Better late than never? How about better never? (for either of them)

That Trump is a con artist, deadbeat businessman, and now apparently made his money by mob connections is not new. It's been known in the business world for a long time. So Mitt -- good on you for calling out Trump, but WHY did you pal around with him as a prominent supporter LAST election cycle?

Just Sayin'

Via Vice News and Our Principles PAC, founded by Mitt Romney's deputy campaign manager, Katie Packer.

It says it all.

It says so much.

It says, NO TRUMP in any public office, much less president.

No honor for the Confederate flag, NO RESPECT for Conservative bigots, no more elective office for racists!

In discrediting and removing the vile symbols of the failed confederacy, it is time for some plain, hard honesty.

There is no honor or  valor of treason or the acts of traitors, regardless of individual heroism.  There is no justification to respect the worst atrocities and failures in our heritage just because they are 'ours', but instead we should call them out for the evil they were.  There is no merit to celebrate in a tradition of oppression, and no decency in a history of violent intimidation and exploitation, no matter what words you employ to try to put lipstick on the Confederacy pig, or on any atrocity for that matter committed by the United States. The celebration of the Confederacy is as wrong as the premise of U.S. supposed "exceptionalism" when it denies anything bad was ever done by or on behalf of the United States.  Wrong is wrong, bad is bad, and putting on a lying label does not alter that reality. Pretending wrong is right or good only compounds the original wrong, in some instances, exponentially.

Senator Lindsey Graham is totally and shockingly wrong when he and others on the right make the claim that there has long been an acceptable, valid justification for venerating or respecting ANY of the confederate flags.

The removal of confederate image merchandise from a growing list of national retailers is NOT only a response to the tragedy of the right wing domestic terrorist attack that killed 9 people in a South Carolina church.

The growing pressure to remove the Confederate flag, from South Carolina, from Mississippi, from EVERY place it flies, especially in the old 'rebel' south, is not new.  The fight against the confederate imagery is as old as the flag and the civil war itself.

Too many on the right, including our own former member of Congress from Minnesota Michele Bachmann, have made excuses to justify slavery, and have misrepresented slavery as less evil and vicious than it actually was.  The symbols of the Confederacy are nothing more or less than an attempt to white-wash the black heart of White Supremacy, Jim Crow, and over-reaching, abusive southern government.  Jim Crow, the brutal and systematic trampling and obliteration of civil rights IS the worst government overreach in our history.

From Addicting info, back in August of 2011 - a relatively recent attempt to glam up, validate, and legitimize the brutal, horrific, immoral, and obscene, representative of old style southern conservative racism generally:

One of the more interesting tidbits to be discussed about GOP presidential front-runner Michelle Bachmann in the current issue of the New Yorker is that one of the books she kept listed on her website as a “must read” was a biography of Robert E. Lee by  J. Steven Wilkins. Wilkins is a revisionist historian that seeks to downplay or even glorify the Souths’ tradition of slavery. From the book:

Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.

Got that? Because Africans were forcibly converted to Christianity, they didn’t mind being slaves at all but rather worked extra hard to enrich their white owners. For Jesus.

It is a conservative 'meme', like right wing talking head Michael Medved at the conservative Townhall.com, via fear of ignorance,  in his appalling and grossly inaccurate  "Six Inconvenient Truths about the US and Slavery", for example claiming that :

THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.

Really?  Seriously?  No long-term harm, no foul, is that the idea?  Apparently it is when you are an apologist for racism, past AND PRESENT.

And that conclusion is based on .....what?  NOTHING factual is involved, only the purest animus.  But it is part and parcel of the offensive beliefs of conservatives, and of those who embrace the confederacy, including all of its symbols.

Apart from ignoring, for starters, all of the people who were never born because of the high percentage of deaths in the passage from Africa, and ignoring all of the pain and suffering and social breakdown that continued long after the end of slavery due to families having been separated and sold off from each other, the enforced lack of education, etc., this is merely adding insult to injury, and promoting the conservative meme that black people are somehow inferior, and are lucky to be in the United States where they have been fortunate to be converted to Christianity?  Who can assert what would have been different in the continent of Africa without the evil of slavery and the pattern it contributed to of European exploitation that later characterized European intrusion into that continent.

