The O’Reilly Fuck Up, by Michael Davis – Straight No Chaser #259 | @MDWorld
March 9, 2012 Michael Davis 16 Comments
Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are hotshot media champions of conservative policies. The GOP likes to say that both O’Reilly and Limbaugh don’t speak for the Republican Party.
That’s the kind of bullshit that keeps me hating on the GOP.
Limbaugh called a 20 -year old college student a whore and a slut because she dared to speak out regarding women’s health issues. NO member of the GOP leadership has come out and denounced Limbaugh.
He called a 20 -year old college student a whore and a slut and NO GOP Presidential candidate has said that was wrong.
He called her a whore and a slut.
A whore and a slut.
A whore and a slut.
I’ve said it a few times but imagine how many times that young ladies’ parents, family and friends had to hear that?
Imagine how many times SHE had to hear that.
Not ONE GOP leader said; “Rush was WRONG.”
That’s because that fat fuck dope addict has the GOP wrapped around his stubby little finger.
I’ve said it before, the GOP is Rush Limbaugh’s BITCH.
Now, Bill O’Reilly is just a motherfucking lair.
When Bush was President O’Reilly said that any politician who said they could bring down gas prices was “Full of BS.”
EVERY single GOP candidate has said the gas spike is Obama’s fault.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
YESTERDAY on the View O’Reilly agreed with the GOP candidates and blamed the President after saying (watch the clip) any politician who said they could bring down gas prices was “Full of BS.”
I have a lot of dear friends who are conservatives, them I like.
Their, party?
Hell fucking no.
CLEARLY then GOP party of 2012 is anti-Gay, anti-minority and anti-women.
Before anyone gives me that bullshit line about a few people in the GOP think that way and it’s not ALL in the party.
Yeah-that may be true but your leaders are that way. They say clearly that they are and they support policies that reflect those anti-social issues views.
I have a cousin that killed a family of four. He was my favorite cousin. I was a kid when that happened but the MOMENT I found out what he did I disowned him. He will be in jail for the rest of his life but every Christmas for the last 30 years he has called on Christmas day and every year I refuse to talk to him.
I refuse to talk to him because what he did was so wrong I couldn’t bring myself to even say ‘hi.’
I was a KID and I didn’t even know what ‘disowned’ meant but I did it.
I turned my back on him and he was family.
The GOP won’t even entertain condemning Limbaugh.
That’s because that fat fuck RUNS the GOP and holds his 20 million listeners over their head’s like a Pimp holds a razor blade to one of his whore’s throats.
The women in my life are not whores and sluts and if anyone called them such there’s a fair chance I’d be spending some time with my cousin where he resides.
Limbaugh was attacking ALL women in a way yet no GOP men have stepped up to defend their wives, girlfriends, moms or sisters. Not one GOP man has stepped up.
What a bunch of punks.
Party of Lincoln?
Nope.
Try, party of pussies, because that’s what they are.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Doug Abramson
March 9, 2012 - 6:23 am
MOTU,
You have ethics, morals and dignity. The twits running the GOP do not. When three of the four men running for their Presidential nomination are social loonies that Reagan and Goldwater would’ve kept at arms length, its kind of hard to condemn them too much for being ball less, spine less worms.
Malcolm Robertson
March 9, 2012 - 12:13 pm
One point of correction, Sandra Fluke is 30, not 20.
R. Maheras
March 9, 2012 - 12:32 pm
My beef with Limbaugh’s comments is (a.) They were highly inappropriate (especially given the context of Sandra Fluke’s congressional testimony), and (b.) He was, unnecessarily, being quite the bully.
But those calling for everyone on the left to excoriate Republican candidates and members of the GOP for not apologizing for Limbaugh’s indiscretion are not only being unfair, they are holding the Right to a different standard that they are Democratic candidates and those on the left.
As every media-savvy person knows, forcing a political opponent to apologize for an indescretion of a supporter does two things: It weakens public support and stature of the apologizer — even if they did absolutely nothing wrong; and it inevitably throws some of the guilty party’s dirt on the apologizer. Throw enough dirt from a candidate’s supporters on a candidate and you permanently cripple that candidate’s election chances.
