About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Rudov, during discussion of Clinton, said: "The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one"

April 10, 2008 9:02 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

70 Comments

On the April 10 edition of Fox News' Your World, discussing Sir Elton John's April 9 fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton during which John stated that he was "amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country," author and radio host Marc Rudov said, "This is a gynocracy. ... The reason that Hillary is losing is because people don't like her. That's all it is." Fox News legal analyst and University of Washington associate professor of law Lis Wiehl responded: "But Marc, it's -- you're buying into that old thing. It's the old thing, Marc, of if a woman is aggressive, then she's, again, the B-word. If a man is aggressive, he's just assertive and claiming his own." Rudov later said: "This is absolutely silly, Lis. You know what? The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one."

Also during the segment, Wiehl asserted: "[T]he fundraiser that [Sen. John] McCain was at when he was asked by somebody at the fundraiser, 'How can we beat the B-word?' I mean, can you imagine if they had used the N-word? Or the other B-word for a man who doesn't know who his father is? Can you imagine the outrage that would have happened there? You go on the Internet -- you look at Internet sites that say, you know, 'Life's a "B" -- don't vote for one,' or 'Hillary, you shouldn't be running for president, you should be running the dishwasher,' or 'Hillary, stop running for president and make me a sandwich,' or the T-shirts that say -- this is -- I'm not making this stuff up. It's out there." Host Neil Cavuto responded: "Who came up with the making the sandwich one? 'Cause that's pretty clever."

Earlier in the segment, Rudov asserted of John's comments: "Well, this is exactly why men shouldn't allow the vagina monologue to become a dialogue. Hillary Clinton, who's living by the gender sword, is going to be dying by the gender sword. She sends in Elton John to do her hissing when she's having a catfight with America."

As Media Matters for America documented, during the March 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Rudov to discuss "What is the downside of having a woman become the president of the United States?" Rudov's initial response to the question was, "You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?" O'Reilly responded: "But guys have mood swings, Marc. And you know they have other control issues, as we just heard with [former New York] Governor [Eliot] Spitzer and we saw with various presidents. So come on now, let's be fair." Rudov then asserted: "Well, you know, I'm joking. Of course, the main problem I have is if a woman has a female agenda. If she doesn't have a female agenda, if she just wants to be an executive for all the people, then all I care about is if she's qualified. And I have no qualms about having a female president. But if we take Hillary Clinton, she specifically does have a female agenda." Rudov later added: "But Hillary embodies the female agenda. She wants to be the feminist in chief. She represents women. It says so on her website. And a lot of women are voting for her because she's a woman." Rudov has also claimed that "[w]hen Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' "

Further, on the March 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, when guest host Laura Ingraham asked Rudov to explain "why men feel emasculated today," Rudov stated: "You know, you started talking about female happiness before, would women be happier and why our men are depressed. Men are depressed, and it's their own fault, because men are allowing women to take over the world," adding: "You know, female happiness is an oxymoron. When you go to the checkout in the supermarket, just look at the titles on the women's magazines. How many of them presume women to be happy? Not one. They're all saying, the key to happiness is more jewelry, more shoes, more liposuction and bigger implants."

From the April 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: All right. To New York City, the gender card in play against Hillary Clinton's camp. Elton John with these choice words at a Clinton fundraiser last night.

JOHN [video clip]: I never ceased to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some of the people in this country. And I say, to hell with them.

CAVUTO: All righty. Marc Rudov says that Elton is way off-base. He hosts the Marc Rudov radio show. Lis Wiehl says Marc is plain wrong and that Elton is right. So, Marc, what do you find offensive?

RUDOV: Well, this is exactly why men shouldn't allow the vagina monologue to become a dialogue. Hillary Clinton, who's living by the gender sword, is going to be dying by the gender sword. She sends in Elton John to do her hissing when she's having a catfight with America. It's ridiculous for anybody to throw around the misogyny word. When she was the presumptive nominee, we never heard anything about misogyny. But when things go badly -- when she's not getting what she thinks she's entitled to -- all of a sudden it's misogyny. And that's just as bad as throwing around the racism word.

CAVUTO: What do you think?

WIEHL: "Hissing," Marc? I mean, that sounds kind of women-hating right there, my dear.

RUDOV: Does it?