I recently saw a comment about African Americans on a right wing facebook site that argued black people were inferior because they did not invent the kind of recorded language that white Europeans did.  That seemed strikingly to omit from contributing to world culture the many accomplishments of the Egyptians, as well as the many accomplishments, both linguistic and mathematical and in the sciences of the Muslim world, including the African continent.  What a disgustingly racist and intellectually dishonest view of world culture -- as if even if the assertion were true (and it is not) then any abuse, exploitation, or brutality is excused and excusable?

That is unacceptable.  There is no difference between that revisionist history and claiming that Hitler wasn't that bad for the Holocaust or worse, that the Holocaust did not occur, with the notable exception that slavery tortured many more, stole the labor through brutal coercion from many more, and killed many more than the Holocaust -- roughly 20 million slaves died in the United States before slavery was abolished.

The BEST response to the claims about honor, duty, heritage and the rest of the claptrap came from South Carolina state senator Paul Thurmond, son of notoriously racist Senator Strom Thurmond.  Those on the right, from Reince Preibus, RNC chair, to former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Governor Haley, ad nauseum are ALL wrong about this symbol. 

Paul Thurmond Via Slate:

“Our ancestors were literally fighting to keep human beings as slaves, and to continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will,” said State Senator Paul Thurmond, a Republican, explaining that he would vote to remove the flag.

“I am not proud of this heritage,” said Mr. Thurmond.

“We must take down the Confederate flag and we must take it down now. But if we stop there, we have cheated ourselves out of an opportunity to start a different conversation about healing in our state,” Thurmond continued. “I am ready.”

Here is the video of State Senator Thurmond:

Everyone should be proud of their heritage, where they come from and the culture of the people from whom they descend.  But that is not the same thing as being proud of the bad things done by people who preceded us, and the bad things done in the name of the confederacy and the principles for which it stood and affirmed were bad principles. This does not, as claimed by Fox News liar and buffoon Bill O'Reilly, mean we honor all war dead because they "fought hard".  Nazi soldiers fought hard in WW II; British soldiers and mercenary soldiers fought hard in the American Revolution.  The Swastika is not flown in Europe (although the confederate flag IS flown as a proxy for it) and we do not fly the Union Jack to honor our British heritage and those who fought on the side of the loyalists either.  There are plenty of other, better ways to deal with the challenges of mixed good-and-bad heritage, better and less oppressive and less offensive ways that do not constitute engaging in hate symbolism. No matter how you try to spin the Confederate flag, it represents sedition, disloyalty, violence, domestic terrorism, sabotage, assassination, and treason against the United States.  And it continues to embarrass us all world wide.  For example, in the Ukraine, we have our heritage, our southern white supremacist, racist, brutal and abusive national stain displayed to our very current shame:

Why are Nazi & Confederate flags on display in Kiev?

When Kiev’s City Hall was seized with guns and Molotov cocktails, one of the first acts of the Euromaidan street fighters was to unfurl a number of flags and insignia. Prominent among the flags were swastikas, Iron Crosses, Nazi SS lightning bolts, the Celtic cross used by the Ku Klux Klan, and the Confederate “stars and bars” flag of slaveholders in the United States. (tinyurl.com/ltfu4vq) This is no accident. The flag of the U.S. Southern slaveholders and the Klan cross are symbols understood around the world. They stand for racism, reaction, lynchings and mass terror, for keeping oppressive institutions intact and for beating down people of color and all those who struggle for a better world. Racists from across Europe have traveled to Kiev. Wearing these symbols on their helmets and jackets, these thugs roamed Kiev and defaced the homes of Jews. They destroyed memorials to those who fought the Nazi invasion and occupation of the Ukraine in World War II.

Here is a Ukraine Confederate flag, and a Ukraine Naziee flag: Feel the pride NOW, Senator Lindsey, Governor Haley?  THIS is that ol' Confederate Heritage you revere so dearly. No matter how much you try to pretend that states rights was a legitimate cause, it was a wrong cause in the civil war, and has been a wrong cause in every iteration since the civil war.  There is a reason we have the supremacy clause in the U. S. constitution; it is because when states try to deviate from that federal supremacy it has been consistently contrary and disloyal to that constitution, and has consistently been an attempt to justify the indefensible -- slavery was just one of many bad things that support for states rights has attempted to make appear valid or legitimate. Nullification has been another. The same has been true of attempts to suppress voter rights, to legislate segregation, anti-miscegenation, and the rest of Jim Crow, and to behave in bigoted ways towards the LGBT community, and to promote the pseudo-science of creationism.  And last but not least, it has been used to try to justify even more stupid proposals such as individual states currency.  That is far from a complete or encyclopedic list; states rights is what bad people, conservative bad people, fall back on to try to force through evil and foolish laws. It is imperative we do not continue the LIE about the Confederacy, the civil war -- an aggression STARTED by the south, or about the symbols of hate that represent an evil stain on our nation. It is impossible to defend the indefensible, and it is made worse by those who keep trying.  Own the bad, repudiate the bad ALL OF IT) and then, and only then, can we move on in something other than a vicious circle of more evil and further stain on our nation.

