Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment
Will Republicans continue to hitch their wagon to the jackass that is Limbaugh?
Advertisers are in a rush to abandon Rush Limbaugh for Limbaugh’s on-air rant against the Georgetown Law Center student who had sought to testify at hearings on a Congressional hearing concerning contraceptives.
First, the dispute is not one over freedom of religion. If one wishes to advance a religious cause in this context, we should turn first to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That precedes the Free Exercise Clause. If one wishes to advance his religious beliefs, he cannot use Government to do so.
Second, the Republican Party had counted on the economy as a means by which it could remove President Obama from the Oval Office. Fortunately for the rest of the country, but unfortunately for the likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, despite Republican efforts to block legislation in Congress, the economy steadily improves. (I omit Congressman Paul only because he would have run and argued the same issues no matter what the economy had done.) Raising social issues worked for Republicans in 2000 and 2004. However, demographics have changed. There are fewer homophobes and people who would intrude into the private lives of others. Wedge issues are not much of a wedge without votes.
Limbaugh’s comments were ignorant, offensive, and inaccurate. Only a (very) few voices have come to his defense. In this matter, the Republican presidential candidates act much like Congressional leaders of the Democratic Party—they have no courage. They will not attack a man who has 20 million daily listeners to his program on an obsolete form of communications. (That tells one something about Limbaugh’s demographics.)
I received several e-mails each of the past few days concerning Limbaugh. Some (of course) wanted money for this or that effort. Others wanted my signature on a petition demanding Limbaugh apologize. Let us be clear: Limbaugh has not apologized. To say "I’m sorry I used the wrong words" is not the same thing as to say "I am sorry for what I said and what I meant to say." The former is to express regret for getting caught; the latter for attempting the offense in the first place and understanding the offense intrinsically was wrong. I signed those.
Another e-mail sought my support of a petition calling for the corporation that carries Limbaugh’s show to terminate the contract and the show. To terminate a contract and remove someone from the air on the basis of what that person says, particularly when the station or stations in question know the person says outrageous things and profits from the person doing just that, is wrong. Limbaugh is a jackass. What he says is ignorant, stupid, and inaccurate. But he has a First Amendment right to say what he says.
Those who do not agree with him should not tune him in. Those persons should check the list of sponsors of his program and stop buying goods or services from those sponsors. (I never used AOL. Are they still out there?) But he has a right to say what he says.
A more effective means of opposing him is to vote for people against whom he rails. If the Republican Party wants to hitch its wagon to the jackass who is Limbaugh, let them. Votes can be a better check on Limbaugh than anything else.
Comment
-
Comment by Mark Small on March 8, 2012 at 6:34am
-
Kurt,
I agree. Tying healthcare to business has hurt our ability to compete with companies in the international markets. If healthcare is part of a company's overhead, the cost of its products goes up.
Mr. Wheeler,
I said in my blog the stations knew or should have known (how could they have not?) Limbaugh's program content and his seeking to outrage on occasion. Presumably they profited from the ads they placed.
As to your first question---yes, I have a problem with those two phrases and their placements on currency. Those are religious expressions. Your distinction between "religion" and "the Almighty Himself" is one that presumes the validity of your religious belief. If Islam were to engage in and obtain conversion to a mass of people in this country sufficient to take majorities in Congress and the Oval Office, the supreme deity embraced by the government would be different. And that's one thing about which I have been curious over the years---the insistence on the part of some to see reference to their deity on coinage. Currency would seem to be at the heart of mammon. The love of money, as your bible says, is the root of all evil. Why make religious reference to your deity on dollar bills? That seems contradictory.
-
Comment by Kurt Lorey on March 8, 2012 at 5:55am
-
Maybe the argument should be whether an institution who doesn't believe in the totality of healthcare should be in the business (and it IS a business, not a expression of faith) of providing healthcare services at all?
-
-
Paul,
Where does free exercise trump establishment? If over 90 percent of Catholic women, according to the surveys extant, have used contraception, and something like 3 million pregnancies a year are "unwanted," there's a problem. The problem particularly is clear when the religious institution teaches one thing and its adherents apparently behave contrary to the beliefs advanced by the institution. Contraception (most of the time; read the caveats on those packages) prevents pregnancy. Where does free exercise reach out and establish the religious presence in the lives of those who do not believe in that religion?
As to your question about the constitutionality of requiring private purchase of health insurnace, my answer would be that we should have national health care. We should not increase bonuses for health insurance executives.
As to Ms. Fluke, so what if she's a liberal, Democratic activist? If she were Republican, conservative and against contraception being legal, would that make her stand more credible? And if Limbaugh meant hisstatements as jokish embellishments on her statements, he should have said so and apologized for the intrinsic wrongfulness of the words he used and the beliefs they conveyed.