WIEHL: But let's look at the evidence. I mean, let's look at the fundraiser that McCain was at when he was asked by somebody at the fundraiser, "How can we beat the B-word?" I mean, can you imagine if they had used the N-word? Or the other B-word for a man who doesn't know who his father is? Can you imagine the outrage that would have happened there? You go on the Internet -- you look at Internet sites that say, you know, "Life's a 'B' -- don't vote for one," or "Hillary, you shouldn't be running for president, you should be running the dishwasher," or "Hillary, stop running for president and make me a sandwich," or the T-shirts that say -- this is -- I'm not making this stuff up. It's out there.

CAVUTO: Really?

WIEHL: It's out there.

CAVUTO: Who came up with the making the sandwich one? 'Cause that's pretty clever.

WIEHL: It's on Facebook. It's on Facebook.

CAVUTO: All right. So, Marc, you hear this stuff, right?

RUDOV: That's mild compared to what they say about me, Neil.

CAVUTO: Well, actually, it is, Marc. It is -- it is mild.

WIEHL: Well -- that's another story.

CAVUTO: But if Elton John is playing into that view, you think he alienated people last night.

RUDOV: Well, not only that -- he's totally wrong. This is a gynocracy. Women have all the rights and privileges. The reason that Hillary is losing is because people don't like her. That's all it is.

WIEHL: But Marc, it's -- you're buying into that old thing. It's the old thing, Marc, of if a woman is aggressive, then she's, again, the B-word. If a man is aggressive, he's just assertive and claiming his own. I mean, the woman can't win. And also, look, when you've got Saturday Night Live --

RUDOV: That's not true.

WIEHL: When you've got Saturday Night Live several weeks ago, you know, pillorying what was going on in the media and saying, look, you know, "Obama, do you want a pillow?" and really making fun of the fact that Hillary has had a tough time, a tough go of this -- that's Saturday Night Live. Come on, Marc.

RUDOV: I'm sure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff can't wait to report to a commander whose representative is Elton John.

WIEHL: Oh, gee --

RUDOV: This is absolutely silly, Lis. You know what? The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one.

WIEHL: What? What?

RUDOV: If a man is assertive and aggressive --

WIEHL: Wait a second. Marc Rudov, wait just a cotton --

RUDOV: Yeah, Lis Wiehl.

WIEHL: -- that is crazy. How can you say that? How can you call her a B-word? You don't know the woman. She doesn't act like that to you. That is just wrong and outrageous. And you -- you, Marc Rudov, are exhibit A of exactly what Elton John has been talking about.

RUDOV: No, Lis, thank you for repeating my whole name three times --

WIEHL: It's not a plug, Marc.

RUDOV: -- but the fact of the matter is, if a man -- if a man is assertive and aggressive and nobody likes him, he won't get any results. So being assertive -- there's nothing wrong with that if you're a woman. But if you're assertive and nobody likes you, you're going to get nowhere. And that's really what it is. There aren't any male executives who are disliked who are effective.

WIEHL: Marc, you know as well as I do that that label is never attached -- the other B-word is never attached to a guy who's just being assertive and running for something. It's been attached -- you go on the Internet, you look at the T-shirts out there that say, you know, "Hillary should have married OJ. We would have been all better." There are T-shirts out there that say that, Marc.

[crosstalk]

CAVUTO: But that's not the majority.

RUDOV: Lis, there's no misogyny, there's no misogyny --

WIEHL: That's not the majority, but Elton John [unintelligible] that some people say that --

RUDOV: She's dying by the gender sword, and that's all that it is -- that's all there is to it.

CAVUTO: All right, can we get back to the sandwich analogy? That one --

WIEHL: You like the sandwich? Or the running the dishwasher?

CAVUTO: That one I could understand. All right, thank you, guys, very much.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by sportsguydave (April 10, 2008 9:09 pm ET)
         

      CAVUTO: Who came up with the making the sandwich one? 'Cause that's pretty clever.

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

      No it isn't, Cavuto. It's stupid ... just like this discussion, and 99 percent of the content on your lame network.

      How long before this dufus Rudov gets his own show on Fox??