We built...........oops NO. You didn't.

Breaking news - and this should be no surprise - Donald Sterling, the for-now-owner of the Clippers basketball team is apparently a registered Republican voter in L.A. county. Of course, the radical right has tried to pretend otherwise, but we know they are not a factual bunch. (That claim appears to be based on only two political donations, small ones at that, one for $2,000, twelve years ago, and one 25 years ago for $5k. The radical right extremist propaganda machine was working overtime trying to tar Sterling as a racist Democrat - not true! His politics are right wing to the core!

From the Daily Beast:

Donald Sterling and the Neverending Fantasy of ‘Democrat’ Racism

Oh, how eager the conservative press is to call Donald Sterling a Democrat! It’s all part of their larger fantasy narrative about conservatism and race.

Update: Now comes the utterly shocking news that despite his campaign donations to the contrary, Sterling is—sit down—a registered Republican. The Los Angeles Times's Michael Hiltzik tweeted as much this morning, and I confirmed through a source that a Donald T. Sterling who lives in Beverly Hills and was born on April 26, 1934 is indeed a registered Republican voter in L.A. County.

And here we have his own words, echoing the 2012 GOP national convention theme:

Donald Sterling repeated the same false claims made by the supporters of loser Mitt Romney at the Republican convention in 2012 with the theme "We built that".

“I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? … Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?”

Apparently 'this Donald', as distinct from the other right wing lunatic with the same first name who makes prominent gaffes like 'the blacks love me' (they don't) thinks that when he makes money, he earns it, he 'makes it', but when the players do so, he is giving them a gift, there is no 'earning[' involved, only 'taking'. Nothing about that thought process is consistent or rational or fair or honest. Here's the thing -- simply starting a league does not make money; if we are to believe that Donald Sterling rather than his players made the team, and by extension, the players as an aggregate did not make the league a success, then we have to embrace that sports movie mantra 'follow the money'. Donald Sterling has not been much of a success.  It has been the relatively recent performance by mostly black players, coaches and managers who have made that difference.  The most Donald Sterling can claim is dumb luck.  He did not do the overwhelming majority of the hard work.  He was not some brilliant executive owner.  He has in fact been something of an epic failure, in some cases an actual obstruction to the success of his own team. As noted in 2012 coverage by NPR:

This summer, the controversy over "you didn't build that" has been a far more sustained phenomenon, even before this convention. While primarily limited to the conservative media, it has taken on a life of its own. The refusal of more mainstream media to take it as seriously has only made it catnip for those who do. And at the Tampa convention, this line of attack, legitimate or not, all but took over the proceedings.

And it is no surprise that the team plays basketball in a facility with the name Staples on it, who also can't admit that - as the Bible puts it - the laborer is worthy of their hire, or that other people's efforts EARN their compensation, it is not a 'gift' (same source).  (The Staples arena is privately owned, but it got a special deal from the city of Los Angeles in order for it to be built and benefits from the services of the city of L.A.):

Tom Stemberg, founder of the office supply store Staples, gave one of several testimonials for Romney on the final night. But he spent much of his time raking the White House for its supposed attitude toward business: "They just don't get it. They don't get it because they don't believe in the spirit of the entrepreneur. They don't understand what it means to risk money to create something new. They don't understand the hard work it takes to get a business off the ground."

It is reminiscent of the rhetoric heard about socialism and the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s and reprised a generation later in reaction to the Great Society. In those days, the phrase was "running government more like a business." Such talk had faded in recent years, at least temporarily, after the meltdown that began in late 2007 shook many people's faith in the wisdom of markets.

