The real problem is not Trump; he is who he is. The real problem are the voters just like him - MCPs Let me count the ways

cartoon from Politico.com

It is impossible to avoid noticing that the same people who embrace Rush Limbaugh's offensive ideas, especially those insulting to women, are the people who are the base for Donald Trump.Even Republican women are leaving Trump in droves, as are independents, in the wake of the original scandal and continuing scandals.  As with hating people of color, and people of diverse national origins (aka immigrants) or diverse religious beliefs, the only demographic supporting the GOP this election cycle are old white men - the flabby and crabby old white men, like Trump, like the listeners to viagra-swilling sex-tourist and much-married pig, Rush Limp-dick.

Thanks to the effectiveness of the liberal boycott against Rush Limbaugh over his comments regarding Sandra Fluke, in conjunction with the predatory vulture capitalism of Mitt Romney's company Bain Capital, Rush Limbaugh no longer has such a large number of radio stations to broadcast his vile programming, and as a result, he is no longer the king maker he has been in past elections.  These are people who are misogynists, pure and simple; they justify it by saying they are against political correctness, but the reality is they want to be able to believe and say hateful things without criticism or impediment. These are the "good" hard-righties, the women haters, the racist bigots, the anti-LGBT, the Islamophobes, the Obama haters, and many are also Anti-Semitic. Their classic outsider group to hate are immigrants, of any stripe. And the Clinton haters.

They believe it is their right to oppress and punish others for failing to conform to their narrow and factually inaccurate beliefs, which is a key part of the definition of authoritarianism.  As a group, they object when government - which becomes to them 'big government' interferes with treating people badly who belong to what they see as the nonconforming 'other' - women who are not appropriately subordinate, people of color, LGBT, and anyone who differs from their religious beliefs, no matter how odd or extreme or hateful.

Many of them are employed, but not generally at high paying jobs; many of them believe they must be 'good' people because they belong to a toxic version of Christianity that is part superstition combined with a very large dollop of authoritarianism that is conservative Evangelicals. Few of them are well educated with a well rounded background.

Rush Limbaugh has a lot in common with the person Donald Trump really is, the persona he pushes to his base.  If you look at what Trump says about women - calling them dogs and pigs; predicating women's role in society, especially employment on their attractiveness rather than ability; defending and excusing sexual harassment; selectively fat shaming (but never applying the same standards to men, least of all themselves); and making a range of derogatory comments about women relating to sexuality or reproduction.  Presumably ALL of these were excused by Limp-bow in the same way as Trump, or the bozos at Faux News -- as entertainment, which somehow is excepted from normal standards of fact or decency.

Here are a few quotes from Rush, which I will contrast with a similar number of quotes from Drumpf. H/t to Addicting info for the unpleasant job of collecting these (and more). See if you recognize the similarities. In no particular order, 12 out of the 35 offensive statements were about women, more than any other category of comments.

Collected by Addicting Info:

• “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.” ~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 12, 2005
• “Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?” ~Rush Limbaugh, while holding up a photograph of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 television show
• “They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.” ~Rush Limbaugh, on women who protest against sexual harassment, The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 26, 2004
• “Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.”
  ~Rush Limbaugh, 1994 List of 35 Undeniable Truths
• “It doesn’t look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary dietary advice. And then we hear that she’s out eating ribs at 1500 calories a serving with 141 grams of fat … No, I’m trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or of a woman Alex Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you.” ~Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 21, 2011
• “These were highly civil comments for crying out loud. I mean, people are going nuts. USA Today, the Politico. And some people were suggesting that my comments were below the belt. Well, take a look at some pictures. Given where she wears her belts. I mean, she wears them high up there around the bust line. Isn’t just about everything about her below the belt when you look at the fashion sense she has?” ~Rush Limbaugh, after being criticized for making derogatory comments about First Lady Michelle Obama’s weight, Feb. 22, 2011
• “I’m a huge supporter of women. What I’m not is a supporter of liberalism. Feminism is what I oppose. Feminism has led women astray. I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.” ~Rush Limbaugh, responding to criticism that he is sexist and defending his selection as one of the judges at the 2010 Miss America Pageant, “Fox News’ Fox & Friends,” February 3, 2010
• “We’re not sexists, we’re chauvinists — we’re male chauvinist pigs, and we’re happy to be because we think that’s what men were destined to be. We think that’s what women want.” ~Rush Limbaugh, claiming that women want men to be assholes, April 15, 2004
• “Given the National Organization for Women’s membership and proclivities, it’s no wonder that people now view the NOW gang as being obsessed with only two issues: abortion rights and lesbian rights.
• “What is it with all of these young, single white women? Overeducated- doesn’t mean intelligent.” ~Rush Limbaugh, insulting educated women, March 6, 2012
• [T]he nags … the national association of gals, that’s our pet name for the NOW gang … the nags are a bunch of whores to liberalism. ~Rush Limbaugh, another attack on women, October 14, 2010
• “I think this reason why girls don’t do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, ‘All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what’s it going to be?’ We all know what was chosen.” ~Rush Limbaugh, making another degrading comment about women, February 23, 1994

Rush to Shadenfreude

2003 statue of Humpty Dumpty,
by Minnesota artist Fiebirgir,
on display in Arizona

Almost 7 years ago today, back in June of 2009, I wrote about the resemblance between Rush Limbaugh and Humpty Dumpty.  Not only was there a distinct visual similarity, but the content spewed by Limbaugh was reminiscent of the earlier iteration of Humpty Dumpty, an exploding canon.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Used to be, in previous election cycles, anyone who crossed Rush Limbaugh (no matter how well deserved) sooner or later would kiss his ring (or his rear end).  Limbaugh was a king maker.  The majority of references to Limbaugh these days are not about deference to his political influence, but rather like Humpty Dumpty, about his "great fall".

Limbaugh is in professional trouble, trouble in part caused by 2012 candidate Mitt Romney's Bain Capital.  From March 2015:

Today, IHeart CEO Bob Pittman announced the company is closing its San Antonio headquarters. Pittman may never admit the company’s financial problems have anything to do Rush Limbaugh, even though Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, and a Sponsor Boycott Petition which contains 125,000 signatures, confirm social media campaigns are working. It should be noted iHeart/Clear Channel picked up quite a bit of their debt via Bain ‘Mitt Romney’ Capitol.

Remember when conservatives wanted us to trust in the wisdom of Romney and his business acumen?  Where did THAT get anyone -- anyone other than those who profited at Bain?  The same claim is made for Trump and HIS business expertise; Trump of course, given his spotty track record of failures and bankruptcies, would be even WORSE than Romney and his Bain cronies for the nation and our economy, both domestic and global.

And from Politico, last month:

...there are signs that all is not well in the Limbaugh radio empire. Because even as his influence is sky high and his dominance at the top of talk radio remains unchallenged, as a business proposition, Limbaugh’s show is on shaky ground. In recent years, Limbaugh has been dropped by several of his long-time affiliates, including some very powerful ones: He’s gone from WABC in New York, WRKO in Boston and KFI in Los Angeles, for example, and has in many cases been moved onto smaller stations with much weaker signals that cover smaller areas.

