Conservative media's response to Sandra Fluke testimony

Rush Limbaugh wasn't the only one who had something to say about Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke's testimony before Congress. Here's a sampling of the conservative media's persuasive and reasoned arguments against Fluke's testimony, courtesy of Alternet:

-Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin denounced Fluke as a "femme-agoge tool."

-The right-wing site Jawa Report illustrated a post about Fluke with a picture of a tattoo that reads "Semen Demon."

-Pam Geller wrote that Fluke is "banging it five times a day" and that "calling this whore a slut was a softball."

-Accuracy in Media's Don Irvine called her a "skank."

-Former CPAC Blogger of The Year, Ace of Spades, called Fluke a "shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville."

-Michelle Malkin guest blogger Doug Ross used "Got Slut?" in a headline and suggested Fluke suffered from "nymphomania." [Michelle Malkin corrected this error in a Tweet directed to me and Alternet. Doug Ross does nor blog on Ms. Malkin's site. -- Mark]

-Dana Loesch complained the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's three-day "slut" campaign represented a "manufactured" story. (This, before Limbaugh responded to the "manufactured" story by issuing a rare public statement.)
Rush Limbaugh and the Right-Wing Nervous Breakdown


  1. Jesus.  This makes the bullying I endured in school look like paradise.  This young woman is all kinds of brave.  I wish I could give her a hug.

    1. It’s patently obvious that Limbaugh, Malkin, and the rest of the right-wing hate brigade are dying to have sex with Fluke.

  2.  My very precious daughter is about to marry an American and move to your country
    *is scared*

      1. Given that half the population has an IQ in the double digits — by the very definition of IQ — this is not that surprising.

        If the total IQ dropped quickly into the double digits, that would be more interesting.

        1. Actually, extensive independent testing reveals that the average IQ of Republicans is substantially lower than that of Democrats.  Smart people are a little better at seeing when they’re being sold a pile of dingo’s kidneys.

          1. Your comment implies that the Democratic Party is not selling its members/supporters a pile of dingo’s kidneys.

        2.  “by the very definition of IQ ”

          Nope.  It’s ‘by the very definition of median’.

    1. It’s really frustrating that our nation is so easily judged by the worst among us–and have no doubt, these are the worst America has to offer.

      Many of us are just fine, as long as you stick to the sane parts of the country. (Even in the insane parts, there are a lot of nice people, here and there.) Specifically, places that showed up blue on electoral maps of the 2008 election should be fine.

      1.  It’s the same phenomenon that causes people to think that French people are going to be smelly and rude to strangers, or that the British won’t be able to cook you anything edible or that any Arab country will be full of Al-Quida sympathizers.  Extreme behavior is memorable and makes the news. 

        The ad never goes:
        “Man has pleasant time at restaurant, wait staff are friendly and courteous, film at 11”.

      2.  Rush isn’t even close to “the worst America has to offer”.

        In terms of discourse, sure.  He’s pure poison.

        But it’s METAPHORICAL poison.

        There are actual violent criminals out there.  THEY’RE the worst America has to offer.

        Rush is a terrible human being.  Bad enough that “Hey, to the best of my knowledge he’s never actually physically assaulted anybody” is actually the nicest thing I can think of to say about him.

        But hey — to the best of my knowledge he’s never actually physically assaulted anybody.

        1.  Do you mean to suggest that all it takes to be a more worthless human being than Limbaugh is to physically assault somebody?

          Come on. Surely someone with millions of ears is capable of more signicant harm than the odd physical assault.

          Why, take Alan Jones for example. I’m sure he doesn’t consider himself in the same league as the great Rush Limbaugh, but he’s got at least one riot to his name.

  3. …Michelle Malkin denounced Fluke as a “femme-agogu tool.”  <- May I presume "femme-agogu" to be intended as "fem-agogue"? Otherwise, that's (even more) beyond the pale of regular conservative idiocy.

    In any case, I never have understood (despite all the conjecture) the double-standard of the sexually potent male (celebrated) vs. the sexually active female (demonized). If men are having a lot of sex and the women they are having a lot of sex with are sluts, whores, etc…doesn't that equally debase the man? I suppose the penis of these men are magickal, not actually touching the flesh of the "whores" they are sticking it into.