Obama has routinely refused to apologize for the stupid, racist, radical or sexist comments or actions of his past and present supporters (even some that are veru close to him) for just that reason. So why insist on holding GOP candidates to a higher standard?
Rush needs to apologize for Rush.
That said, if a candidate is asked by a reporter what that candidate thinks of a supporter’s controversial comments, he/she should have the guts to say something to the effect that the comments were inappropriate. But, while many GOP candidates still routinely avoid responding, so do many Democratic candidates — including the guy currently sitting in the White House.
Those on the left — even prominent leftists — routinely throw sexist or racist insults as bad or worse than Limbaugh’s at men and women in the GOP, and their Democratic peers are almost always just as silent. In recent years, Sarah Palin, Condoleezza Rice — among others — have been the target of some of the most vile comments imagineable, comments which most Democrats seemed to just shrug off, wink at, or actually agree with.
Which is why I’ve been saying for years that neither side has the moral high ground, and probably never will.
MOTU
March 9, 2012 - 1:02 pm
Malcolm,
Thanks!
MOTU
March 9, 2012 - 1:21 pm
R. Maheras said,
“Obama has routinely refused to apologize for the stupid, racist, radical or sexist comments or actions of his past and present supporters (even some that are very close to him) for just that reason. So why insist on holding GOP candidates to a higher standard?”
With all due respect, that’s bullshit. Obama has distanced himself from those people and said they do NOT speak for him. He has said that clearly and without hesitation.
Also in my piece I did NOT say that that the GOP should apologize for him I said they should denounce and distance themselves from him because of what he said.
They won’t because they are Rush’s bitch and they are afraid of him.
Obama said clearly he did not share Rev. Wrights view and even went so far as to give a SPEECH distancing himself from Wright and denouncing those views that were clearly racist.
Lastly-my cousin shot and killed 4 people. When someone asks me why I don’t speak to him I say its because he shot and killed 4 people. Telling me he’s not the only one who shot and killed anybody is no excuse.
Kyle G.
March 9, 2012 - 1:37 pm
The right aren’t going to distance themselves from Rush or condemn his for a couple of reasons. The biggest I can see is that people they want to vote for them are going to be the same ones who agree with Rush. That’s not to say every Republican will agree, but everyone who does agree with Rush will certainly be likely to identify themself as a Republican. The Repliblican candidates have shown that they don’t want to alienate anyone out on the fringes of the right, while they will happily do so to anyone closer to the middle.
What truely urks me is that Rush’s entire premise is wrong. The whole point Fluke was speaking was to address the actual health benefits of the pill (like dealing with her friends ovarian cysts). The conversation wasn’t about sex or wanting to be able to have sex on anyones dime. The whole rant Rush continued for multiple days was based on things that were never said or happened. If anything he should apologise for inventing and lying about the whole affair.
Damon
March 9, 2012 - 1:39 pm
To say no republicans have called out Limbaugh for being over the top is just factually wrong. A quick google search would pull up George Will, Presidential contender Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich said it would “Appropriate for Limbaugh to apologize”, House Majority leader Eric Cantor called Limbaugh’s comments “insulting” . . . and the list goes on.
And let’s hold the “Oh, she’s just a poor, innocent college student caught up in a whirlwind of political intrigue” horse crap. Fluke is a 30 year old “student” (THIRTY!) at Georgetown (average first year salary after graduation is over $150k . . .can you say “1%”?) who has been on the front lines of political activism for years.
Let’s hold the pity party, and remember that those who put themselves on the front lines intentionally are often called less than flattering names . . . such as Laura Ingraham being called slut by Ed Schultz. . . . which is ironic since you have a picture of him in this post, but fail to mention that fact.
Damon
March 9, 2012 - 1:41 pm
“With all due respect, that’s bullshit. Obama has distanced himself from those people and said they do NOT speak for him. He has said that clearly and without hesitation.”
So we can expect Obama to give back Bill Maher’s $1,000,000 contribution in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .?
Larry White
March 9, 2012 - 1:52 pm
Damon,
” Let’s hold the pity party, and remember that those who put themselves on the front lines intentionally are often called less than flattering names . . . such as Laura Ingraham being called slut by Ed Schultz. . . .”