And from Media Matters this week:

The former Clear Channel network owns 850 radio stations across the country and the syndication rights to right-wing stars such as Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s the company, feasting on the fruits of media deregulation, gorged itself with profits. (It also bullied the music business for years.)
Since then, not so much. And what a brutal ride it’s been for investors:
Clear Channel stock price, January 2000: $90.
Clear Channel stock value, April 2007: $39.
iHeartMedia stock price, July 2011: $8.30.
iHeartMedia stock price at close of yesterday: $1.15.
The company hasn’t reported a profit since 2007. Today, iHeartMedia is busy selling off assets in an effort to shore up its bottom line. “It’s a case of burning your sofa to heat up the house,” Philip Brendel, a credit analyst recently told Bloomberg. “It’s not necessarily a good idea but you’re running out of options.”
The company’s woes date back to the Clear Channel leveraged buyout deal in 2008. It was overseen by private equity giants Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital, once headed by Mitt Romney. Coming just months before the U.S. financial crisis of September 2008, the Clear Channel deal couldn’t have been hatched at a worse time.

That influence appears to have changed, significantly if not suddenly.  Limbaugh is insignificant this election cycle, while conservatives, one after the other - most recently, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida - are sucking up instead to presumptive candidate Donald Trump the way they used to do to Limbaugh.  Limbaugh has conspicuously NOT come out either for OR against Trump, with speculation putting the reason for this as a fear on the part of Limbaugh that he will antagonize his listening audience, who appear split strongly for and against Trump.

We can only presume that the perennially financially strapped Rubio was bought off the way others have been by Trump.   Trump paid off the campaign debt of former rivals Christie and Carson; if not campaign debt, Rubio has been notorious for his perpetual person debt.  Although speculation, it is probable (imho) that money changed hands preceding the change of heart and position by Rubio.

However I can't find any mention of Rubio's capitulation, in spite of the fact that Limbaugh had referred to liking Rubio, and to Marco Rubio as recently as February 2016 with the following, after the Iowa primary: 

"I don’t see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative,"

And Limbaugh has been an apologist for Rubio when the Florida senator was taking flak for debate comments.  It has become conspicuous when contrasting Limbaugh's promotion of Rubio and his absence of support for 'the Donald'.  From May of this year:

Pushed by a caller Monday to endorse the presumptive GOP nominee, Limbaugh said: “I think it’s a moot point now. … In the words of a famous and well-known politician: What difference does it make now?”

...The caller wouldn’t let up, saying: “He needs your endorsement! It’s that important! And it’s about time you did it!”
“It’s not what I do,” said the conservative talk-show host, who praised Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in this primary season.

Apparently, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean whatever you want them to mean, and moot actually means self-serving and cowardly.  Or does moot mean it's usual meaning (to the rest of us)?

In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.

Trump, left; Limbaugh, right

But is it moot, because the candidacy is settled.............or moot because it doesn't matter any more in the slightest if Rush Limbaugh is pro or anti-Trump?

Loss of influence, loss of platform to spew toxic opinions, loss of money; it couldn't happen to two more deserving men.  We can indulge in a little shadenfreude over Rush, and look forward to the same thing happening to Trump.

Republicans, Rutting Like Pop Go the Weasles, on the Taxpayer Nickel

Minnesota celebrated the Ides of March with this article in the STrib about the peccadilloes at the Capital building, encompassed in THIS DOCUMENT.

Not only were the Republicans taking our money for not getting any important legislation done, causing the government stoppage last summer - and taking paychecks while they did nothing during it - now they want to ......oh, now what was it that Rush Limbaugh called it so very recently that conservatives did NOT criticize him for except with the mildest reproofs for the words slut and prostitute?

Oh, yes. I remember now.  Limbaugh made a very large, ugly noise about a female law student wanting to be paid to have sex, lots and lots and lots of sex.  Rush suggested a lack of ability to walk as a result, and he also called for on-line videos of it. 

He was insisting that Sandra Fluke was trying to get paid with tax payers money for having sex.

Now, of course she wasn't.  She was trying to get urgent and serious health care that involved hormone replacement therapy in the form of birth control pills for a friend who had a problem with cystic tumors on her ovaries, her GAY friend who was not likely to be at risk for conception in her romantic relationship, her gay friend who lost her ovary because of a lack of pharmaceutical coverage.

But isn't that exactly what Michael Brodkorb is doing, after actually having staffer sex - making a grab for taxpayer money?  Someone alert the media over at Clear Channel and Premier Radio!!!!  Dittoheads! Alert! Alert! By all means call your fearless leader, Viagra swilling Rush Limbaugh IMMEDIATELY!  I'm sure that the Rushjob and all of you dittohead conservatives are TERRIBLY CONCERNED about the abuse of the taxpayers when it is a conservative trying to get paid for his private sex life, right?

Oh, my! what a resounding NO that appears to be, when it is a conservative, a Republican.  Oh, my! What a resounding lack of the same treatment from conservatives for a man instead of a woman, a man WHO ACTUALLY HAD LOTS AND LOTS OF ILLICIT, ADULTEROUS SEX,  compared to the abuse given to a woman who hadn't done what Limbaugh accused her of doing.  Give males preferential treatment much, conservatives?   Double-standard much, ditto-heads?

I'd like to believe that you simply agree that what Limbaugh did was so wrong that Republicans don't care to repeat it, but that doesn't appear to be the case.  Republicans are still waging culture war on women, while giving men a free pass, regardless of men being the superior or the subordinate.

So, according to the STrib, Brodkorb is admitting what he did, which is wrong, and which actually WAS reasonable and legitimate grounds for firing him. 

The Republicans are claiming that wasn't why he was fired, he was fired because his position was eliminated - I'll skip the easy ugly word play - but they don't seem to deny that his position was eliminated precisely because he had an adulterous affair with Amy Koch, who then resigned her position, but continued to take money after.....what was that phrase that Limbaugh kept going back to over and over - after getting paid by taxpayers while apparently having wild adulterous sex with her subordinate co-worker for a period of time.

popsie

weasel

Having sex with your boss is wrong, and it does not appear that Brodkorb is alleging it was non-consensual, which would of course be a hard claim to sell.   So this is NOT sexual harassment being alleged for the payout and the payoff to Brodkorb.

Amy Koch is not admitting who her partner was, but she's been outed.  I'd like to know why she's still on the job after that kind of misconduct.  Presumably sleeping with your staffer violates the Human Resources rules in the legislature the same way it usually does in the private sector or union jobs in the public sector.  She should be removed from office through the ethics violation procedure, not simply self-demoted.