      1.  I was baffled too.  And French is my first language.

        Maybe the Malkin got her pronounciation tips from the crowd at Sky News, reporting on the Louise Boat, and this is how she pronounces femagogue.

    1. Femme-agogue, for sure. Unless Ms Fluke was wearing white boots for her testimony, then, femme-a-gogo.

  4. Has anybody pointed out to the conservative media that its International Women’s Day. :-)

    1. Shhh! Don’t say that too loudly! If they get wind of it, they’ll spend the next week moaning about the lack of an International Men’s Day. And then, of course, a knee-jerk reaction about the International part, and how that’s part of trying to establish an emasculating one world government and turn America into France, Belgium, Ikealand or  Dutchland or something. 

  5. I’d like to point out that the $3,000 number was in reference to the cost of contraception over the course of law school (3 years) not over a single year.  Some of these medications are cheap, but some do cost $100/month or so.  3*12*100 = 3600.

  6. This isn’t a disaster for the Republicans, it’s publicity. It bolsters their resolve, reinforces the extreme right stance in the party, and draws liberals and Democrats into a heated fray where (1) they acknowledge and justify the insanity by engaging with it and (2) embarrass themselves by engaging with it, because you just CAN’T engage in this childish nonsense debate on a rational adult level. Liberal media and liberal people need to start ignoring this stuff rather than playing the game they’ve been invited to.

    1. I couldn’t disagree more.  Since 99% of women use contraception at some point, attacking women who use or advocate for the availability of contraception IS disasterous.  Most people are happy with the role contraception plays in their lives so to take such an extreme stance on something most people happily use to their great benefit is not going to be at all helpful to their cause. 

      I also think it’s wrong to ignore the attacks on women considering it’s actual legislation that will be detrtrimental to women’s health and well being.  If they were attacking women apropos of nothing, it might be better to ignore it, but they are attacking women with a specific cause in mind,  in this particular case, for example, so health insurance companies don’t have to cover women’s reproductive health.

      1. I agree on your second point, and I guess to clarify I mean that we shouldn’t pretend this sentiment doesn’t exist and that it’s no real threat to society. But I think it would be more productive for liberal media, politicians and persons to promote freedom and decry attacks on civil liberties, peace and common sense in an impersonal way that ignores the right wing personalities who thrive on this kind of conflict. For example, in this case step up support and publicity for Planned Parenthood; encourage people to support worthy womens’ groups financially; point out upcoming undesirable legislation and try to mobilize voters against it; address the particular case of Sandra Fluke without even mentioning Limbaugh by name beyond the initial factual report of what happened. Engage in a positive way that doesn’t serve to glorify the wrong-doer in the eyes of his own supporters.

        1. But I think it would be more productive for liberal media, politicians and persons to promote freedom and decry attacks on civil liberties, peace and common sense in an impersonal way that ignores the right wing personalities who thrive on this kind of conflict

          Once again, this is exactly why American liberals are losing.

          1. I really have to disagree with that and well, ditto Tom Henthorn below. You can’t change their minds, but you can avoid playing their game. A large part of what makes the right so loud and so cohesive is that they realize they’re in a shouting match with the left, and the loudest, firmest voice in the shouting match wins. I think the American liberals are losing precisely because they are playing the conservatives’ game instead of pursuing their own beliefs with conviction and consistency.

          2.  I still disagree with you.  I see no evidence that liberals are “playing the conservatives’ game.”  I see that liberals have given Rush Limbaugh and similar commentators a pass on their poison for several decades now.  I see where liberals give conservative politicians and various ideologues the benefit of the doubt instead of challenging these viewpoints, pointing out the lies, and saying to their faces: “Have you no shame?”  Liberals have been the polite ones and that is why they are losing these moral victories, because they’re allowing conservative lies to become the background noise that everyone “knows” to be true.