But here in Tampa, the centrality of business and its needs and wants were front and center. Foreign policy was an afterthought in most of the presentations, including Romney's acceptance speech. Social issues were scarcely mentioned, rating a passing reference of less than a minute's duration in the nominee's finale. Yet Romney used the word business 17 times in that same speech. One of them was a reference to the "freedom to build a business." One more use of the most reliable applause line of this convention. If the economy is the top issue and jobs are the key measurement of the economy, the Romney Republicans believe they can win by convincing the public that the current president simply doesn't understand where jobs come from. The central theme of this week in Tampa is about to become the party's mantra for the fall."

To make a play on words, it was the mantra in the fall for the fall - for the fall and fail of Mitt Romney, and now for the fall from grace and power, the epic fail, of Donald Sterling.

Wrong Direction's "Disclosure"

This video which is a parody by a group called Full Frontal Freedom of One Direction’s “What Makes You Beautiful” has skyrocketed with over two million views, for good reason. Watch:
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you are offended by young men in bathing suits, dancing near a pool, this video might not be for you.

Condemn Todd Akin, for Hobnobbing Around with Misogynist Quacks and Dangerous Frauds

Remember the popsie veep candidate Palin, with her campaigning on Obama "palling around with terrorists"?  Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers did some terrible things as part of the protests to stop the Viet Nam War, which arguably had some equally terrible aspects, both to Americans, and to the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and others.  I do not suggest here that the terrible incidents like the Mai Lai massacre justified blowing up buildings or other violence, but only to suggest that PEACEFUL PROTESTING had a very real justification, and that there was a larger context of violence against protesters taking place that should be considered to more fairly understand the complexity of that controversy and conflict.  I would argue that if you are going to condemn violence from one side, you must condemn the violence equally from the opposite side of this controversy in our history. 

Palin did nothing of the kind; she instead tried to smear President Obama, then Senator Obama, by apparently holding him responsible for the actions in earlier years of Bill Ayers, at a time when Obama didn't even live in the United States, as a child.  When Obama did know Ayers, he had resolved his issues with the years during which he had committed violent acts, and he had moved on to become a respected professor, and civic contributor.  Obama met the later individual, not the wild protester, and that individual was a very different person than the violent anti-war activist.
from wikipedia:

In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project.^[48]
William C. Ibershof, formerly the lead federal prosecutor in the Weather Underground case, wrote in 2008: "Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen."^[68]
Ayers was elected Vice President for Curriculum Studies by the American Educational Research Association in 2008.^[69] William H. Schubert, a fellow professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, wrote that his election was "a testimony of [Ayers'] stature and [the] high esteem he holds in the field of education locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally."^[70]
Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank praised Ayers as a "model citizen" and a scholar whose "work is esteemed by colleagues of different political viewpoints."^[71]
In an October 2010 Chicago Sun Times editorial Attacks on Ayers distort our history, former students of Ayers and UIC Alumni, Daniel Schneider and Adam Kuranishi, responded in opposition to the University of Illinois Board of Trustees' decision to deny Ayers Emeritus status. They write, "We juxtaposed the image of him painted by the media with the teacher we saw in class; and the two could not be more distinct. The Ayers in the media was frozen in time; he never left the 1960s, never aged out of his 20s, and never grew in perspective. As his students, we see through this representation... Ayers is still committed to movements for peace and justice. His worldview and tactics are evolved and elaborate, thoughtful and wise, making him unrecognizable to the media's caricature. Should we not expect someone to evolve after 40 years? One may disagree with his activism, but it is impossible to ignore his hard work and contributions to urban education, juvenile justice reform, the University of Illinois and Chicago."^[72]

It was wrong to try to tar Obama with the brush of guilt by association. It was wrong of conservatives to misrepresent the closeness of any relationship - in other words the phrase 'palling around' - as a fraudulent exaggeration, one which implied approval, endorsement or encouragement of Ayer's violent past.  Rumors on the right even tried to suggest Ayers wrote the books authored by Obama.