It is wrong for superiors to have sex with their subordinate employees because there is a conflict of interest in the supervision of that employee, there are questions about raises and job evaluations being compromised by a physical sexual relationship.  There are issues of favoritism, to the subordinate, that differ from the treatment of other employees, and there are issues of unequal power in the relationship.  There is the inappropriateness of sex in a workplace relationship.

And now there is the risk of a payout of $500,000 plus legal fees, plus the costs to the taxpayer for the legislature lawyering.

Michael Brodkorb, in a rare display of exactly how sleazy he is, is claiming that he was treated differently from ALL THE OTHER staffers and elected politicos who were going at it like minks on the desks and behind every marble column lining the hallways.

Really?  I don't approve of this rampant illicit tax-payer funded, tax-payer-$-risking illicit sex, no matter what partisan affiliation the participants espoused, and no matter if they had a spouse or not.  Because hopefully, those who are doing so will stop, if they have not already ceased their misconduct.

But NONE OF THEM were fired because their bosses were the leader of the Senate who voluntarily stepped down.  Those nameless, faceless, oversexed others MAY very well be guilty of misconduct, but apparently they are more discreet, they did not make it the same problem.  Wrong is wrong.  But someone else being wrong, someone else DOING wrong, doesn't excuse Michael Brodkorb.

He was an at-will hire, he can be fired for cause, or not for cause.  He was fired because his assignment was ended, in part through his own damned fault, for behaving badly.

We should all be extremely grateful that the legislature presumably provides health care coverage that includes contraception and STD testing, unlike college students, unlike so very many ordinary citizens, unlike at least some of the women victimized by Rush Limbaugh.

I suppose we should be grateful he had fewer involvements than Herman Cain; that was expensive, but not that I recall $500,000 worth.

Brodkorb is trying to do through legal means what would under other circumstances amounts to extortion.

I say bring it.  If he wants to play that game, do it.  I hope very much that the Republicans will not shield any more of their own from the consequences of their misconduct, and I wouldn't expect them to shield any Democrats.  Rather, I'd be expecting them to exploit any Democratic misconduct.

Some people feel that the Republican Party was really who hired and employed Michael Brodkorb.  I suppose we could expect them to pay for a settlement with the legal extortioner Brodkorb, except that the party of fiscal responsibility wasn't responsible, and is in the hole a few million dollars, not to mention the stiffing of the counties for those recount expenditures back in 2010, courtesy of power puppeteer Tony Sutton, who should depart into well deserved disgrace and oblivion.

That terrible raging concern you have to PRESERVE marriage by restricting legal relationships to one man and  one woman, denying anyone who is same-sex oriented the same loving committed LEGAL relationship?  That would better be served in our legislature by married people not committing adulter, and costing us up the sweet wazoo.

Botched and irresponsible fiscal dealings; family values boasting adulterers and fornicators; and of course the party of good government proving that they can't keep government running after the shut-down last summer, and that they cannot manage their employees, their Human Resources tasks either.  The Republicans are NOT the party of family values, they are the party of bigotry, hatred, and hypocrisy.  The Republicans are NOT the party of fiscal responsibility, they are the party of financial disaster and spending money they do not have.  The Republicans are NOT the party of good government; they've botched one thing after another.  They have failed to address the issues for which they were elected, notably jobs; and they have waged an unpopular culture war that parallels the one on the national scene that has earned the right such high disapproval ratings (except for the extremist fringies).

Michael Brodkorb is a sleazy, grasping, greedy gigolo who is trying to rip off the tax payers, the citizens, the residents of Minnesota.  Amy Koch is best left to Rush Limbaugh to characterize.  Tony Sutton is incompetent, and the GOP should get their outrageous salary back from him for his failures, and use it to pay the GOP debt.  The Republicans in the legislature should straighten up and start doing a better job than they have treated us all to - on our own nickel - since 2010 for the remaining time they have in office before they are kicked out in the November election.  At that time I expect them to take their ALEC-legislating corrupt selves off our public stage, get off their backs on their desks and sofas in their Capital office and meeting spaces, and take themselves OUT of our government.  YOU HAVE FAILED.

Unless they have the decency to do so sooner, but there isn't much indication of that happening; only more of the same old same old.

WE should not be out of pocket one nickel.  We should not be spending tax payer dollars that could better be spent to serve the citizens of Minnesota.  It is not the politicians and staffers who are screwing each other; WE are the ones being screwed, and that is what has to stop.  Or at the very least, they should provide us contraceptives and other reproductive care the way they do themselves, that allow the legislators and the staffers to have lots of wild sex on the taxpayer $, services that should be available as a public health concern, to benefit us, with our own money.

And the hypocrite windbag Limbaugh is silent on the topic.  Such sweet silence, and all the quieter without the noise from those advertisers marketing those goods and services. 

It's NOT 40 Advertisers GONE; It's 140 Advertisers Abandoning Rush!

Apparently the number of advertisers eager to see Rush in their rear view mirror is now up to 141, not 140. I received this update from Think Progress just this afternoon.  I'm still deeply offended not only at his comments but that he is still on the air, and that he has EVER,  much less in 2012, been invited to be a beauty pageant judge.

I wonder how long Mitt and his Bain-buddies who own the Rush entertainment syndication are going to be satisfied.  Remember that line, from Mitts O'Money, about how he likes to fire people who don't give him good service? 

I'd love to see people send Mitt and his Bain-buddies, and the people at Clear Channel Radio and Premiere Radio matches, just simple individual or books or small matchboxes full of matches, as a gesture to persuade them to say bye-bye to Limbaugh.  And that goes for the rest of their media extremists who are consistently insulting and factually inaccurate as well.

In a very real way, this is not just a repudiation, a rejection, and a deep criticism of Limbaugh.  THIS is also a push-back against those listeners who agreed with Limbaugh, those listeners who never did believe he was kidding or exaggerating in his statements, but rather found them quite consistent with his other views, particularly towards women and minorities.

The hard-core ditto-heads may not ever change their minds, they are unlikely ever to 'get it' that they are not decent human beings, or that they have heinous views that are toxic and corrosive to other people and to this nation.  But clearly, there is a trend, a trend started by the fall of Glenn Beck to well-deserved obscurity.

Rush should follow Beck into that marginalized obscurity, and those like him.

Rush On The Rocks

Mar 13, 2012

By ThinkProgress War Room
Advertiser Exodus Grows Exponentially

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Rush Limbaugh’s vile, sexist attacks on Sandra Fluke and other women have taken a severe toll on his show.

Here’s the latest.

At least 140 Companies Have Dumped Limbaugh

ThinkProgress has obtained an internal memo from Premiere Radio Networks listing 96 national companies that have “specifically asked” their advertisements not be played during the Rush Limbaugh Show. Premiere is the distributor of Limbaugh’s program. The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. According to the memo, the listed companies’ advertisements should be excluded from these programs because they have been “deemed to be offensive.”