Ed Schultz the very next day offered REAL apologies. You say there have been some in the GOP who have come out against Rush-true.
What Moto was saying is no Presidential candidates have done so nor will they.
Damon
March 9, 2012 - 1:59 pm
Ron Paul is not a candidate? Newt is not a candidate?
My point is . . .Michael has painted the entire Rep. party with a wide hyperbolic brush, when really he is talking about Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.
Ahhh . . . Rush’s apology is fake but Ed’s is real. Got it.
Larry White
March 9, 2012 - 2:19 pm
” “I think it was appropriate for Rush to apologize and I’m glad he apologized,”
That was from Newt. He did NOT denounce what Rush said.
Ron Paul DID slam Rush-that I will give you.
R. Maheras
March 9, 2012 - 2:50 pm
Larry White: “What Moto (sic) was saying is no Presidential candidates have done so nor will they.”
Nor should they HAVE to. MOTU actually was agreeing with my point when he wrote, “Obama has distanced himself from those people and said they do NOT speak for him. He has said that clearly and without hesitation.”
Obama was saying exactly what I said he should say (AND ONLY IF ASKED), which is “Mr. X does not speak for me, nor I for him, so let’s move on.”
But Obama does not unilaterally responds to stupid remarks by his supporters — he’s too busy running the country (besides, there isn’t enough time in the world for him to speak for his dumber supporters). In public affairs parlance, he treats such stuff as “response to query.” And even then, Obama does NOT respond to all questions about stupid stuff his supporters do.
Like Bill Maher… as Damon points out.
Larry White
March 9, 2012 - 3:42 pm
Bill Maher does not speak at Democratic events where policy is being made.
Bill Maher has zero influence over the Democratic party. Comparing Bill Maher to Rush Limbaugh is like comparing a Mac Truck to a Tonka toy.
R. Maheras
March 9, 2012 - 4:06 pm
Larry — Bill Maher has no influence over the Democratic Party??? Who do you think the vast majority of his audience is? In addition, over the years, I’ve seen more Bill Maher quotes in pro-Democratic-Party blogs and print articles than I can possibly count!!! Finally, while at various times Maher’s claimed to be a Libertarian or an independent, the $1 million he just gave to a re-elect Obama SuperPAC says otherwise.
Next you’ll be saying Jon Stewart has no influence over the Democratic Party either!
Larry White
March 9, 2012 - 4:28 pm
Like I said-Comparing Bill Maher to Rush Limbaugh is like comparing a Mac Truck to a Tonka toy.
Neither Jon Stewart nor Bill Maher have any influence over policy in the Democratic party. They just don’t. Yes- they criticize the Right but they have no power over the party no matter how many times you say it.
Alice
March 9, 2012 - 4:52 pm
I’m a republican and I’m active in the party where I live. I agree with Mr. White. It’s common knowledge that Rush Limbaugh wields considerable power over the party. To say otherwise is just the lie that some of the Right keeps telling people.
The Republican party does have a real problem with blacks, jews and gays. I’ve been to party events where the most horrible things have been said to describe Obama who I have no love for. I’m appalled that the party of my entire life has gotten to this place. Mr.Davis does indeed paint the entire party with a wide brush and he is dead wrong on that. I and most of the party are not like that. I can understand his point of view because the current crop of GOP leaders are absolutely race baiting and making laws that will affect women horribly and prevent poor people from voting.
That is happening but there are scores of people who within the party who are trying to address the problems within the party. Obama is a horrible President in my eyes and I will vote for whoever the republican party puts up. I freely admit that the Republican party is afraid of Rush Limbaugh. But it’s the leadership and not the rank and file. There are those like myself who are working from within to address that. As they say the first step is admitting you have a problem and we do.
R. Maheras
March 9, 2012 - 5:07 pm
Larry — Donating $1 million to re-elect a candidate, as Maher just did, IS influencing a party — no matter how many times you deny it.
R. Maheras
March 9, 2012 - 5:10 pm
Larry — Why do I have the feeling that you are, in fact, actually “Alice”?
MOTU — can you compare the IP addresses for the two posts?
If I’m wrong, I apologize… but I can’t help it that my Spidey Sense is tingling.