This was a contrived relationship that did not really exist as portrayed by Palin and others on the right. The reality was entirely different, as noted here:
A controversy arose regarding Obama's contact with Bill Ayers, a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a former leader of the Weather Underground, a radical left organization in the 1970s.^[172] Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.^{[173][174][175]} Ayers served on two nonprofit boards with Obama and in 1995, Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a gathering at their home,^[176] where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate.^[174][177]
The matter was initially raised by Sean Hannity and other hosts on conservative talk radio programs, and then by moderator George Stephanopoulos during a debate between Clinton and Obama in April 2008. In October 2008, the matter was mentioned in attack ads, robocalls, mass mailings, and campaign speeches by Republican presidential candidate John McCain^{[citation needed]} and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as an issue in the general election campaign. Obama has condemned Ayers' past,^[178][179] and stated that he does not have a close association with him.^[176]

That Obama did not 'pal around with terrorists' was confirmed by multiple news organizations and by multiple fact checking sources.

In contrast we have a close supporting relationship between Todd Akin and the originator of the horrific lie that women can't get pregnant from rape, specifically violent rape.  This is the basis for attempting to insert language into legislation that would specify ONLY the most brutally violent rape as  a limitation on abortions for all cases of rape.

In fact, Todd Akin continues to use the phrase VIOLENT in connection with rape, over and over and over, most recently in the Wednesday August 22, 2012 interview with Good Morning America.  Rape is always non-consensual, but it is not always violent, which appears to be the only kind of rape acknowledged by Wilke. It is not necessarily violent when someone is drugged and then raped; it is not always violent when a child is incestuously raped, but only emotionally, psychologically, or verbally coercive; it is not always violent when a vulnerable person is raped, such as a person who is disabled physically or mentally, because violence is not required in those circumstances to overcome the victim's refusal.

Todd Akin is STILL welcoming the support of the incredibly offensive man who continues to assert that women do not become pregnant from forcible or violent rape.  Jack C. Wilke should have his medical license revoked for practicing substandard and unprofessional medicine for his utterly and dangerously unscientific claims.  Wilke man is a charlatan, who continues to support and in turn receives the support of Todd Akin.

There is no guilt by association in an objection to the support of Jack Wilke for Todd Akin; there is a perfectly appropriate assignment of guilt to both of them for continuing to affirm these views which are so harmful to rape victims, and so harmful to all women by extension.

As noted in the L.A. Times :

Rep. Todd Akin takes questions after speaking at the Missouri Farm Bureau candidate interview in Jefferson City, Mo. (Christian Gooden / St. Louis Post-Dispatch / Associated Press / August 10, 2012)

Related photos »

Todd Akin touts support from crusader who espoused theories on rape

• Also
• Photos: 'Legitimate rape' and other career-limiting candidate quotes
• Todd Akin says he will 'rush to the gunfire,' stay in Senate race
• Todd Akin not alone in adhering to bogus rapist theory

 By Lisa Mascaro and Kim Geiger

August 21, 2012, 12:53 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Missouri Republican Todd Akin's troubled Senate campaign blasted out a letter of support Tuesday from the antiabortion crusader who promoted the theory that victims of rape do not usually become pregnant.

Akin's decision to release the letter from Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the International Right to Life Federation, sends a mixed message from the GOP congressman, who has apologized repeatedly for having said "legitimate rape" rarely leads to pregnancy.

"The pro-life movement and I unequivocally stand with Rep. Akin. How could we not?" Willke wrote in the letter. "Rep. Akin will make the U.S. Senate a safer place for the most vulnerable in our nation.
"It's time for Republican leaders to rise to the level of Rep. Akin's principle and courage and stand with him and the Republican platform that stands for the protection of every human life."

PHOTOS: "Legitimate rape" and other disastrous quotes

Willke said he was overnighting copies of his book, "Abortion, Questions and Answers," to Akin, noting that "there is a full chapter on this issue, fully documented, which completely exonerates him."

The Akin campaign has been in turmoil as supporters have pulled ads and Republican leaders are pressuring him to withdraw from the Senate race. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign distanced itself from the embattled candidate, and party leaders are calling him personally, explaining that his candidacy threatens to disrupt races across the GOP ticket.

Akin's refusal to step aside pits the party's establishment and its fiscal-conservative flank against those on the religious right, who have long championed the six-term congressman's strict antiabortion views. The Family Research Council's Action PAC also defended Akin this week.
Willke and his wife, Barbara, are leading antiabortion advocates. Their book, first published in 1971, asserts that "assault rape" rarely results in pregnancy because the assault traumatizes the woman and makes her body less habitable.

It's "just downright unusual" for a woman to get pregnant from a rape, Willke said in an interview Monday.