With these 96 new companies bailing on Limbaugh, the total number of advertisers boycotting Limbaugh has reached at least 140.
In ‘Unusual’ Move, Limbaugh’s Syndicator Suspends National Advertising for Two Weeks

Radio-Info.com reports that Premiere Networks, which syndicates the Rush Limbaugh show, told its affiliate radio stations that they are suspending national advertising for two weeks. Rush Limbaugh is normally provided to affiliates in exchange for running several minutes of national advertisements provided by Premiere each hour. These ads are called “barter spots.” These spots are how Premiere makes its money off of Rush Limbaugh and other shows it syndicates.

But without explanation, Premiere has suspended these national advertisements for two weeks. Radio-Info.com calls the move “unusual.” The development suggests that Rush Limbaugh’s incessant sexist attacks on Sandra Fluke have caused severe damage to the show.

Just 29 Percent Say Limbaugh’s ‘Apology’ to Sandra Fluke Was Sincere

According to a new Rasmussen poll out today, just 29 percent of likely voters believe Limbaugh’s apology was earnest, while 53 percent think it was insincere.

Another Day, Another Sexist Comment from Limbaugh

Shortly before referring to himself as “God’s gift to women” during today’s show, Limbaugh had this to say about the National Organization for Women:

and here is the memo referenced in the above news:

Premiere Networks List Of Advertisers Asking Not To Advertise On Limbaugh And Other Right-Wing Hosts

and also from Think Progress, here are some other companies waving bye-bye with their money:

21st Century Insurance • Hotels.com • Rite Aid • Ace Hardware • Honda • Robitussin • Acura • IBM • Sam Adams • Advance Auto Parts • Icy Hot • Sam’s Club • Advil (All products) • Intuit/Small Business • Schiff – Digestive Advantage • Alacer/Emergen-C • Schiff – Mega Red • Allegra (all products) • Johnson & Johnson (All Brands) • Schiff – Move Free • Kohl’s • Schiff – Sustenex • Ally Bank • La Quinta • Scotts Miracle-Gro (all products) • American Express • Lifetime • Autozone • Little Caesars • Sony • Lowe’s • State Farm • British Petroleum • Luxottica • Staples • Bullfrog Sunblock • Macy’s • Sterling/Kay Jared Jewelers • Caltrate • MasterCard • Subway • Centrum • McDonalds • Takeda Uloric • Chapstick • Midas • The Home Depot • Clorox (Pinesol/Homecare) • Napa Auto Parts • ThermaCare • Cortizone • National Realtor • Toyota • DeVry • NBC-TV • Discover Card • Office Depot • Twinings of London • Domino’s Pizza • Office Max • Tyson/Wright Brand Bacon • Exxon/Exxon Mobil • One Main Financial • Unisom • Farmers Insurance • United Healthcare • Ford • Orkin • U.S. Army • Outback • U. S. Postal Service • General Motors (All products -GM Certified Service • Chevy • Onstar • Cadillac • etc) • Preparation H • Visa • Gold Bond (all products • ProNutrients (all products) • Walgreens • Grainger • Progressive Insurance • Wal-Mart • Green Mountain Coffee • Prudential • Wells Fargo • Hallmark • Radio Shack • Wrigley • H&R Block • Rent-A-Center • Yahoo!

Rush said the few advertisers who left were like losing a few french fries at the drive through window.

Rush's order of spuds seems down to this, labeled on google as 'Ed the Sarcastic French Fry'; he looks pretty lonely, and a little scared, or maybe just ticked off, and nasty. Just like Rush.

:

Limbaugh is not too big to fail: 34 Advertisers and Counting Leave

Voting with money, voting with one's feet, works as well in an election year as any ballot at a polling place.

If enough people express their position on this, if enough companies decide to look at consumer response instead of only short term profits, then people win, then the marketplace and free speech combined both work.  One station in Washington actually is POLLING listeners about dumping Rush, specifically.

If Rush Limbaugh is the proponent of capitalism and the free markets, then he has to acknowledge when it tells him he is bad and when he is wrong (and he is both, doubling down on his misogyny in subsequent broadcasts).

The best twist of all is that in his apology, Limbaugh satisfied no one.  In his apology, apparently he finished himself, he shot himself down with his listeners, his rabid rabble of reactionaries, to whom he had pandered with his rants in the first place.  Apparently they are angry with him for 'caving'.  It never was about being a joke, or being absurd, what Limbaugh said.  He was ALWAYS absolutely serious in his statements, and now they don't like it that he is claiming he was joking.  They weren't joking, not one bit, they really believe that what he said was true, they really hold those opinions of women and sexuality and contraception.  They are a certain stripe of conservatives, stripes like those that would be found on a diseased, ill-tempered skunk.  In Missouri, Limbaugh's home state, a state legislator wants to induct Limbaugh into a hall of fame for famous people from Missouri, ranging from Harry Truman to Dredd Scott.  There is a petition, one of so very many petitions, to stop that inclusion in the Hall of Fame; I hope Penigma readers will take a few moments to sign it.  There is a huge difference between the sex tourist with the suitcase full of Viagra who cruises the Caribbean for underage girls, and who makes the kind of attacks Limbaugh does, and two of the most revered figures in our history.  The heroes are famous; Limbaugh is merely notorious, a celebrity of sorts, but in a bad way.

There are a few conservatives who are better than that, who aren't afraid of Limbaugh, like Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who more emphatically condemned Limbaugh for his appalling words.  There ARE principled conservatives, but the conservative side of the aisle has largely been hijacked by special interests, as evidenced by the ALEC legislation they funnel for special interest big money, both corporate and individual, and by extremist culture war ideologues.  Moderates are not welcome and women are not tolerated if they fail to fall in line, which  more than explains the retirement of Olympia Snowe from the Senate, a blow to Republicans, because they do not have a strong candidate to replace her, and are not likely to find one.

As of this writing we are at 34 sponsors who have abandoned Limbaugh - you can read the list here, with more contemplating doing so.  There is not a big pool of people, other than Nut Gingrich's SuperPAC who want to take up that slack.  It was the same kind of advertiser boycott in response to similar excesses by Glenn Beck that led to his eventual disgrace with Faux News, and the loss of listeners.  Beck became an embarrassment; Limbaugh is becoming an embarrassment, for his arrogance, his over-reach with his hatred. 

Beck used to think he had a loyal power base; they left him.  Limbaugh thinks he has a loyal power base; he puts the number of his listeners at 20,000,000.  That number is false, it is inaccurate, and it is grossly overinflated.

Unlike big banks, Limbaugh is NOT too big to fail.  The 34 Advertiser number, that is growing; the listener numbers, that is not.  When the money stops being generated, when the influence is no longer perceived to be real, Rush goes down that long circular swirl into well-earned, well deserved drain of obscurity.  Romney, and Bain Capital, and the Republicans who have had to be nice to Rush even if they didn't really like him...well, let's just say that I don't see them keeping a toothless attack dog on their leash.

