should be a litmus test, but if the Republicans bring it up, it's worthy to point out that they have a much worse track record in that realm.
We can think of a lot worse comments for Limbaugh & for those who are in love with him (i.e., you). Like "losers"---as in "2008".
Rush didnt make a substantive comment he made a juvinile personal attack for which no substantive refutation is called for but a return serve personal attack is par for the course when I read a post like yours the terms idiot, moron and lightwieght come to mind. For the same reason.
- he made a juvinile personal attack for which no substantive refutation is called for -
Then you should take up your indignance with mmfa...they're the ones that decided his commentary needed "substative refutation".
I made it quite clear that Limbaugh was capable of fighting his own battles and he doesn't need me to defend his statements. I did, however, also make it quite clear that I found his "inaugural gown" comment hilarious.
Your bowl clogging tirade was also quite humorous yet ineffective...I have perceived Edwards as a pantywaist for a long time...and you brought nothing to the party to prove otherwise.
Now, pardon me while I have another chuckle about Edward's inaugural gown...while waiting on the results of you taking mmfa to task for addressing Limbaugh's "juvinile" behavior with a "substantive refutation".
MMFA decided it deserved to be AIRED, I didnt see any refutation, just exposure for the inane BS it is. Its ok because I have percieved YOU to be a moron for quite some time. Since that is some kind of criteria for having some validity. Your mind numbing posts always send me running for the coffeepot to stave of the coma inducing inanity this one is no different. The truth is normally you bring some substance to the table. Normally, while I disagree with your take on an issue its obvious you thought about it and came to a different conclusion. This dumb and useless ad hominem is beneath your regular contribution. Its Limbaugh like.
I had another great laugh when reading on another thread...where a poster referred to Edwards girly-man treatment as...swish boating.
So you and mmfa decide that Edwards getting swish boated doesn't merit a "substantive refutation"...only a public airing...points to one conclusion...his chance of becoming president is about as substantive as a fart in a whirlwind.
Blah blah blahWhy don't you discuss what you dislike about Edward’s platform or are you incapable of addressing real issues? Why does it seem like the Right cannot address real issues and can only attack potential democratic candidates on appearance/mannerisms? Can’t sell your craptacular ideas to the American public anymore? I dislike this type discourse, as it offers nothing for our country. Incase you haven't noticed we have serious issues that must be address by our government and this non-sense is taking attention and time away from those discussions. Why don't you run along now and let the adults discuss politics and the news? Go back to the Fox/RNC/Limbaugh sandbox and pat yourself on the back again for coming up with such insightful political commentary about Edwards.
The topic of this thread is the swish boating of Edwards...but if you insist...
Edwards thinks the constitution spells out a woman's right to abortion...he does not support tax cuts...is against drilling in ANWR...is a global warming alarmist...supports abandoning Iraq...supports granting citizenship to illegal aliens...to name a few reasons why I think he is a poor choice for president.
Now back to the topic at hand...he looks and acts like a nancy boy. Constant preening of his appearance...swishing on stage...and pumping his little girly fists (the only thing worse would be his thumb stuck inside his fist). Therefore I found the inaugural gown comment to be laugh out loud funny.
I dislike his politics and think he's a pantywaist.
WeslEy, the fact that I have to give birth to a 10 pound baby out of a pin size hole GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO DECIDED IF I WANT TO DO IT!.
NOT THE CONSITITUTION.
Well said pearlene...I can see clearly why Edwards would be your man.
You're probably a pu$$y yourself and are threatened by Edwards' attractiveness. After all, any real man would be Wes and not the limp-wristed Wesley.
As a transgender person - the only one I see in the race who might fit "what as Rush's" description - is of course Rudi.
Rudi is a transgender person (crossdresser) - but he was the one who prevented passage of the NYC non-discrim law outlawing discrimination against transgender people.
"Coulter Conservatives" are against gay people - yet they give awards to gay porn stars and have their pictures taken with them.
"Coulter Conservatives" denigrate others service - yet - hey were draft dodgers.
"Coulter Conservatives" are for the war on drugs - yet - they're drug addicts.
"Coulter Conservatives" bluster like teenage boys about their manliness - yet - they need a boatload of viagra.
"what a Rush" needs to go back to rehab and complete the next 11 steps.
Kathy in Philly,
Coulter conservatives? I like it.
Kathy, you seriously kick ass.
Great points.
I don't get it. How in any way, shape, or form does Edwards look like a woman? This is bizarre to me.
I agree with everyone, Rush needs to find something better to do with his time. Its childish. HOWEVER, I do think SOMEONE, not necessarily Edwards, but maybe someone from his and Obama's campaign needs to respond to these guys (Rush, Coulter, Hannity, etc..) and put them in their place. Remember. Its doesn't look good to LET people bash you to death. Thats what happen to Kerry. Instead of going on the DEFENSIVE. Their campaigns need to be on the OFFENSIVE.