"This goes back 30 and 40 years. When a woman is assaulted and raped, there's a tremendous amount of emotional upset within her body," Willke said, adding that this trauma "can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy."
It might also make a woman's fallopian tubes "tight," he said.
Willke estimated that there are just one or two pregnancies for every 1,000 rapes.

That contradicts research published in the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology in the 1990s that found the occurrence of rape-related pregnancies is 5%. More than 32,000 women experience rape-related pregnancy every year, the research found.

Willke's book has gained currency among some conservative antiabortion activists.
Akin has apologized for his comments, saying "I used the wrong words in the wrong way," and his campaign produced an ad Tuesday morning asking for forgiveness.
Willke said he reached out to talk with Akin because he was "so outraged at how quickly Republican leaders have deserted him. After talking with Rep. Akin, I'm even more outraged."

Condemn the ignorance of an adult of the advanced years of Todd Akin, personally, legislatively, and especially serving on a science committee in Congress.

Condemn Todd Akin for accepting the support of a charlatan who advocates a view which is false and which horribly harms women.  Condemn Jack Wilke for being an ass and a fraud and a dangerous extremist.

While I applaud the political operatives, politicians, media and candidates on the right for demanding that Todd Akin step aside, and I applaud them putting their money where their mouths are by removing their contribution to the funding of Todd Akin's candidacy, I also condemn them for denying Akin the opportunity to participate in the Republican convention.  Right or that special variety of right-wing-wrong, Akin was elected as a candidate by the citizens of Missouri.  We can all offer an opinion, and offer or withdraw support, but the decision is theirs.  I have decried the intrusion of outside money and of big money into our elections; I feel it diminishes the contribution of the individual citizen in the jurisdiction of each elected office - from all sides.  But no political party, not right or left, should be able to go so far as to debar an elected candidate from participating in a national convention of the party which endorsed him.  Who the hell is anyone on the RNC to tell Missourians who they can - or can't - send to the national convention?

This sets as dangerous a precedent in political party operation as the views of Todd Akin, and the attempted legislation by Akin and Paul Ryan set for heavy handed oppression of women.

 

Bain or Bane for Mitt R-money?

It is conspicuous that Mitt Romney is NOT, emphatically not, running on his record as governor of the state of Massachusetts.

When Sarah Palin was the vice-presidential nominee in 2008, all we heard about was the importance of that kind of executive experience, as mayor, and as a part-term governor, compared to Obama having only been a member of the Illinois state legislature, and subsequently having been elected to the U.S. Senate - an arguably more prestigious position which gave him practical insight into the function of legislation at both the state and federal level that Palin lacked. 
Why is that not true in 2012, if it was ever true in 2008?
Could it be it was because as the head of the executive branch of government, Mitt R-money was not very good?  That is exactly why, particularly in respect to job creation, and what arguably SHOULD be a successful policy he should boast about - health care reform, which has been so successful, that the state of Massachussetts filed an amicus brief in support of the Affordable Care Act because of how it had worked out for the problems within Massachussetts.

Bain is not a plus, should not be a plus; it is a perfect example of how money is extracted from our economy, extracted from the middle class and those who comprise the labor pool of this nation, redistributing that money, that wealth, to the upper 1% and away from the 99%.
These paragraphs from a recent STrib article on how Mitt R-money's relationship with Bain is hurthing his campaign illustrate the issue:

But can the Obama campaign turn the argument over Romney and Bain into a broader challenge to the Republican claim that the only thing government can do to spur job creation is to get out of the way?

"Jobs" will remain the Romney battle cry for the rest of the campaign, but the success of the anti-Bain offensive points to an opportunity for Obama to engage in a kind of political jujitsu. He can argue that Romney's primary interest is not in job creation at all but in low-tax and deregulatory policies he would favor whether the economy was soaring or flat.

In a recent talk at the Center for American Progress, Stefan Löfven, the new leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, outlined a way to turn the debate around, arguing that job creation worldwide should be the focus of center-left parties. New policies on job creation should also be concerned with the quality and conditions of the jobs, how quickly the unemployed can be moved to new work, and how the unemployed are treated and assisted toward new opportunities.

Here are the questions voters should be encouraged to ask in 2012: Should government focus directly on innovative approaches to creating good jobs in a new economy?

Or should it be relegated to a position of powerlessness in which its only option is to concede ever more benefits to those -- including the financial wizards at Bain -- who are already doing very well indeed?