Update to Limbaugh - 2 stations dump him, 11 - 12 Advertisers quit him

According to ThinkProgress, the bad ship Rush Limbaugh begins its slow swirl down the drain into obscurity, with a total of an even dozen advertisers leaving, and now two radio stations dumping him.

The trend appears to be continuing, he hasn't hit bottom yet.

An interesting aspect to the Rush Limbaugh show is the claim that he has 20 million listeners.  Apparently that is an unsubstantiated number that exists only in press releases from the Limbaugh radio show, which, given the most casual and rare acquaintance he demonstrates with facts, makes the number less believable.

Here is the summary from ThinkProgress of the rats, or in this case, the MONEY, that is leaving the Titanic Limbaugh.  First the news update/ news flash:

Second radio station drops Limbaugh

Earlier today, a Hawaii radio station announced they would no longer air Rush Limbaugh’s radio show because he “crossed a line of decency.” Now, a second radio station — in Pittsfield, Massachusetts — has said it is no longer going to put up with Limbaugh’s antics. “The nature of Rush’s programming has always presented challenges for us and he’s always pushed the envelope. But this time he’s taken it too far,” said WBEC’s General Manager Peter Barry. Armed Forces Radio is also under pressure by VoteVets to pull Limbaugh out of its programming.

A Hawaiian station, why that's Obama's home state.  A Massachusetts station?  But ... but.......isn't that ROMNEY territory?
A rumored dozen advertisers have left; although there is some question as to one of the companies being cited widely actually having been an advertiser.  Here is the ThinkProgress list:
Moments ago, Bonobos, a men’s outfitter, announced on Twitter that it was dropping any of its advertisements that are appearing on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show:

Scott Candage

@ScottCandage 5 Mar 12 .@Bonobos Thank you very much for that. Very gladdening to hear. Let us know your findings, if you could.

Bonobos

✔@Bonobos @ScottCandage Looks like we were running on it, but we've told them to pull us from the show indefinitely. Thanks for letting us know!

5 Mar 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Sears announced that they, too, are dropping Limbaugh:

Sears and Kmart did not intentionally advertise on the Rush Limbaugh show. Sears Holdings has taken actions to ensure our ads do not run on this show. We appreciate our customers, fans and followers and thank you for your business.

According to a ThinkProgress count, Bonobos and Sears are the 10th and 11th advertisers to drop Limbaugh in the wake of his sexist and hateful attacks on Sandra Fluke.

Other companies are considering doing so, and monitoring the protests of Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh’s Advertisers Facing Social Media Firestorm


By Adam Peck on Mar 2, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Rush Limbaugh’s latest misogynistic tirade against Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke may be the last straw for many of the shock jock’s corporate sponsors. Thousands of angry customers have been inundating dozens of Limbaugh’s corporate sponsors, demanding that they cut ties with the program.

So far, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Carbonite, ProFlowers, Tax Resolution, AOL, Bonobos, Sears, and Allstate Insurance have pulled ads from the program, and several others are considering following their lead.

ThinkProgress is collecting reactions from social media sites like Twitter and Facebook on Storify. Here’s a look at some responses so far:

Other companies though have been slow to react, or are simply ignoring mounting feedback.

We need to take a stand now against his revolting behavior. Sign our petition and let Sandra Fluke know that you are on her side.
Update

An earlier version of this post listed the Cleveland Cavaliers as one of the companies that dropped Limbaugh, based on a report from WFNY. Although the Cavaliers have the same owner as Quicken Loans, WFNY’s report was subsequently removed. It does not appear that the Cavaliers advertised on Limbaugh’s show

Limbaugh - Romney Surrogate? GOP Enforcer? All of the Above?Absurd?Obscene? They sound similar, but they mean very different things

I think there is an excellent case to be made that Romney and Limbaugh are inextricably linked by money and influence.  Limbaugh appears to function as both a Romney surrogate, stating the things that Romney and conservatives want said, but doesn't want to be caught saying them.  It appears equally evident that Limbaugh is a hatchet man, a political enforcer, given the number of right wingers he's forced to recant and to conform. 

In the following clip, I was particularly intrigued with the observations of Michelle Bernard, a woman prominent in conservative and independent politics,  a woman of color, and as she notes here - a graduate of the same Georgetown University Law School attended by Ms. Fluke.  Ms. Bernard has had both public and private interactions with Limbaugh which apply to this controversy.  Those comments occur approximately 7 minutes into this clip, but watch the lead in as well to those 7 minutes; it is well worth it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It is not only the conservative Ms. Bernard who makes the observations about Limbaugh as enforcer; similar observations have come from a variety of conservative pundits, like this interview with George Will:

ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

Limbaugh doesn't appear to be the only one that Romney has on a Bain-owned leash; Hannity and the disgraced Glenn Beck are on the same radio shows roster.  While Romney's holdings are operated by a blind trust, it is no secret that approx. 45% of his holdings are Bain Capital.

The latest efforts to be a surrogate, and to be an enforcer have appeared to backfire, if the intent was to create a controversy that would energize the base for Romney and the GOP.  Advertisers are departing, and continuing to suspend their business, in some cases terminating business, despite the non-apology apology.

The wording between Romney and Limbaugh has been similar; that they woulda coulda shoulda used different words.  It was not only the choice of words that is the problem; it was the intent, it was the concept, it was the entire position.

Sandra Fluke spoke about contraception used for non-contraceptive therapeutic use.  She spoke about a woman who needed it in order to preserve her remaining ovary due to an ovarian condition, a disease.  The woman in question who needed but could not afford contraceptive therapy for that condition is gay; I do not know as of this writing if she is married or not.  Ms. Fluke did not assert that she was seeking contraception coverage for her own sexual activity, or indeed for any one's sexual activity specifically.  She wanted an important form of medication to be available to students who needed it.  What Limbaugh said was a gross misrepresentation of fact, and how he said it was an extremely offensive personal attack.  That the attack came from a man who appears to have been a Dominican Republic sex tourist, stopped with an unusually large amount of Viagra by Homeland Security in 2006, which you can read about here.  The Dominican Republic is notorious not only for its sexual tourism, but specifically for the availability and sexploitation of underage girls.

In that context, I found Limbaugh's observations about underage girls and sex that he made on March 1, 2012 particularly disturbing:

"Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?"

So not only do we have a leap that a young woman who is seeking hormone therapy to help her friend save her ovaries from disease, pain, and expensive surgery; not only do we have an unfounded leap that this woman is sexually promiscuous; we have Limbaugh publicly asserting that this woman has been sexually active since she was 11 or 12 years old.  But he would have us believe this is not a personal attack on her, or that it is not an attack on girls and women?  He wants us to believe that this was......some kind of attempted humor, and that he is the real victim here?  NO. NO WAY. HELL NO.