I like your idea. It would be outstanding if there were groups whose focus was to get out in front of these comments and rerame the debate on behalf of all the candidates. Republicans have no record to run on and they certainly have no vision for the future other than what they are co-opting from the left (consider how Republicans are currently reconsidering the Patriot Act as if they were Liberals).
Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, Ingraham, Donahue (Bill not Phil) should all be linked inextricably to mainstream conservatism. Otherwise, they will not be marginalized, not by the left. Only by being rejected by the Republican base will these misanthropes cease and desist.
that should read reframe the debate
" . . . [repeats of previous posters' comments] . . .does that about cover the reaction from mmfa posters?" - Wesley
TRANSLATION: There's no way anyone - anyone with any sense, that is - could defend what Limpballs has to say, so I'll deflect - once again - by taking some posters to task for making disparaging comments on a private message board in response to a figure who regularly says the same things in the national broadcast media.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I cannot understand how Crazy Annie, the NY Sun, and Limpballs can all persist in referring to a man married - to a woman - for thirty years with four children as gay . . . or how followers like Wesley can, lemming-like, just lap this up, accept it and repeat it. The logic escapes me.
Then again, I guess if Crazy Annie and Limpballs are involved, logic isn't a requirement . . .
RUMOR HAS IT
that Rush is 0 for 3 at consummating marriages.
Ok, the tortured word reference, such as "feminazi," is Jabba's stock in trade. Wouldn't you think a guy like that, with a given name with echos of premature ejaculation, and a vulnurable surname (Limpbone, etc) who's been caught with contraban Viagra, would avoid commenting on other guys' equipment?
On a more serious note, Edwards and other Dem candidates shouldn't respond themselves. It would be demeaning. Just send out some attack dogs. There are some on the left, too.
Nooooooo, really?
If I had never heard of Rush Limbaugh and tuned in for the first time, I would feel this guy's a pathetic clown who laughs at his own jokes, repeats himself continually, isn't at all funny and for some reason is sucking up to some dame called Ann Coulter, who's attention he definitely is seeking. I guess I'd think he had a thing for her, whoever she is. Actually, listening to this bumbling mush mouth would be kind of embarassing.
Calling Edwards femine is of course, ridiculous, these people jumping on this bandwagon are like a schoold yard gang of taunting brats: what they say doesn't have to make sense, their purpose is to hurt.
Wesley, so you have always thought Edwards was a pantywaist, funny I have always found the name Wesley a bit on the sissy side. Maybe you'd enjoy a visit to the "schoolyard".
I caught some more of that Fox 1/2 Hour too long news hour tonight. If I had comped betting money, I'd say El Rushbo is still using some sort of dope.
Hm, the pundits are spinning this whole "f#ggot" comment Coultier made using an interesting strategy. Someone needs to inform them that you can't put out a fire by throwing gas on it.
Setting backfires is a time honored way to put out a fire but that is a poor analogy. More like she that is evil shuns the light. So shining the light of exposure on she who casts no reflection shrivells her. She cannot prosper when it is shown what a bigotted hatemonger she is, so shine the light on her and watch her melt like a vampire.
Interesting take, just think if I was trying to let people forget what I said, I'd probably tell my friends to stop reminding everyone.
So why don't you? You have nothing to say yet you keep repeating it.
What the hell is wrong with Limbaugh? I guess he found out that if he didn't carrry the water, he didn't get paid. Reminds me of the piss boy in Mel brooks 'History of The World,part 1'.
This whole thread kinda reminds me of the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles, with everyone concurring, so to "speak", and a few with not much to say, but definitely a certain sameness of response, with some variation in tone and volume.
Well, when someone like Limbaugh says something so stupid and sophomoric, what is there to say? We're in concordance because Limbaugh's antics are rejected by all right-thinking decent folk, which most posters here exemplify.
Sorry to be contraarian here, but I think this is a waste of Media MAtters' time. What's your mission? Is it to correct inaccuracies in the media that hurt progressive causes? Great! Do that! God knows there's enough of those errors to keep you busy, and it's a job I for one am deeply grateful to you for performing. But to post the rantings of Rush, which don't pretend to any fact, only partisan "humor" or opinion, only makes MM seem like the chosen representatives of the hyper-sensitive, whining Left. It discredits all the good work you do. Don't give the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world yet another mouthpiece. They've already got more than enough. Let 'em have their fun, so we (Steph Miller et al) can have ours. If they say something patently untrue, correct the record. If they say something stupid, let them do what they do best.