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (April 10, 2008 9:12 pm ET)
         

      If this is what passes for discourse these days, I should have my own cable show.  This Rudov dude is a total woman-hating scum bucket and yet he can opine on our presidential campaign?  Are you effin' kidding me?  Why not get David Duke to opine on race relations?  Andrea Dworkin on men's rights?

      This is comedy masquerading as tragedy ending up as farce.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:27 pm ET)
           

        Andrea Dworkin on men's rights?

        That would be hard to do. She died three years ago. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:04 pm ET)
             

          That would be hard to do. She died three years ago. 

          She would still make more sense than most of the "experts" they have on Faux News.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (April 10, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
         
      MMFA!!  I've been waiting soooo long for this!  'Cauto= the new Gibson, Gibson= the new Cavuto'  had been my responses to these two tools.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by interestingobserver (April 10, 2008 9:28 pm ET)
         

      Wow Rudov's comments were far worse than Randy Rhoads's http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/10/host-randi-rhodes-resigns-from-air-america-after-anti-clinton-rant/

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MoonbatYouBet (April 10, 2008 9:39 pm ET)
           
        False equivalency, the wingnut's favorite tool.  Randi was suspended for her comments.  Rudov keeps getting more opportunities for making his.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by interestingobserver (April 10, 2008 11:38 pm ET)
             
          Suspended, yes...for something FAR FAR worse.  Had a conservative made those remarks you know as well as I that Media Matters would be hounding the network for not FIRING the speaker. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotherjoe (April 11, 2008 12:20 am ET)
               

            Make up your mind, "observer", or please clarify your thought process.

            First you said:

            "Wow Rudov's comments were far worse than Randy Rhoads's"

            Moonbat then notes that Randi was suspended for her comments to which you then replied:

            "Suspended, yes...for something FAR FAR worse. Had a conservative made those remarks you know as well as I that Media Matters would be hounding the network for not FIRING the speaker."

            Now, if Rudov's comments were "far worse" than Rhoads' comments, how is it that Randi could be suspended "for something FAR FAR worse"?

            I don't know what kind of universe you inhabit, but in my universe when comparing TWO things, they are either equal or not.  If they're NOT equal, then only ONE can be "worse" than the other.  Actually, I feel that Rhoads' comments were reprehensible (and in NO WAY defensible) and Rudov's comments were as reprehensible.  The difference is the format where the comments were offered.  Rhoads was (ostensibly) a host of a progressive radio talk show while Rudov is (ostensibly) a conservative who gets airtime on FoxNews.  Progressives have, for the better part of the past two decades, decried the right-wing talk-show hosts who choose to use offensive and misogynistic language, and were right to have called Rhoads on her vile language.  (If Rhoads had been a Hillary-fan, what do you think would have happened if she called Obama a "house-n****"?  She would have had her butt handed to her by the Obama Legions.  Hell, we saw what happened to Gerry Ferraro and she only said that Obama was "lucky".  The same thing with that guy who said that Hillary was "pimping out" Chelsea; if he'd said that about Obama, he'd be lucky to get a job, even with FoxNews.)  What I find most disturbing about the Rhoads situation is the way so many "progressives" are claiming that she's being punished by Hillary.  Forget what Rhoads said or how blatantly sick it was; in the Obamabot universe, Randi is being unfairly targeted by the Clinton campaign and Hillary's supporters.

            As for Rubov, the man SHOULD be suspended, and as far as FoxNews being a BASIC cable channel (on most cable systems, it's part of the regular cable offerings), it's about time that the FCC begin applying the same regulations to FoxNews that are applied to Bravo or A&E or Lifetime (or even Logo--my local cable provider has it bundled with the likes of Showtime and HBO, but Logo censors its shows for language and sexual content).  When one of the "on-air personalities" utters offensive language, the network should be forced to pay the same penalties that would apply to, say, Comedy Central if Matt & Trey decided to drop uncensored f-bombs on "South Park" without getting a special exception.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by MoonbatYouBet (April 11, 2008 7:07 am ET)
               

            No I don't know any such thing.  If Randi had made her comments on the air, there probably would be a call for her removal.  Show me the MMFA article that calls for the firing of a broadcaster for off air speech.

            I do think that if the comments were made by a conservative, that person would be making the conservative talk show tour, justifying what they said, repeating it and loudly and proudly not apologizing.  And the conservatives would eat it up with a spoon.

