Liberal Misogyny

[basso]

this discussion, by Megan Kelly and Kirsten Powers, neatly encapsulates the rampant hypocrisy of the left (hypocrisy that is amply displayed in the Rush thread.)

as Powers notes, this just about democratic politics. if it were truly about the Fluke Kerfuffle, then the left would also be demanding Chris Matthews, Matt Taibi, Keith Olberman, and Ed Schulz, and Bill Maher be taken off the air.



Here's Powers' article that occasioned the interview.

[larsv8]

edit - nothing

[basso]

Originally Posted by larsv8 Liberals don't preach about the sanctity of marriage and how/who you can engage in sex with.

how is that relevant?

[mc mark]

Mr. Frum


Point 1: Even by the rough standards of cable/talk radio/digital talk, Limbaugh's verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. I can't recall anything as brutal, ugly and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. This was not a case of a bad "word choice." It was a brutally sexualized accusation, against a specific person, prolonged over three days.

Point 2: The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh's tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors.

After David Letterman for example made an ugly joke about Sarah Palin's daughter, he delivered an abject seven-minute apology on air. (To which Palin responded by refusing the apology and insinuating that David Letterman was a child molester.)

When liberal talker Ed Schultz nastily called my dear friend Laura Ingraham a "slut" on his radio show, MSNBC responded by suspending Schultz for a week without pay from his TV show. Schultz likewise apologized in person on air. (Ingraham accepted the apology with grace and humor.)

The exception to the general rule is Bill Maher, who never apologized for calling Palin by a demeaning sexual epithet. But now see point 3:

Point 3: Limbaugh's place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz.

Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I'm sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher's million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling. See, for example: GINGREY, PHIL.
I can't recall anything as brutal, ugly, and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated.

Among TV and radio talkers and entertainers, there is none who commands anything like the deference that Limbaugh commands from Republicans: not Rachel Maddow, not Jon Stewart, not Michael Moore, not Keith Olbermann at his zenith. Democratic politicians may wish for favorable comment from their talkers, but they are not terrified of negative comment from them in the way that Republican politicians live in fear of a negative word from Limbaugh.

The ultimate test came in 2002, the vote to authorize force against Iraq. Almost every liberal talker opposed that vote. Hillary Clinton, with her eye on a presidential run in 2008, voted in favor.

That is why no one asks Democratic politicians to repudiate the latest strident statement from an Olbermann or a Moore. There's no sport in it. It's too easy for them to say, "Sure." For Republicans, it's tough.

But maybe, after this latest outburst, a little less tough?

[larsv8]

Man that wasn't even the wrong thread, that was the wrong FORUM.

[Carl Herrera]

She has a point. It isn't strictly about mysogynistc words.

The attack on Rush Limbaugh has a lot to do with gaining a political advantage, and it works in this case, but not in the case of the Obermans and Mahers because Limbaugh is the de-facto leader of the GOP while the others are just individual liberal commentators. I don't think Democrats need to agree with "Religilous" in order to get elected.

I'm pretty sure if someone demanded that Nancy Pelosi or Obama condemn the statements made by these guys, they'd just do it and get it over with, without the hemming and hawing displayed by the GOP guys (which hemming and hawing is precisely what makes this fun for the Democrats).

Also, not sure who is demanding that Rush be taken off the air... All I saw were calls for sponsors to drop him and for GOP officials to criticise him.

[Rashmon]

My son went to college with Megan and Kirsten and said they were both sluts.

[basso]

Originally Posted by Carl Herrera I'm pretty sure if someone demanded that Nancy Pelosi or Obama condemn the statements made by these guys, they'd just do it and get it over with, .

I DEMAND that Obama return the $1m Maher gave his PAC.

[giddyup]

Good news for guys here: "Liberal men are allowed to by misogynists... apparently."

[Carl Herrera]

Originally Posted by basso I DEMAND that Obama return the $1m Maher gave his PAC.

Good for you. I'm sure he'll do that right after the Republicans return everything that Rush Limbaugh gave them.


Here's one more difference between the Republicans using misogynistic language and some of the lefty commentators using it: GOP has promoted policies that many view are contrary to the interest of women (for example, defunding services such as breast cancer screening and reproductive health checks done by Planned Parenthood that have nothing to do with abortion) while the Democratic party is generally viewed as promoting policies that promote their interest. As such, people are more likely to pay attention to right wing misogynistic language and don't let them get away with it because it confirms with their pre-existing opinion that Republicans are anti-women.