Mike Gold
March 9, 2012 - 5:14 pm
First of all, Ed Shultz got his ass suspended from MSNBC for a week. Rush got praise from his network.
Second, Maher has the same right to contribute a million bucks to an Obama Super-PAC (which means Obama can’t give it back; his campaign doesn’t receive the money) as, say, Sheldon Adelson has to give, what, 25 million to a Gingrich Super-PAC.
Third, Bill Maher actually SUPPORTED Rush’s right to make that comment. Let me repeat that for emphasis: BILL MAHER ACTUALLY SUPPORTED RUSH’S RIGHT TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.
Fourth, the Republican Party obviously has a problem with blacks, Jews, gays, and women. Not ALL blacks, Jews, gays and women… but enough to cost them some national elections. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, obviously has a problem with Republicans. And I don’t mean that sarcastically in the least.
Fifth, for a political commentator, Jon Stewart might very well be the most polite, balanced, sincere, and well-informed of the whole lot. That’s why he gets big-name Republicans on his show… something that rarely happens with the MSNBC guys.
Sixth, I’m hungry and I wanna watch the Rangers/Blackhawks game. Bye!
R. Maheras
March 9, 2012 - 5:19 pm
Go Blackhawks!
MOTU
March 9, 2012 - 5:34 pm
R,
Spider sense or not we don’t call out people on this site for what you are implying. I’m not that guy and this is not that site.
R. Maheras
March 10, 2012 - 12:45 am
MOTU — Your site, your call, of course.
Mike — I don’t understand why Rush’s network would praise him. That’s obviously a bad call. Defending freedom of speech is one thing, but praising a bad decision is something else entirely. In Shultz’s case, his suspension was just a symbolic slap on the wrist. The left is not calling for a mere suspension for Rush, they want to cripple the network and get him fired — which is a double standard.
Of course Maher has a right to contribute to whomever he wishes, but that that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not Maher had any influence on the Democratic Party. You know Illinois politics as well as I do, and that million bucks Maher donated buys an awful lot of influence.
As far as Maher’s defense of Limbaugh goes, two points: Maher is a free speech advocate, so it’s not all that surprising; and Maher regularly uses invectives about his political enemies that makes Rush’s comments seem Pollyannish by comparison.
Regarding the GOP’s problem, it’s not really just the GOP’s problem. I would agree that in relative terms, the GOP has more of a problem in some of those areas than the Democrats do, but the Democratic myth of some sort of unified diversity coalition is, in many ways, just political rhetoric. For example, earlier I cited the lack of women nominees for president or vice president on the Democratic side. That’s not just me making stuff up — that’s the actual track record for the Democratic Party. The DNC talks a good game about women’s rights, but they do not back it up with action. Before Obama, the presidential nominees on the Democratic side was pretty much the same as on the Republican side. In the area of race relations, the most Democratic city in America, Chicago, is also the most segregated city in America. And as far as the GOP’s Jewish “problem” goes, which party is the most vocal and least apologetic backer of Israel right now? Hint: It isn’t the Democrats.
The Democrats do have the edge when it comes to gay rights — except for those pesky, mostly Democratic, Catholics and Southern Baptists.
Stewart is not balanced in his commentary, and he absolutely leans liberal, but at least he’s fair about inviting folks on to discuss both sides of an issue. I respect him for that and enjoy his show.
JosephW
March 10, 2012 - 3:00 am
Maheras, just stop already. You’re doing so much spin it’s absurd. “In Shultz’s case, his suspension was just a symbolic slap on the wrist.” Oh, really? And you KNOW this, how? Please explain where you got this information that the network didn’t really mean the suspension was anything more than “symbolic.”
I’ll also point out that comparing Limbaugh’s hold on the GOP with either Jon Stewart or Bill Maher’s alleged connections with the Democrats is pure bullshit partisan blindness. Stewart and Maher have BOTH lambasted Obama when they feel he’s disappointed them with the same level of disgust that they lambaste GOPers when they pull stupid shit.