The right would have us believe there is no 'culture war on women'; the evidence that there is very much a war on women is to overwhelming for that denial to be credible.  The right would have us believe this is a ploy by the left to shift attention away from the economy-----except that the topic has been brought up, consistently, by the right, not the left.  The economic news is largely better for the policies of the left than the right; no way that the left wants to change the subject now.  These are 'spaghetti' arguments; throw  half-cooked ideas at the public, like a wall, and see what sticks.  NOTHING ABOUT THE APOLOGY FROM LIMBAUGH HAS BEEN CREDIBLE OR PERSUASIVE. Even  Limbaugh's fellow conservatives are not buying it, and his advertisers continue to leave him, one after the other, despite his crappy non-apology apology.

But there was more that was offensive, more that exceeds, by vast distances, the notion of a mere bad choice of words' line of crap from both Romney and Limbaugh.  From the wikipedia article on the Limbaugh Fluke controversy - and yes, there IS one :

He continued that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk".

Seriously, THIS from the man who was engaging in apparent sexual tourism with huge quantities of Viagra, in a third world country noted for underage prostitutes?

He also said Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlain scholarship ... exclusively for women". He described Fluke as "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."[15]

Using her name so very frequently, with the false but very explicit statements that he does, that IS a personal attack.  It is the kind of attack, the specific use of sexual language that women recognize as a very specific form of intimidation, one that often goes with sexual harassment when it occurs in the work place.  It is nearly always something that the abuser, the harasser tries to pass off as just a little humor, in order to excuse his conduct.  Excusing one's conduct is not taking responsibility for that conduct, and in any apology, it negates that apology.  Effectively it says, 'I'm sorry for what I did wrong, except that I'm not sorry, and what I did was not wrong, and you're bad for making me the victim of what I did that wasn't wrong."

Limbaugh continued with his very personal attack on Ms. Fluke with factually inaccurate and not funny comments claiming rampant promiscuity, like these (again from the wikipedia article):

On March 3, 2012, Limbaugh defended his previous comments about Fluke and complained that "not one person says that, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?". Limbaugh said that requiring insurance companies to cover contraception is "no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.' "

And we are supposed to believe that Limbaugh ISN'T the person projecting HIS OWN sexual proclivities here?  It is his mind, not Sandra Fluke's, that went in this direction.
As of this writing, some nine advertisers have left Limbaugh, and others are considering doing so.  We can only hope all of the advertisers have the sense to do so, the decency to do so, and are more skeptical of these statements that are not political humor, and are very much an attack on an individual of the worst kind, and an attack on the residents of this country who are female as well.  Limbaugh promotes the worst women-as-subordinate women-as-sexual conquest-for-exploitation  view.  He does so, because there is a segment of his base that thinks the same way, and there are far too many others among the Limbaugh audience who do not object, or do not object much to that world view.  While Limbaugh may have miscalculated - or maybe not - he was correct that there was an audience among his listeners to whom he directed the rants, Rush fans who DID go on record in agreement with those statements, as fact, as political ideology, NOT as humor.  Those were the people to whom Limbaugh was pandering, and those are the people among the conservative base to whom all of the candidates are pandering.  So were these.  This is the basis, the world view, the ideology for the right wing attack on women, on feminists, on gender and sexual equality. This is the pro-perversion segment of the ultra-conservative right.  It is not by any stretch all conservatives; but it is an accurate characterization of many more than the ones who are open and vocal.

But it is not only Limbaugh and his radio show and his advertisers who should be held accountable; Romney and his buddies at Bain, through their ownership of Clear Channel, are the ones who have profited by this, not just Limbaugh.  They have made money, and one could argue that they have made REPEATED political use - political capital - out of Limbaugh and the other extremists  in their employ who are the sock puppets for their ventriloquism.  This is an ideology that is reactionary, this is an ideology that is attempting to reverse the gender and racial equality of the past century, this is an ideology of hatred.

We need to call it what it is; we need to recognize it when we see it in the public square of politics, and most of all we need to identify and oppose the mechanism by which it works.  We do all of those things when we make the connections between the parties involved, and the working of the money flow and the power dynamic instead of regarding these events with only superficial understanding.

It is time for Limbaugh to be as 'over' as his colleague Glenn Beck.  Hannity and O'Reilly shouldn't be far behind in their departures to obscurity.  The line should form, appropriately, to the right for all the other right wing media hate mongers.  The exodus and the impetus needs to begin with the advertisers, continue with their audience, and end with those who made money from this ideology enforcement and surrogate speech repudiating the talking heads, emphatically, not sorta-kinda-maybe-justa-little.

Limbaugh Almost Apologizes...Sort of....But NOT REALLY

cross posted from MNPoliticalRoundtable:

I heard it on the radio news a few hours ago, and this article from the AP expanded on the information. Rush was just making 'a joke'. NO, Rush Limbaugh was not making a 'joke' for three days; he was on a nasty, vicious rant that was intended to be critical and intended to be anything but funny. But he was facing pressure, including advertiser pressure and pressure from both the Democrats and at least some Republicans in Congress. President Obama had personally phoned the young woman with his encouragement and praise, which further sent Rush's head spinning and then exploding with rage. Rage is not making a joke. Calling someone a slut, a prostitute, and suggesting that because college aged women - some of whom are married - use contraception which is a medically prescribed pharmaceutical under many health insurance policies, they should have sex recorded on video tapes and played for the public is not something said as humor. Especially it was not intended as humor the way it was said, with the venom and hatred and viciousness with which it was said, clearly intended to demean and humiliate, and yes, even intimidate women as part of the right wing culture war that seeks to put women in a subordinate place through such degrading attempts to establish an alternate 'cultural norm'. That would be the same norm I just wrote about where older men manipulate and exploit younger women, where women are objects of conquest, and where subordinating and dominating women is necessary to men feeling powerful and important and in charge. From the AP story:

Limbaugh apologizes to law student for insult

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press – 4 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program. The student, Sandra Fluke, had testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control. "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," Limbaugh said on his website. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Really? Because it doesn't sound anything like Limbaugh is genuinely sorry about anything; his apology spends far more time trying to rewrite what happened and to deny his responsibility for how wrong he was, how wrong he is. Limbaugh continued, quoted in the same AP article:

"In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom, nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level," he said.

Apparently I'm not the only one unpersuaded of either his sincerity in making the apology, or of his intentions in the original statements. The AP article also noted:

Limbaugh's critics were not swayed by his statement. "In all seriousness, this isn't an apology. It's a public relations statement. It's hollow and deceitful. Don't be fooled," tweeted the account StopRush, the effort online to pressure advertisers to abandon the popular host. And even after the apology, some advertisers still planned to abandon Limbaugh. "Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show," Carbonite CEO David Friend said on his company's Facebook page. "We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."

What is really telling in the course of the Limbaugh obscenity in the guise of a radio show however was this:

"In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom, nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level," he said.