[thumbs]

Originally Posted by mc mark Mr. Frum Point 1: Even by the rough standards of cable/talk radio/digital talk, Limbaugh's verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. I can't recall anything as brutal, ugly and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. This was not a case of a bad "word choice." It was a brutally sexualized accusation, against a specific person, prolonged over three days. Point 2: The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh's tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors. After David Letterman for example made an ugly joke about Sarah Palin's daughter, he delivered an abject seven-minute apology on air. (To which Palin responded by refusing the apology and insinuating that David Letterman was a child molester.) When liberal talker Ed Schultz nastily called my dear friend Laura Ingraham a "slut" on his radio show, MSNBC responded by suspending Schultz for a week without pay from his TV show. Schultz likewise apologized in person on air. (Ingraham accepted the apology with grace and humor.) The exception to the general rule is Bill Maher, who never apologized for calling Palin by a demeaning sexual epithet. But now see point 3: Point 3: Limbaugh's place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz. Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I'm sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher's million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling. See, for example: GINGREY, PHIL. I can't recall anything as brutal, ugly, and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. Among TV and radio talkers and entertainers, there is none who commands anything like the deference that Limbaugh commands from Republicans: not Rachel Maddow, not Jon Stewart, not Michael Moore, not Keith Olbermann at his zenith. Democratic politicians may wish for favorable comment from their talkers, but they are not terrified of negative comment from them in the way that Republican politicians live in fear of a negative word from Limbaugh. The ultimate test came in 2002, the vote to authorize force against Iraq. Almost every liberal talker opposed that vote. Hillary Clinton, with her eye on a presidential run in 2008, voted in favor. That is why no one asks Democratic politicians to repudiate the latest strident statement from an Olbermann or a Moore. There's no sport in it. It's too easy for them to say, "Sure." For Republicans, it's tough. But maybe, after this latest outburst, a little less tough?

Goodness, mc mark! I've seen limbo experts do less wriggling and contorting to get under the bar. Just admit it's okay for liberal men to denigrate any and all women so long as it furthers the Democratic agenda.

[Dubious]

If you are funny and say outrageous things, peoplelove it
If you are a dick and say outrageous things people will take the opportunity to take you down

context, history, intent ..... not the same

and really Megan Kelly is the Tokyo Rose of American hatetalk

[esteban]

Liberal hypocrisy, never heard of it before.

[mc mark]

Originally Posted by thumbs Just admit it's okay for liberal men to denigrate any and all women so long as it furthers the Democratic agenda.

Why would I admit something that isn't true? You make no sense. Have you noticed who has better polling with women?

hint, it ain't team limbaugh

[SamFisher]

Originally Posted by thumbs Goodness, mc mark! I've seen limbo experts do less wriggling and contorting to get under the bar. Just admit it's okay for liberal men to denigrate any and all women so long as it furthers the Democratic agenda.

It's not any and all women, just the vast majority those that are dumb or cynical enough to sign on to the Republican cause....your Palins and Bachmans, the endless parade of fox news chatterers, tea party clowns, it's a target rich environment of idiocy.

[thumbs]

Originally Posted by SamFisher It's not any and all women, just the vast majority those that are dumb or cynical enough to sign on to the Republican cause....your Palins and Bachmans, the endless parade of fox news chatterers, tea party clowns, it's a target rich environment of idiocy.

Like Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters during the last Democratic presidential run? Yeah, whistle me a tune, Sam.

[SamFisher]

Originally Posted by thumbs Like Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters during the last Democratic presidential run? Yeah, whistle me a tune, Sam.

[thumbs]

Originally Posted by mc mark Why would I admit something that isn't true? You make no sense. Have you noticed who has better polling with women? hint, it ain't team limbaugh

We'll see come November, won't we? IMO there are more than enough women out there who have sense to see the double standards displayed by Democrats.

[thumbs]

Originally Posted by SamFisher

Only because the panda displayed has more insight, intellect and ability to see the big picture than you do.

[glynch]

Originally Posted by thumbs We'll see come November, won't we? IMO there are more than enough women out there who have sense to see the double standards displayed by Democrats.

Thumbs, you are losing it. Are you a Santorum fan and a foe of birth control, too?