The Articulate Author Stephen King Speaks Out

No doubt this will send the extreme right wing drooling and screaming into the night in abject terror.

From --- appropriately for the author of  the novel and subsequent movie, Cujo, and given Mitt's notoriously bad relationship with dogs  --- the Daily Beast:

Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

Apr 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT  The iconic writer scolds the superrich (including himself—and Mitt Romney) for not giving back, and warns of a Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America.

(Page 1 of 3)

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “He should just write a check and shut up,” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”
Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

Thank you Stephen King for speaking truth to power, head on.  Well done, sir!  It is worth noting here that Stephen King is very much a self-made man, and was NOT born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Niki Haley, GOP Apologist & Romney Surogate is Tone Deaf to the Majority, Especially Women

She's backpedalling, but not nearly fast enough.
The right is too intransigent to learn from their mistakes, to ideologically extreme to adjust or meet the rest of the world on common ground to form a consensus.
It is hurting them badly, and their war on women will continue to hurt them.  It is the recognition of the harm they've done to their party with this course of action, their culture war, that has prompted them to trot out a token woman on women's issues, the way they trot out their token minority members on issues relating to race and ethnicity.  In Haley's case, she's turning off the very people she's been sent out like a good little soldier to recruit and persuade.
However they try to spin it, the GOP is a party overwhelmingly of white people trying to preserve their dominance in the status quo, and overwhelmingly acting on behalf of corporations, the wealthiest 1% of individuals, and the corporate special interests that keep those few individuals disproportionately wealthy while pay for the average employee is stagnant or declines, or their jobs disappear entirely.  At the same time, they do their best to reduce or eliminate the control of the company owners, the individual shareholders, who have less and less control over their boards of directors and their executive officers, and their decisions. 
The GOP is the party that promotes and protects the outsourcing of jobs by the private sector, this is a party that embraces racism and exploitation.  The GOP is NOT the party of job creation. 
The GOP is the party that sells out the American citizen through the corruption of big money.The GOP is the party of polarization and division rather than consensus. The GOP is the party of obfuscation and secrecy rather than transparency.
Here is the telegenic Niki Haley trying to do damage control on the View for the GOP and for Romney, but mostly doing more damage in the process, not less.  Good job, Joy Behar!



And while we're on the topic - it should be ILLEGAL to fly this flag of treason and insurrection over any state buildings, in any form, in any southern state. It should generate as much opposition as if it were a Nazi flag or the flag of any other notorious fascist or authoritarian government. It is an insult to every person who is loyal to the government of the Untied States, and in particular an insult to every descendant of slaves.  Every day this flag appears anywhere that is public property, anytime it appears in conjunction with the authority or property of the state of South Carolina, it is an offense, and it is promoting continuing racism.

Joe Long is the curator of education at the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum in Columbia.

"A flag is a symbol and one of the peculiar things about a symbol is that there's the message that someone is trying to convey and there's the message that somebody else picks up. It's not always the same message," Long said.

Long said that the battle flag was used because the Confederate army was having a hard time recognizing the Confederacy's official National flag. Today the battle flag remains the most recognized symbol of the Confederacy.

"When they put the flag up in 1961 the official message then was that it was for the centennial the 100-year anniversary of the war, Randolph said. "However even though they gave that message a lot of people nation wide took it as a thumb in the eye of the federal government involving the civil rights movement."

Dr. Daniel Littlefield is a history professor and researcher for African American studies. Littlefield said it is important to know that the confederate flag also represents a time of resistance to integration.

.


I have no problem with recognizing this period of our NATIONAL history, but to do so in a way which conveys support for the confederacy, which acted illegally and which came into existence in large part to continue slavery out of fear it might end even sooner than it would otherwise, NO, that is wrong.  The Confederacy does not deserve that respect or honor.  It is the flag of a defeated enemy of the United States.

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.

So........Bain Capital OWNS Clear Channel, Which Broadcasts Rush Limbaugh?And Romney is one of the bigger owners of Bain

I found the kicker at the end of this piece from Truthout to be fascinating.  It's too bad Granholm is Canadian born; if she were born in the U.S., she'd make a fascinating presidential candidate in her own right...against the right.

Fired Up! A Call to Boycott "Repulsive, Misogynistic" Limbaugh and His Sponsors
Friday 2 March 2012

by: Jennifer Granholm, Current TV
Op-Ed and Video


When Rush Limbaugh doubles down on Sandra Fluke, a law student who was to testify in front of Congress about contraception legislation, Jennifer Granholm fires back.