          3. I see your point and am very tempted by it. I’m just applying my earned knowledge of shouting matches from the last 44 years – the realization that no matter how much someone needs to be shouted down, you never accomplish anything by doing it. I believe that conservative hatemongers are just reinforced, martyred, and popularized by confrontation with the left. And the big weakness I see with the American political left is not that it’s unready to sneer and shout at conservatives, but that the politicians supposedly representing the liberals are very conservative themselves and won’t act on the hopes and principles of of liberal voters.

        2. That is a thoughtful response and clarification, thank you.  I agree with most of it.  Not the part about Limbaugh, though.  I think we should point out his hateful nonsense and hopefully have him removed from the public ear.  Someone with his level of vitriol should not be tolerated by society.  Other people have lost their jobs as public figures for far lesser evils and he needs to go, as well.


        These sorts of misogynistic attacks only work when womyn can say “they’re not attacking me, they’re not attacking my friends, they’re only attacking some other womyn,” and work best if people think of the “other womyn” as “lesser womyn.”

        Slut-shaming is so common and so effective because few womyn think of themselves as sluts, but absolutely any womon can be denounced one way or another:

        If you screw men, you can be denounced as a slut.

        If you don’t screw men, you can be denounced as an uppity dyke.

        If you get raped, or even just beaten, they’ll say you were asking for it.

        And so on. I suspect any womon can be denounced at least one of these ways and most of us can be denounced a dozen different ways. And for some of us, our mere existence gets denounced as sexual sin.

        In this case, though, they screwed up. They denounced her for something that she has in common with the vast majority of womyn. And no they’re broadening the attack to go after a few people they missed the first time.

        1. Don’t you think it brings MORE attention to the presence of the word ‘man’ in the word ‘woman’ when you consistently spell it wrong?

          It completely overshadowed your argument, which was good, by the way.

          1.  I was just about to pick you up on that. That’s just about the most annerying deloberate misspulling I’ve ever encoontared.

    2. Very good point. Some of these “talking points” are beyond childish, and we aren’t going to win these arguments with the sheer force of our rationality. Like the old saying: “you can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.”

    3.  No, this is the biggest misstep the Republican Party has made in its assumptions about the beliefs of the average American since it tried to forcibly keep Terri Schiavo on life support.

      Somewhere Obama is grinning and saying “I can’t BELIEVE they fell for that.”  Making a twenty-first century election a referendum on birth-control is fucking madness; it is a losing position.  Yes, they’ll keep the fringe of the fringe that would have voted for a third Bush term if given the chance — but you can’t win a presidential election on that demographic, and you’ll lose seats in Congress on it too.

      1. I’ve come to expect the most perverse reactions possible from the public to the most extreme outrages of the American right. Here’s hoping that you are all right and I am wrong!

        1.  I’d say in nearly all cases you’re right.  But now and again they make a mistake.  I think this is a huge mistake.  A vast majority of Americans use some form of birth control at some point in their lives.  And that’s leaving aside the other uses of the pill.

    4. Thanks everyone for civilized debate! I felt like I was on a different Internets until somebody started picking on Marja’s spelling. Phew. I was beginning to get dizzy and disoriented.

  7. Oh PLEASE tell me this can be classified as libel or some other form of defamation. I would *LOVE* to see some gigantic lawsuits fall out of this.

    1. It would likely be considered battery if it were in the venue of the State of Texas. But, IANAL IANYL ATINLA.

  8. I was shocked to hear interviews with prominent female Republicans this morning, describing Limbaugh’s choice of words as unfortunate. This is not an “unfortunate choice of words” we’re dealing with. It’s the frat house mentality raised to the level of political ideology. It’s not Limbaugh’s choice of words that matters; what matters is that Limbaugh and others like him have developed an arrogant, paternalistic worldview in which women aren’t fellow human beings, but objects to be used for their amusement (the request to see pornographic videos of Fluke was particularly revealing in that regard). It’s a worldview that that allows them to talk about women in this way, without any apparent conception of what is wrong with it. 

    1. I was shocked to hear interviews with prominent female Republicans this morning, describing Limbaugh’s choice of words as unfortunate. This is not an “unfortunate choice of words” we’re dealing with.