            So idiots like you can stop trying to tell me that "the liberals are just as bad" whenever you find one counterexample to the tens and hundreds of examples of abusive, false and insulting conservative speech.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 9:41 am ET)
                 
              It's a moot point, because Randi Rhodes has resigned.  She is no longer with Air America - she starts with Nova-M on Monday.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 11, 2008 12:54 pm ET)
               

            I'm not so sure about FAR FAR worse.  Usung obscenity does not necssarily make something worse.  She may have called [Ferraro & Clinton] whores - (meaning "women I don't like" not "women who has sex for $") in anger.  Rudov said that Hillary was called a "B!+c#" bascially because she deserved to be.  IOW - he was calmly justifying it.  And they they laud the revoltingly sexist T-Shirts going so far as t call them clever.  And given Rudov previous Neaderthal like statemnts and attitudes, this is not being said in anger - IT IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT HE FEELS IS RIGHT.  And that's FAR, FAR more vile than someone calling someone else a name because they're angry at them.

            Both were vile, and yes - that includes Ms. Rhodes - but I'm not sure it's "FAR FAR Worse" just becuase she used a *gasp* BAD WORD

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:07 pm ET)
                 

              Both were vile, and yes - that includes Ms. Rhodes - but I'm not sure it's "FAR FAR Worse" just becuase she used a *gasp* BAD WORD. 

              Randi Rhodes made her comments off the air at a comedy venue where only adults are admitted.  Marc Rudov made HIS comments on the air, over a basic cable channed that could have been viewed by thousands - if not millions - of children.

              Now - which was worse?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 11, 2008 2:54 pm ET)
                   

                Hey man, I'm on your side!  I despise men like Rudov.  Admittedly I didn't know that much about what Rhodes had said, but my point was that, taken at face value, her comments were not "FAR FAR worse" than what Rudov said.  Given the repsective venues?  I'd now say there's not even a comparison. 

                But it's par for the course: Conservatives spew vile, hateful rhetoric to describe their BELIEFS and then acuse liberals of being "even worse" becasue one of them swears, or just comes out and calls someone an expletive instead of resorting to [not so subtle] digs like they do.  It's ridiculous.  And while libs occasionally vent (like RHodes did) they say these things with a strait face and then say "just kidding" or "out of context" or whatever... when they called out on it!

                Report Abuse
              • Author by billyblog (April 12, 2008 8:54 am ET)
                   

                "Marc Rudov made HIS comments on the air, over a basic cable channed that could have been viewed by thousands - if not millions - of children."

                 

                Hmm.  You must know something about the (mental) chronology of Fox New viewers that I don't.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (April 11, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
               
            She didnt make them on the air. I agree with her suspension but it isnt the same thing to make such comments where she is a speaker to an audience and making them ON OUR AIRWAVES.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (April 10, 2008 9:50 pm ET)
           

        your pasted link says ..randi-rhodes-resigned...

        did this idiot resign? 

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 10:44 am ET)
             

          did this idiot resign? 

          He really has nothign to resign FROM - he's simply a guest on various Faux News propaganda-fests.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by onionhead (April 11, 2008 12:04 pm ET)
               
            And as a result of his comment, he will continue to be a guest on Faux
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:31 pm ET)
               

            He really has nothign to resign FROM

            He could resign from stupidity, but then he wouldn't appear on FOX any more. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (April 10, 2008 10:26 pm ET)
         
      ok, i'll bite: who the heck is marc rudov, and what are his bona fides, that qualifies him, more so than me, to opine on anything? the couple of times i've seen him noted on here, he seems to be pretty much a self-promoting flame thrower, in the ann coulter mold; say something totally outrageous, strictly for the publicity you know it'll bring.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 11, 2008 1:08 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, he's just a [more] manly (meaing stereotypical "manly-man) version of Pirate Annie.  I guess cheuvenism needs a new champion.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (April 11, 2008 12:38 am ET)
         

      All I can say about Rudov is that he is simply a jagoff. And if you look deep into his eyes, you will realize that it is really Annie Coulter behind some creative make-up. It is the best she has looked in her lifetime.