Rush Limbaugh is a repulsive misogynistic blowhard. By now, no one should expect more than neanderthal grunts from him.

But, his radio program is owned by a syndicator, premiere, which in turn is owned by – Clear Channel. Should we not expect more of these companies? And the sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh show. Do you really want to be associated with this horrible man?

And Republicans in Congress, will you not speak up? What if this was your daughter?

What about the Republicans who are running for president, are you men enough? Do you have a backbone to stand up to the spewing volcanic mouthpiece that is Rush Limbaugh? A man who calls a college student who comes before congress to testify a slut? Don’t any of you want to say, “No. This goes over the line.”

This is offensive to anyone with a shred of respect for women. Do you want young women to fear testifying before a government hearing, lest they be subject to slanderous statements broadcast to millions of Americans? Republicans, do you want women to think he represents conservatism? Good luck with that.

I don’t know anything about Sandra Fluke. But I do know this. Her parents ought to be very proud of her courage and grace under fire. If she were my daughter, I would be.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California says these are the supporters of Rush’s show: Quicken Loans, Century21, LegalZoom and Sleep Number. She is asking the public to contact these companies to stop supporting his radio program and to hit the parent company where it hurts. And if you are outraged too, then go online and sign this petition asking Republican leaders to denounce Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
And oh, did I forget to mention? Clear Channel is owned by … Wait for it … Bain Capital.

So out of curiosity to see what other companies Bain Capital owns, that might for example be sponsors of Clear Channel and Rush, I thought I'd begin by fact checking the claim about Bain Capital owning Clear Channel.  Here is what Wikipedia had on the topic:.

The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including such notable companies as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

So, I decided it would be a good idea to find out if Bain was the sole owner, or just an investor in Clear Channel, since these two concepts of 'ownership' are frequently confused.  Here is what Wikipedia had to say about Clear Channel and Bain:

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American media conglomerate company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.^[3] It was founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, and was taken private by Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP in a leveraged buyout in 2008.^[4]

Leveraged buy-outs - where have we heard about THOSE before from Romney?  But I have to wonder if this doesn't provide a potentially interesting insight into the politics of Rush on the radio, and of any spin we might see from Clear Channel programming for the 2012 election.

For those of you who haven't gotten taking some form of action in response to Rush out of your system, if you're still angry and horrified, here is another petition you can sign as well, although I doubt Limbaugh will have any other response than to enjoy the attention.

Maybe the person we should be petitioning is not the Republican member(s) of Congress, but Mitt Romney.  It was Mitt who bragged about how much he liked to fire people who gave bad service; this would seem to qualify, and Mitt would seem to be, if at a sort of remove, Rush's boss, in that Rush broadcasts on his network.  If Romney DOESN'T fire Rush, then it would certainly suggest his brag is nothing more than hot air, without substance, or.........that he approves of Rush's statements and agrees with them.

Romney can't simply claim that the relationship is purely a business one, where he owes his fellow owners/investors a duty to make them money.  Rush Limbaugh is losing sponsors hand over fist, not unlike weepy and hateful Glenn Beck who is now relegated to well-deserved obscurity.  Let's hope Rush joins him sooner than later in the radio living purgatory of no-one's-listening-ville.

The advertisers reported a deluge of complaining tweets, Huffington Post reported. Sleep Train, a mattress retailer based in the Sacramento area that has advertised on Limbaugh's show for a quarter-century, was the first to announce it was leaving Friday.

ProFlowers responded to tweets with a message that it is "re-evaluating" its marketing strategy. Quicken Loans, Sleep Number and Legal Zoom also announced they are considering leaving Limbaugh or planning to do so.
"We have listened to our customers & have decided to cease our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show immediately," Citrix Systems Inc., a software development company, said.
The liberal Web site Talking Points memo reported the NBA Cleveland Cavaliers announced they were suspending " any and all on-air advertising with the Rush Limbaugh radio program, citing "inflammatory comments" coupled with valuable feedback from both clients and team employees."
Several other Limbaugh sponsors were looking into their advertising policies, businessinsider.com reported Friday.

Lets hope more of the sponsors come to their senses, and their dollars-and-cents, and leave as well.  Help make that happen by signing this petition to Limbaugh advertisers.