      I would ask in return, “Okay, since you disagree with Limbaugh’s word choices but not what he actually said, how would YOU describe a woman who supposedly sells her body and has sex multiple times per day?”

      1. I think we are disagreeing with Rush’s choice of being totally clueless about Birth Control, health, and a Capitol hill meeting.  This has nothing to do with Rush’s definition of a prostitute. Are you seriously taking a serious issue and focusing on a tiny meaningless semantic argument? Sigh. Not wasting any more time with you…

  9. Now the right wing is going after her for a paper on health care and discrimination against lgbt folks. And a lot of us do have trouble getting health care. At one point in the paper she said insurance should cover transition-related care. Oh noes! A number of medical groups, including the American Medical Association, have declared that this can be medically necessary and have denounced the discrimination.

    So naturally the right wing is denouncing the “sex changes” and the “mutilation” and denouncing us as well as our medical needs.

    They’re not just attacking Ms. Fluke, they’re attacking every womon who needs treatment for endocrine and/or reproductive health, and they’re attacking every womon who dares to control her own body.

    1. As a MtF transsexual, this issue hits particularly close to home. Unfortunately, there’s a number of factors that make this problem even harder than it appears at first glance.

      1) This is not only a legitimate health issue, it’s a life-threatening one. Transgendered individuals have some of the highest rates for depression and suicidality of any demographic. The health community, including the AMA, has agreed that transition (to whatever degree the patient feels necessary) is essential in treating the problem.

      2) Many transgendered children grow up in unsupportive families. They receive neither emotional nor financial support, and even if these children may in principle have insurance coverage through their families, they cannot take advantage of it.

      3) With very few exceptions, these children cannot receive treatment until they come of age. This is, at the very earliest, after several years of physically and psychologically damaging hormones. The effects will be felt for the rest of their lives and for many will create issues in adjusting to their new gender role.

      4) When these children do come of age, they have to be diagnosed by the pyschiatric community before receiving any treatment. In the (very likely) absence of medical coverage, this can quickly accumulate to hundreds of dollars in expense — at a time when they are least able to pay for it.

      5) In many areas of the country, finding a sympathetic pyschiatrist is nearly impossible. I saw no fewer than five doctors, and was unable to receive a hormone prescription until I left the country. The only reason I was able to receive treatment at all was by ordering medication online. 

      6) Doing so risked deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and cancer. These risks are manageable with appropriate medical conslutation, but this is obviously not an option for those who have to acquire it without prescription.

      Ultimately, these issues have pushed me to leave the United States for a country that has universal health care coverage. Even though I am not yet a recipient, I already benefit from more reasonable medical costs and doctors genuinely interested in helping their patients. I dearly hope that Ms. Fluke continues her activism: We Appreciate It.

  10. I cannot understand why anyone is even engaging with the idea that adults don’t have sex, or that contraception is wrong.

    1.  Or that Rush’s listeners can’t pick out his obvious hypocrisy.  (Course, they stuck with him through the drug addiction.)

      Saw a post the other day suggesting that Rush’s listeners actually love his hypocrisy because it pisses liberals off so much.  I have to say it’s an appealing theory.

  11. It’s too bad so many of these idiots get exposure, but was I the only one reading the various quotes and repeatedly wondering “who?”

      1. Malkin is the only one familiar to me, and I’m more than happy to keep it that way. Windbags on either side of the aisle simply seek to inflame and succeed magnificently; I don’t feel compelled to lend them my ear.

  12. Have there been any comments from the gentleman (or gentlemen?) who is/are doing all this reported bedding ?  Are we to understand they are not sluts or are we to praise them for their virility?  I mean, she’s not having all this alleged sex by herself.

    I mean, it’s 2012.  Haven’t we really thought about doing something for equality between the sexes in the past 60 years?

  13. The US has a lot of nasty people in it (I’m not generalising, you’ve got some awesome people too).

    I don’t like the conservatives in the UK, but the one’s you’ve got out there are just bad human beings.  I mean, wow.