      Funny thing about this ball-less man...if he were to face Hillary in person, he would be able to prove his point becuase she would rip him to shreds in a debate....but he is a whinney little coward who, as most of these bravado male Repulbans tend to be, hiding behind microphones in non-hostile areas. The Republans are a group of sissies who will soon be extinct.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (April 11, 2008 12:54 am ET)
           

        Yeah, Prince, I think you're....what? Making me a sandwich ?? Ha ha ha, that is clever!! Sometimes the real sophisticated humor takes a while to sink in, but that is funny on so many different levels. Hoo-boy.

        I hope nobody ever asks Cavuto why the chicken crossed the road, he'll probably die laughing right on camera.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Science101 (April 11, 2008 8:18 am ET)
         
      I dont see any misinformation.  Hillary is a B****, clear as day.  Must have been that sniper fire that turned her this way.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 8:41 am ET)
           
        Of course you don't see any misinformation.  You're obviously lacking in cognitive and perceptual skills, based on the stupid positions you've taken around here over the past few days.....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 11, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
           
        Just like there is no misinformation in me pointing out you are a moron, pure and simple.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (April 11, 2008 8:59 am ET)
         

      Several observations.

      First, Marc has a speech impediment, a lisp, which is associated with men who are not "manly". Limbaugh employs a lisp when he is making fun of gays or "feminine" men who, he claims, are Democrats. If Marc has had this lisp all his life (perhaps working hard to try to overcome and hide it ... ultimately unsuccessfully), he's had years of being considered a "Nancy boy" by his male peers. This constant humiliation might help explain his misogyny and anger.

      Second, notice he employs CIRCULAR REASONING as his "proof". He says, "So being assertive -- there's nothing wrong with that if you're a woman. But if you're assertive and nobody likes you, you're going to get nowhere."

      Marc DESPISES all women, but especially those who stand up for themselves. Assertive women, to him, are the B word, and he doesn't LIKE them. To Marc, assertive women EQUALS being "not liked." Therefore, his "logic" is like saying it's OK to be tall, but he hates all tall people, and therefore tall people are not liked by anybody.

      Then Marc says, "There aren't any male executives who are disliked who are effective."

      WHAT UTTER NONSENSE!!! "Effective" men, defined by Rightwingers, are those who are successful in business. Executives are TRAINED to not be liked by those they boss, as are Drill Sergeants, as are Coaches. The operative mentality is twofold: One, familiarity and friendliness with one's inferiors invites disrespect and a lack of motivational incentive to the workers. Better to be HATED and effective, than LIKED and a chump and loser. This is the entire basis for Republican foreign policy, for example. It's all about it being better to be FEARED than LOVED, and Bush has employed this doctrine his entire tenure. Arrogant (but "deserving" and "entitled") OWNERS versus ungrateful lazy workers is the theme of much of the Rightwing's philosophy, policy, and ideology. That's for damn sure.

      [It may be true that bosses who are "liked" are empirically MORE "effective", but this kind of thinking is no part of Republican consideration. "Being liked" ... or CARING about being liked ... is WEAKNESS to them.] 

      SECOND, what's his evidence that bosses who are not "liked" are not "effective"? If I could find ONE boss who is disliked (but yet "successful"), his "logic" falls completely apart. Personal experience for almost ALL of us debunks his "theory" here. Then there's Martha Stewart, highly successful by all measures, yet hell to work for by all accounts. Again, his theory is demolished.

      This guy says whatever pops into his head, projecting his misogyny onto ever subject at hand. He hates women, which is OK (they no doubt return the favor), but this guy is making a CAREER out of his dysfunctional personality, and he's become the darling of Rightwing Media. Why? Because paternalism and a "return to the golden days of yore" is what Republicans are all about. They don't even HIDE their desire to take this nation back to the "good old days" ... not overtly noting that those days featured women who weren't allowed to vote or own property, and blacks who "knew their place". Thus, Marc Rudov is a sterling spokesperson for Rightwing ideology; He SAYS what rightwingers are THINKING. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (April 11, 2008 10:15 am ET)
           

        He hates women

        And Gays.  And probably Democrats, poor people, minorities, anyone not a white anglo-saxon christian male.

        Republicans are the party of hate, and Americans are through with the politics of hate and fear.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 12:32 pm ET)
           

        Tex,

        Your bigoted remarks against men who "lisp" is unremarkable, considering it comes from you.