Rush Limbaugh scares Republican politicians. That is a form of power. He has 20 million regular listeners, and dismisses sponsors who no longer want their ads on his show as french fries. If he was not serious about his remarks, he should apologize. Otherwise, the other tens of millions of people who do not watch his show should continue to refrain, and should vote against the candidates whom he supports of who show such fear of him.
-
-
The dispute is not over religion? Are you kidding me, Mark? Obama told Catholic institutions they have to provide conctraceptive coverage, including abortifacients, in the health care they provide to their employees. That is completely against the Catholic faith. Since when it the role of government to dictate to religion what religous beliefs are acceptable?
There is the larger constitutional question over whether the federal government can mandate to private individuals that they have health care coverage. I would answer "no" to that as it's clearly not within the powers granted to the national government. But if you add in the fact that the federal law would mandate that a religious entity do something against its religious beliefs, then there is no question it's outside the scope of what our national government is permitted to do. One constitutional strike and you're out. When you have a second one, then it's a no brainer.
Mark, you're so fast to say religion should get out of government. But that adage doesn't seem to apply when it's government sticking its nose into religious beliefs. As far as the Establishment Clause preceding the Free Exercise Clause, are you seriously arguing that the Establishment Clause is more important because of its position with relation to the Free Exercise Clause? Surely that's not what you mean.
As far as Fluke goes, with her background as a liberal, Democratic activist now out in the open, it's clear she was not some innocent bystander to the contraception debate. Her claimed cost of contraception did not stand up to scrutiny, which is what gave rise to the jokes regarding her extraordinary sexual promiscuity. That then led to Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut." Obviously Limbaugh's comment, while foolish, was not made with any degree of seriousness. Nobody thinks Fluke is a slut because nobody who examined her testimony versus the actual cost of contraception thought she was telling the truth. Fluke's not a slut. She's a liar.
One thing you and I agree on is free speech. I am so tired of people demanding resignations because someone says something stupid. We all say stupid things, you, Mark Small, a lot more than me given my moderation and good temperment. Our Congressman Andre Carson made the utterly despicable comment that Tea Party people want to see blacks hanging from trees. There of course is not a shred of truth to such a defamatory comment, but I never demanded Andre resign. He was just engaging in hyperbole that was every bit as dumb, sorry much dumber, than what Rush Limbaugh ever said. I would have been fine with an apology from Andre...which he refused to give.. Likewise, your guy, Bill Maher, ought to apologize for calling Sarah Palin a "cunt." I don't see any outrage from Obama or the left when it comes to Maher's comment, while they're so quick to jump on Limbaugh. If you call Limbaugh a "jackass" then Maher must be a "jackass extraordinaire."
Of course Obama has hitched his wagon to Maher taking $1,000,000 from him for his PAC.
-
-
Wow. You told a joke that was stale when I saw it on a t-shirt in San Francisco in 1994.
You last post was void of anything but personal insult. Goodbye.
-
-
Nic,
It is difficult to engage in discourse with you. I have said nothing of a person or derogatory nature to you or about you. Yet you unleash a passage from Mencken that suggests members of my profession should be lynched after saying you do not want to sink to my level. I certainly do not want to subject you to having to share the same "level" as I occupy.
As to Kinsley's "overall point"---perhaps you should go to the last paragraph of his column:
"As we all know, Limbaugh's First Amendment rights aren't involved here---freedom of speech means freedom from interference by the government. But the spirit of the First Amendment, which is that suppressing speech is bad, still applies. If you don't care for something Rush Limbaugh has said, say why and say it better. If you're on the side of truth, you have a natural advantage. And if you're taking on Rush Limbaugh, you're probably on the side of truth."
There is little subtly in this passage. I addressed Limbaugh's comments a couple of days ago. I pointed out why I thought he was in error. Subtly is not an issue here, but basic understanding of our language perhaps is.
-
-
Nic,
1) The mascot of the Democratic Party is a jackass. I fail to see how referring to Limbaugh as a jackass is uncivil.
2) Why would I think Michael Kinsley is a jackass? In his article he says some of the same things I say in my blog: Limbaugh has a right to free expression, people can listen to him or not, sponsors can pull out. I like Kinsley's line about the advertisers: "Had they never listened to Rush before, in all the years they had been paying for commercials on his show?" Kind of echoes my statement of how the "station or stations know the person says outrageous things and profits from the person doing just that..."
3) Limbaugh is not simply an entertainer. He wields political clout in the Republican Party. Politicians fear him. He said something grossly offensive and inane. People have called him on it. Good.
Videos
© 2024 Created by Mark Small.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!
Join Civil Discourse Now