And yet, we never hear Limbaugh talking about the social issues of using Viagra, which was originally developed as a cardiovascular drug for its vaso dilating properties, which accidentally turned out to have a secondary use for treating erectile dysfunction. There is a good account of the origins of Viagra development here. And the Wikipedia article on the drug, under the name Sildenafil, has a whole section on the recreational use of Viagra - which appears to be the same recreational use that Limbaugh himself acquired it for, without a valid prescription. Pay particular attention to the part below about ILLEGAL DRUG USERS - which included Rush Limbaugh, sex tourist. If Rush had a legitimate and valid medical problem at the time he made his sex tourist trip where he was caught with an enormous quantity of Viagra, he would and could have gotten normal medicinal amounts from a doctor's prescription of his own - and he probably could have had it paid for by his health insurance IF IT WERE FOR A REAL MEDICAL PROBLEM INSTEAD OF RECREATIONAL USE AS A SEX TOURIST. The recreational uses of Viagra qualify as 'social decisions'; the medical use of contraception, particularly the very large number of therapeutic alternative uses of birth control pills, for various hormone therapies, does not. This is entirely about a double standard for women, about controlling women, about restricting women. It IS precisely about keeping women barefoot and pregnant. It is entirely about a world view double standard of women being sinful if they have sex, but not men. From wikipedia:

Recreational use

Sildenafil's popularity with young adults has increased over the years.^[24] Sildenafil's trade name "Viagra" is widely recognized in popular culture, and the drug's association with treating erectile dysfunction has led to its recreational use.^[25] The reasons behind such use include the belief that the drug increases libido, improves sexual performance,^[25] or permanently increases penis size^{[citation needed]}. Studies on the effects of viagra when used recreationally are limited, but suggest that it has little effect when used by those not suffering from erectile dysfunction. In one study, a 25 mg dose was shown to cause no significant change in erectile quality, but did reduce the post-ejaculatory refractory time.^[26] This study also noted a significant placebo effect in the control group.^[26] Unprescribed recreational use of sildenafil and other PDE-5 Inhibitors is noted as particularly high among users of illegal drugs.^[27][28] Sildenafil is sometimes used to counteract the effects of other substances, often illicit.^[25] Some users mix it with methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy), other stimulants, or opiates in an attempt to compensate for the common side effect of erectile dysfunction, a combination known as "sextasy", "rockin' and rollin'," or "trail mix."^[25] Mixing with amyl nitrite is particularly dangerous and potentially fatal.^[25]

That makes this quote particularly offensive and hypocritical:

"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities," he said. "What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"

I can't recall Viagra-abusing Rush ever arguing that Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs should be excluded from being covered by insurance, especially if the men are not married. Nor do any of the other fat old mostly white conservative men who banned Ms. Fluke from testifying before Congress about the NON-Sexual therapeutic uses by college women of hormone therapy through birth control pills ever hold hearings about male sexual social decisions, or contraception, or insurance coverage. Rush is right about one thing; it IS NOT his business to criticize women's use of medication. Like abortion, or any other moral and medical matter, it is between women and their doctors and women and their chosen moral advisers. What women don't need is the obscene world view of big old ugly misogynistic men like Rush OR the government interfering in those choices. It is doubly heinous when they do so by lying and misrepresenting what those choices are, because they don't have a valid position if they treat those choices with any accuracy. Responsible health choices, including responsible sexual choices, should be encouraged as a matter of public health policy. It is not a religious issue; religion is a private, non-governmental matter. Public health issues ARE properly within the purview of government policy, and in the case of insurance, also of regulating interstate commerce. I hope the public does not accept this poor excuse for an apology from Rush Limbaugh. I dearly hope that the pressure on him continues, and that he continues to lose his advertising support. It would be nice, but is probably too much to expect, that some of his listeners would be offended and leave him. They're largely a lost cause if they find him entertaining OR informative. Like the reason Rush Limbaugh needed all that Viagra for his sexual performance, his apology is far too little, too late, and fails to satisfy those on the receiving end of his efforts. With a bit more pressure from those who were offended, like his recreational use of Viagra as an illegal drug was dangerous to his health, his obscene attack on Ms. Fluke might be hazardous to his career health. I for one hopes he justly and justifiably goes the route to obscurity that Glenn Beck has, and soon.

Conservative Perversion

Earlier this week I was intrigued by the coverage of older men having sex with underage girls in Minnesota, done by MPR, courtesy of Dan Kraker:

"A courthouse shooting in Grand Marais last December shocked the small North Shore town. But the consequences now resonate far beyond the violence. The gunman was in his 30s when he was found guilty of having sex with a 15-year-old girl, and the news shed light a pattern in the town of older men sexually pursuing underage girls. A young woman, who asked not to be identified (above), said she became involved with older men but found it hard to distinguish between "new and exciting, and, 'I'm scared; this isn't OK.' " (Derek Montgomery for MPR News)

A man convicted of sex with a 15 year old girl shot three people, because he didn't like being convicted.  He shot those people, partly because it seems he didn't see anything wrong with what he did, and partly because other people were not caught and convicted for the same thing. 

He had a feeling, and he had a gun, and he felt entitled to use it, the same way far too many people wrongly feel entitled to use firearms against other people in this country when they feel aggrieved.  We have murders by stalkers, we have weekly murder suicides in this country.  Many of those acts of violence are committed with legally owned, legally purchased firearms.

This one event, and the excellent coverage given to it by MPR struck me for several reasons.  There is a pervasive attitude towards women and towards girls, and towards sex among a segment of people in this country that is fundamentally sick, twisted, perverted.  The majority of people comprising this segment are men.  It struck me that this same segment tends to be very big on having and using guns, and that their gun attitudes seem to be an extension of their debased attitudes towards women, the two topics are intertwined.

We have for example, Rush Limbaugh who believes that if a young woman wishes to use contraception, even if it is not for the purpose of having committed and responsible sex, including inside marriage, that she must be a slut, a prostitute.  No surprise, Rush is anti- women, at least as equal human beings, including sexually; and he is pro-gun.  That would be the same sex tourist to the notorious area catering to underage women supplied to men, the trip taken with huge quantities of Viagra by Rush, who demeans women routinely, who wants to keep women in their subordinate place, and who, judging by his multiple failed marriages, has problems with intimate relationships with women.

It's not a big reach to believe that the men in northern Minnesota who see nothing wrong with using behavior categorized as 'grooming' behavior to take advantage of women, women who are vulnerable and afraid when they enter these very unequal relationships.  Women who clearly, as evidenced by the shootings in the Cook County Courthouse have not only the social risks to fear, but guns and other violence to fear.

The Grand Marais story describes the sexual exploitation of women and girls.  The report quoted below is from the Virginia Department of Health, from the Coordinator of the Sexual Violence Prevention program; it describes how older men younger women exploitation works perfectly, who does it, and who is vulnerable to being victimized by it.  Look at the description below, and then look at the Grand Marais story details:

Recognizing sexual coercion and exploitation
Anytime an adult has a sexual relationship with someone who is underage, it is a form of exploitation, even if no overtly coercive behavior appears to be involved. The adult is using the sexual and emotional inexperience of the teen to get something from them.