        Better watch that, you are supposed to represent the party of tolerance and acceptance of diversity of all stripes.  Slurs like you just made in the above post obviously reveal your prejudices, but do you say what all leftwingers are thinking, as you say Rudov does?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by doggone-ga (April 11, 2008 12:48 pm ET)
             

          "but do you say what all leftwingers are thinking, as you say Rudov does?"

          Nope.  He's saying what too many RIGHTWINGERS are thinking.  I got that...why didn't you?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
               

            Obviously you agree with slurring men who lisp, I guess Tex does speak for at least you too.

            Thanks for weighing in. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 1:22 pm ET)
                 
              Tex was making an observation.  He didn't say it was right or wrong - he simply said that many people associate a lisp with gay men.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 1:25 pm ET)
                   

                But of course.  If a rightwinger had said the exact same thing you call that person a homophobic bigot.

                But double standards are nothing new, especially where Tex is concerned.

                Do you think I am surprised?  No. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:35 pm ET)
                     

                  If a rightwinger had said the exact same thing you call that person a homophobic bigot.

                  Limbaugh says it all the time. And he is a homophobic idiot.

                  Tex is not. I understood what he said, too bad you are either unable to (or pretend to be unable to) do the same. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 1:38 pm ET)
                       

                    #3, Too bad, but at least you're honest about your agreeing with Tex's bigotry.

                    Thanks for voicing your opinion.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:43 pm ET)
                         
                      Thanks for proving you can't hear the voice.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:10 pm ET)
                           

                        Thanks for proving you can't hear the voice.

                        The voices inside Tommy's head drown it out.

                        Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:35 pm ET)
                     

                  Do you think I am surprised?  No. 

                  Surprised? No.

                  Intelligent, HELL, ne.

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:34 pm ET)
                 

              Obviously you agree with slurring men who lisp

              Many men who lisp slur their speech as well.  

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 1:39 pm ET)
                   
                Slurring as in insulting, get it now?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:42 pm ET)
                     

                  Sarcasm. Get it now?

                  Oh, that requires thought. Of course you don't. 

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mary59 (April 11, 2008 2:06 pm ET)
                     
                  Tommy, you are tho thilly thomtimes, awguing about twivia.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 2:09 pm ET)
                       

                    I'm sorry Mary, if pointing out another poster's bigotry is distasteful to you.  I will remember that next time the same is directed at somebody you don't agree with, as that apparently is the barometer.

                    But it's all good....... 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (April 11, 2008 2:19 pm ET)
                         
                      hmm, a little grouchy today. I thay, tho what? Ith all good.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 2:24 pm ET)
                           
                        Moi?  Nah.  Check with all the others who are getting all bent out of shape when Tex's hypocrisy is revealed, they are ones who are the big ole' grouches.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:36 pm ET)
                             
                          The only thing that has been revealed, Tommy, is yet another example of you raising a non-issue when you have absolutely nothing of value to bring to the table.
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by doggone-ga (April 11, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
                 

              "Obviously you agree with slurring men who lisp, I guess Tex does speak for at least you too. Thanks for weighing in"

              You ARE dumber than I thought.  Well, at least now I know for sure.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 1:11 pm ET)
             
          If that's all you have to say about Tex's post, Tommy, you've got nothing in this argument.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 1:12 pm ET)
               

            #2, another leftwinger who condones the bigoted slurring of men who lisp.  Wow, maybe Tex does speak for all of you.

            Nice to know, and thanks for checking in too. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 11, 2008 1:41 pm ET)
                 

              #2, another leftwinger who condones the bigoted slurring of men who lisp.  Wow, maybe Tex does speak for all of you.

              #1, another right-wingnut who can't make an argument without creating yet another straw man.You must have an entire straw city populated by now.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
                   
                Changing the subject or nit-picking the posts of others is what passes for intellectual activities in TommyWorld.  Be sure to ride the Flip-Flopping Scrambler and the Georgge W. Bush Popularity Rollercoaster. And for a pleasant diversion, travel through the Tunnel of Right-Wing Lies and Misinformation.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (April 11, 2008 2:18 pm ET)
                     
                  Look, you have already condoned leftwing homophobic bigotry as expressed here by Tex, you don't have to label it "nit-picking" when it's pointed out too, do you?  We get it. 
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:38 pm ET)
                       

                    We get it. 