As for the bit about “those pesky, mostly Democratic, Catholics and Southern Baptists,” I’m afraid you lost me. Southern Baptists are NOT remotely Democratic in party allegiance–at least, not since the mostly Southern Baptist Convention helped establish the Moral Majority and support Ronald Reagan. Jerry Falwell (may he rot in his grave) was a Southern Baptist minister. Mike Huckabee (maybe you’ve heard of him?) is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. Alabama Governor Robert Bentley is a Southern Baptist (he stirred up a bit of controversy after his inauguration ceremony by declaring that people who’d not “accepted Jesus” are not his “brothers and sisters”; what made the comment especially egregious was its setting–the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, of which Dr Martin Luther King had been pastor). Yes, there are Southern Baptists who are Democrats or who vote for Democrats but the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is incredibly conservative and have been very vocal in supporting Republicans and GOP policies and programs. As to the Catholics, well, we’ve seen how what the Catholic leaders say doesn’t always resonate with individual Catholics. I seem to recall Catholic leaders being at the front of the opposition to New York’s marriage equality movement and Issa’s little panel on contraceptive coverage featured a Catholic official (male, of course–nuns who’ve challenged Vatican doctrine have been censured, no matter how reality-based their challenges have been).
On the “Israel” situation, I’d love for some of these “pro-Israel” Americans to kindly explain why AMERICA’S interests are so frequently put in second place to Israel’s rather selfish interests. I’d also like them to explain why they feel a need to be so supportive of a country which has continually ignored America’s requests to treat the Palestinians as humans. Oh, I know, there’s a large evangelical base that supports Israel for their own purely selfish reasons (if Israel doesn’t exist, then Armageddon can’t take place; not so surprisingly, most Israelis aren’t too thrilled with their American Evangelical supporters) but that’s not a good reason for explaining the NON-evangelical pro-Israel hawks. (Also, this whole double standard over Iran’s nuclear program is just absurd. Israel has had a nuclear program for well over 35 years and the country, with South African help, detonated a nuclear device in the late 1970s. Interestingly enough, Israel has NEVER signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Israel has NEVER allowed IAEA officials to inspect any Israeli facility.)
Doug Abramson
March 10, 2012 - 5:27 am
R,
Maher is from New York and lives in LA. Why bring up Chicago? Chicago has nothing to do with conversation. MOTU was talking about issues on the National level. Chicago does not control how the rest of the country does things. In fact, most of the country doesn’t even care about Chicago or what goes on there. (Sorry Mike) The airplane and the interstate killed Chicago’s influence and the last time it was politically relevant was when Daley’s storm troopers rioted in ’68, which helped steer the election to Nixon.
R. Maheras
March 10, 2012 - 12:19 pm
JosephW — One week suspension without pay is nothing more than a wrist slap. People with lesser slips of the tongue than Shultz have been fired. And why didn’t the same people who are going after Limbaugh’s advertsers go after Shultz’s? Simple. There’s an obvious double standard.
I never said Limbaugh’s influence over the conservative base was equal to Maher’s or Stewart’s influence over the liberal base. You’re either projecting or intentionally distorting what I actually said. Here’s EXACTLY what I said: “The issue was whether or not Maher had any influence on the Democratic Party. You know Illinois politics as well as I do, and that million bucks Maher donated buys an awful lot of influence.”
Larry White said in his post above that Maher and Stewart had “no” influence on the Democratic Party. That is “pure bullshit partisan blindness,” not what I said.
Regarding Baptists, you apparently don’t know anything about the demographics of the Black religious community. Nearly half of the church-going Black population is Baptist, and that population votes overwhelmingly Democratic.
In the case of Israel, it’s pretty clear you don’t think much of Israel’s right to defend itself, which is intimately tied to its right survive and exist in a very hostile environment. As a student of history, it’s pretty obvious to me that Israel had not done what it felt it had to do to survive, and had not had the backing of the U.S., it would have been overrun and destroyed decades ago. Sure, it would have been a lot easier politically and from a “world view” for the U.S. to abandon Israel, but would that have been the right thing to do? I don’t think so.
R. Maheras
March 10, 2012 - 12:22 pm
Doug — You just don’t get it. Chicago and Illinois politics are intimately tied to this administration and what is going on in Washington. Just because you are oblivious to it does not mean it isn’t so.