􀂙 The teen herself may not (probably doesn’t) see the relationship as exploitive or coercive.
􀂙 Many feel flattered that they are getting this affirmation of their attractiveness and maturity.
􀂙 Even if the teen recognizes that the relationship is going too fast, or that it feels scary or uncomfortable, they will probably not express these feelings for fear of seeming “immature” or “unworthy” of the attention.
􀂙 The exploiter will probably use grooming techniques to override resistance or objections on part of the young teen.
Threats: “I’ll tell everyone that you’re a slut if you don’t do it.”
Bribes: “I’ll take you to the prom.”
Status: “Hey, the other girls would kill to go out with me.”
Flattery: “You’re so sexy, I thought you were at least 18”
Intimidation: “no one will be able to hear you…”

An expanded description of grooming behavior follows:

Stages of “grooming” behavior
(note: the language below refers to the victim as “she” and perpetrator as “he,” but both may be of either gender).

Stage One: Testing
This is the tactic a sexual predator uses to “test” someone, to see if she is vulnerable. During this stage, the perpetrator will try to cross the teen’s boundaries in various ways: making sexual statements or innuendoes; giving inappropriate gifts; flattery; offering help with schoolwork; seeming to be emotionally nurturing or understanding; touching in seemingly “friendly” ways.

Stage Two: Desensitization
Desensitization is the tactic used to get someone “accustomed” to sexually coercive behavior. During this stage the offender tries to make the teen feel less sensitive to intrusive acts by minimizing her reactions to the offensive behavior—“I’m just being friendly!” The teen may begin to question her feelings, or to feel that she may be overreacting. The perpetrator will probably belittle the teen if she expresses doubt about sexual behaviors to force her to “prove” that she’s “worthy” of the attention he’s bestowing on her. He may also pretend to feel hurt, in order to make the teen feel guilty.

Stage Three: Isolation
Isolation means removing someone from sources of safety and support. The perpetrator may attempt to convince the teen that her friends are “immature” and that someone as mature as she should hang out with older teens/adults. He may insist that he is the only one who really cares about or understands her. Any objections the teen may express on behalf of herself or her family (“my parents told me I couldn’t date anyone older than me”) will be put down. If her friends try to convince her that she’s being taken advantage of, he will try to alienate her from them.

Stage Four: Control
Once the perpetrator has been successful in attempts to coerce the teen into a sexual relationship, he will usually try to maintain control over her with additional manipulative techniques. These may include:

• possessiveness • jealousy • further isolation from friends • threats and intimidation • threats of self-harm • expressions of love • anger and violence • gifts and bribery • playing on teen’s insecurity • constant presence
Sexual coercion may or may not include the use of force, threat, or intimidation. It may or may not include the use of “date rape drugs” to facilitate sexual assault. Alcohol is the most widely used “date rape drug.”

Other forms of sexual coercion may take place in the context of an abusive relationship. These forms include expressing anger, manipulating by appealing to sympathy (“you don’t love me”), jealousy and possessiveness and other controlling behaviors, including physical violence.

When I read and hear the comments of Rush Limbaugh, and the comments in support of his statements by conservatives who are waging culture war on women, what I hear is demeaning, what I hear is the reactionary concepts of masculinity and femininity, and the notions of sexuality as something dirty. That definition that is personified by Rush Limbaugh is described in that Virginia Department of Health Report under who is an abuser:

Who is at risk for being an exploiter?
Some of the same risk factors for being exploited apply to exploiters as well.

􀂙 Older teens who may not feel confident of their ability to attract and maintain a relationship with an equal may turn to someone younger as a way to bolster self-esteem.
􀂙 Men/older boys who have rigid, stereotyped views of masculinity may see the “conquest” of a young girl as an affirmation of their masculinity.
􀂙 Older teens and adults who have control issues may find it easier to control someone who is younger.
􀂙 Adults who have not been successful in their relationships with other adults may turn to preying on young teens.

These pro-Rush conservatives see relationships between men and women as one of conquest, not a relationship of equals.  These conservatives waging culture war on women have no problem denying women easy access to contraception, which puts women under the control of men because of an inability to have control over their own bodies, their reproductive choices.  These conservatives waging culture war on women seek to humiliate and violate women through trans vaginal ultrasounds, through demeaning and insulting factually inaccurate government intrusion into their medical decisions relating to sex and reproduction.  These conservatives are the people who are trying to make it legal to commit certain kinds of rape, including statutory rape and date-drug rape where a woman is incapacitated. These are the conservatives who want to repeal equal pay for equal work laws, so that women can be financially controlled by men, and be financially less secure, and less independent by being unable to earn a fair wage for equal work.

So it should come as no surprise that where women are viewed as conquests, as conquered, as people to be controlled and exploited for male sexual gratification, as less then equals, that violence and intimidation are also present either overt threat, or by implication.  The numbers of women who are victims of intimate partner violence, of domestic abuse, of murders and  murder/suicides and stalking involving firearms is a matter of record.  It so very often involves men who possess firearms; that is not an accidental correlation.

According to the UNICEF Report on Women and Violence from June 2000:

“Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to  domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women...”

The United Nations Declaration on the EliminationGeneral Assembly Resolution, December 1993.

and in describing violence and gender based relationships

"violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men." It broadens the definition of violence by including both the physical and psychological harm done towards women, and it includes acts in both private and public life. The Declaration defines violence against women as encompassing, but not limited to, three areas:
violence occurring in the family,
within the general community, and
violence perpetrated or condoned by the State.

Whether it is the norm of sexuality espoused and demonstrated by Rush Limbaugh in his words past and present, and in his actions in the past, or the norms promoted by the older men exploiting younger and underaged female partners in Grand Marais, we have precisely the above-described attitudes of violence and exploitation of women.  In the legislative efforts of the so-called conservative and often religiously dominionist right wing extremists, also personified by Rush Limbaugh but also by many others, including those who have advanced subordinating legislation or efforts to repeal protective legislation for women, we have the State approved violence and subordination of women by conservatives.  It is no accident that their gun agenda supports that history of intimidation and violence, whether they express is specifically or not.   Whether it is Rush Limbaugh, or Rick Santorum, or Nut Gingrich, or Mitt's full of money Romney, or the conservatives trying to wage culture war on women at the local, state and federal level, we have men oppressing women in the most perverse possible way.

We have the choise, to return to the violent, exploitive, oprressive and unequal days of pre-feminism, of pre-equality where women are humiliated, exploited, demeaned and kept subordinate.  OR, we can recognize and oppose the conservative agenda for what it is, in the culture war on women, and in their ancillary pro-gun efforts for what they are.  The right abuses the word freedom, but they are trying to make us anything but free; they pervert the word, they pervert the concept, they pervert the most intimate relations between men and women, they pervert the value and dignity of human sexuality.

Don't let them.