                    You wouldn't get a clue if it slapped you upside the head, Tommy.

                    Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (April 13, 2008 12:15 pm ET)
             

          TOMMY:

          You see bigotry, slurs, and prejudice in my post, and you are correct: That is what is being discussed: This Rightwing "new favorite" guest who is a misogynist and a hater.

          Ah, but then you make a comprehension leap: You have decided to attribute all of those characteristics to ME.

          I assure you, antrhopologists who discuss aborigines do not BECOME aborigines themselves. And any student who attempted to attribute the characteristics being discussed TO the discusser would be howled at in class, and receive a FLUNKING grade. Ditto for anyone in debate class who decided to use this tactic, attributing the discussed attitudes TO the speaker, in the childish "I know you are, what am I?" manner. It's a bankrupt, silly tactic, but I guess it's all you've got.

          I do understand that this need to "project" ill motivations onto Liberals is a compulsion for you rightwingers, but to be credible, it requires the poster to actually MAKE a statement that, like the rightwingers being discussed, reveals the poster to be bigoted, prone to slurs, and prejudiced.

          I indeed HAVE all those characteristics, but they are directed at rightwingers, and NOT gays, the effeminate, or anyone else. And that's very clear to any with a reading comprehension level beyond the 2nd grade level (which must leave you out).

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (April 11, 2008 9:27 am ET)
         
      They don't call him 'Rudov' because it's his birth name, they call him that because he's a Soviet with no manners.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 9:58 am ET)
         

      Rudov, during discussion of Clinton, said: "The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one"

      She whelps puppies???

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (April 11, 2008 10:55 am ET)
         
      More evidence of stem cell research gone out of control!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 11, 2008 11:47 am ET)
         

      Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -

      bitch    Audio Help   /bɪtʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bich] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

       
      Slang.
      a.    a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.

      Offensive

         1. A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing

       

      -------------------------------------------------

      Please guys, do a little research.  Rudov was merely stating the obvious.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 11:48 am ET)
           

        Please guys, do a little research.  Rudov was merely stating the obvious.

        We'd state the obvious to describe you. NAC, but our posts would get flagged for profanity.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dazedandconfused26 (April 11, 2008 11:58 am ET)
             
          douche bag

          noun

          Slang an unpleasant, offensive, or contemptible person: a mildly vulgar term

          There you go WZ, perfect description without profanity.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 12:35 pm ET)
               
            Douche bags serve a useful purpose, unlike Not Another Conservative.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 11, 2008 3:11 pm ET)
           

        You are a moron

        1. A stupid person; a dolt.
        2. Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive

        Just stating the obvious

        Report Abuse
      • Author by August Heat (April 11, 2008 10:52 pm ET)
           

        a bitch is a female dog.  any slang associated with it is offensive.  similarly a ni$$er by definition is an ignorant person.  Any slang associated with it is offensive.  justifying referring to women by this term just means you have no respect for your mother, wife or daughters, which wouldn't surprise me.  I don't care for Hill's or Bill's but I wouldn't call her out of her name like these bobble heads,who are supposed to be professionals.

        I'm starting a new charity.  Check it out at www.loan-a-clue.com

        loser. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (April 11, 2008 12:33 pm ET)
         

      "Lis, there's no misogyny, there's no misogyny --"

      What's worse than a misogynistic d***wad?

      A misogynistic d***wad who's in complete denial.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 1:12 pm ET)
           

        What's worse than a misogynistic d***wad?

        A whole channel of misogynistic d***wads - which is what you get on Faux News.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Olawaar (April 11, 2008 1:40 pm ET)
         
      I don´t know but i think Rudov is gay. There is something gay about his voice. This is propably another example of a person that hates him self so bad, that he makes his mission in life to hateing other people. This time its women. Ted Haggart directed his hate directly at homosexuals. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 11, 2008 2:16 pm ET)
           

        There seem to be a lot of self-hating gays on the right side of the aisle - men who are so deeply closeted that they think they're fooling others while they're only fooling themselves.

        Ted Haggard was one.  Larry Craig, Matt Drudge, and Rush Limbaugh are others.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.