Doug Abramson
March 10, 2012 - 1:11 pm
R-I don’t care if the administration is “intimately tied” to Chicago politics, EVERYTHING that happens politically in this country is not BECAUSE of Chicago anymore than the Truman administration was run by the Kansas City mob, the Nixon administration by Quakers or the Eisenhower by the army. I asked what Bill Maher had to do with Chicago, since you brought it up again. The answer that you didn’t provide is nothing. Don’t question or insult my intelligence because I don’t share your obsession with the Chicago political machines. Illinois isn’t more corrupt than any place else, they just get caught more and with more publicity. If someone went by your comments, they would think that Chicago was more dangerous than the Illuminati, the Knights Templar and the Elders of Zion put together.
R. Maheras
March 10, 2012 - 2:20 pm
I didn’t say that everything that happens politically in this country is because of Chicago, I said “Chicago and Illinois politics are intimately tied to this administration and what is going on in Washington.” That is absolutely true. And if you are a Democrat, and you do not understand how your leader ticks, his background, how he thinks, and how he developed his political philosophies, then shame on you.
I brought up Chicago, in perfect contect, mind you, because I’m tired of Democrats crowing about how they are the champions of minorities when their actions, in many cases, do not match their rhetoric. Chicago is a perfect example of that.
Shame on the Republicans, but shame on the Democrats too. I think both parties need to put their money where there mouths are. I’m tired of listening to bullshit; I want real, substantial action.
MOTU
March 10, 2012 - 4:26 pm
R,
“I’m tired of listening to bullshit; I want real, substantial action.”
Dude! That’s exactly what I say after any 3rd date!
Doug Abramson
March 10, 2012 - 4:30 pm
I never said that I didn’t think that I know what makes The President tick (Although, unless one is physic,its impossible to really know.); I said that I didn’t care about Chicago. If we were discussing a Daley, the history of the Democratic machine would be important, but not definitive, since most of their lives were spent there. Obama spent time in Hawaii, Indonesia, California, etc, before moving to Chicago, as an adult. He’s as much of a creature of that culture as Reagan was California’s when he went into politics and for the same reasons. We are the sum of our cumulative experiences. Where we wind up as adults is important; but not the be all, end all.
R. Maheras
March 11, 2012 - 2:38 am
Obama spent his entire political career in Chicago (and Springfield), was molded by, and was intimately involved with the political machine there. That’s why many of Obama’s key advisors are/were Chicagoans. For example, when Chicago politician Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff, resigned to run for mayor of Chicago, Obama appointed Bill Daley — then Mayor Richard M. Daley’s brother — as his NEW chief of staff. Emanuel then went back to Chicago and easily won the election to replace the retiring Daley.
Frankly, I can’t believe how little you seem to know about Obama’s political career before he went to Washington, and his not at all subtle ties to the Chicago political machine.
R. Maheras
March 11, 2012 - 2:38 am
MOTU — 😉
Doug Abramson
March 11, 2012 - 7:18 am
R- Don’t bother responding again since you are reading what you want to see, not what I’m saying; but for clarity’s sake I will try to rephrase one more time. I UNDERSTAND that Obama has spent his entire political career in Illinois and TIED to the Chicago political machine. What I’m SAYING is that his ENTIRE world view CANNOT be looked at, explained or dissected ONLY on those facts because of his cumulative life experiences before arriving in Chicago or running for public office. The old California GOP machine is a good illustration of my point. Nixon, born and raised in Southern California was a creature of the machine and its corruptions. Reagan, who had a whole life outside of California, or politics for that matter, was not. Reagan used the machine, took key advisers from it and owed it favors; but being a California Republican isn’t THE key to explaining how he thought or governed.
R. Maheras
March 11, 2012 - 12:06 pm
So let me get this straight. You, an outsider, are telling me — someone who has been following Chicago politics most of my life, and someone who lived and worked in Chicago for decades, and voted in Chicago — that I basically don’t know what I’m talking about.
I think that pretty much qualifies as the definition of hubris.
R. Maheras
March 11, 2012 - 12:09 pm
Oh, yeah… As I think I mentioned here once before, I voted for Obama in 2004, for the U.S. Senate, before folks like you had ever even heard of him.