    “rent-a-cooch” is an awesome phrase though, in isolation and in this case without context.

  14. That sad sack Michelle Malkin! She always tries to come up with a catchy insulting phrase- like “femagogue”- hoping it will become a buzzword, elevate her visibility to a Bill O’Reilly level among the right-wing audience, and allow her to really cash in. But she never can quite come up with one, leaving her as a second or third tier bloviator,just one more voice in the clamor.

    1. I think Dante had a special level of hell for people who invent new derogatory words. You’ve got to be all sorts of messed up to do that.

      1.  The thing that strikes me as disingenuous about the recent advertiser exodus is that Rush has been referring to women as “feminazis” for, what, 20 years?  You guys just now noticed he’s a misogynist?

        1. He did so regularly and usually referred to a group or group action, but he rarely targeted individuals, and never has gone on for episode after episode mischaracterizing a relative nobody, going on and on about her sexual preference and practice in vile language, claiming that these were things she said before a congressional hearing.

          Previously he was content to defame persons in a general sort of way, this last example is blatant crime against an innocent woman doing her civic duty in the accepted fashion.

    2. Wait, wait, wait… Are you saying that Malkin is somehow seeking *equality* with male blowhards? 

      What a fucking hypocrite that nasty woman is, but we already knew that.  This is just a different flavor in the overall hypocritical stew.

  15. The truly sad thing is, a lot of average conservatives actually believe that this woman and women like her are sluts. I think that’s why you see people defend these schmucks. Heck, we have a couple here today.

  16.  It’s pretty clear to me that this was a coordinated attack against Mr. Fluke from the beginning. 

    While Rush is the largest mouthpiece and the one to take the most criticism so far, the fact that other right wing outlets have taken up basically the same set of lies indicates that there is a head to this snake somewhere.

    1.  The problem is that they’ve heard his argument, agree with his opinion and repeat it.  It’s a fantastic testament to how little research any of these people do; as they’re all parroting the same misunderstanding resulting in cruel bigotry. 

      Even if that’s how they feel they’re targeting their bile at the wrong person.

  17. It is a rare thing when a difference between the sides of a political argument are so clearly drawn. The conservative side has painted themselves clearly as the side that is against women’s rights, reproductive and otherwise, and willing to use any outrageous tactic to derail the discussion. May they be hoist on their own petard.

    Republicans: The party that hates treating women equally

    or perhaps

    Republicans: The party that hates

  18. the thing i’ve noticed is the right has effectively shifted the conversation away from womens’ health to moral behavior. the specific policy issue that was being discussed concerned a HHS rule change which changed the co-pay for contraceptives in government mandated health insurance programs.

    the administration argues that contraceptives are an integral part of any women’s health plan. while contraceptives for women are frequently “dual use” items that can be prescribed for purposes other than birth control, many argue that women & families health outcomes are improved when women (or couples) can better plan when pregnancies occur. also, it is seen by some to be a gender parity issue: the cost of a pregnancy or  contraception is generally much greater for women than for men. by aggregating the cost of contraception and paying for it with premiums charged to both men and women, the costs are more equitably distributed across genders.

    some religions (notably the catholic church) maintain that birth control is a sin. their argument is that by requiring employers to carry insurance covering contraceptives, they are forced to act contrary to religious teachings. houses of worship were given an explicit exemption though non-profits affiliated with religious organizations were not. so if the catholic church signs your paycheck, nothing’s changing; but catholic charities will have to change their coverage.

    so on one hand you have womens’ health & gender equality. on the other you have the state (presumably) intruding on personal decisions of religious employers. no matter how this thing plays out, someone’s going to feel like they’re getting shafted (so to speak.)

    if you frame this as a legal issue, religious conservatives have little to argue. the law gives the administration the power to make these kinds of determinations. if you frame it as a moral issue, the conservatives win.

    just my $0.02. cheers.

    1.  Why, exactly, do the conservatives win if this is framed as a moral issue? Since when is it moral to deny health coverage to someone because a bunch of old men stuck in the bronze age and who think women are the source of all evil say so?

      1.  Because setting up a dog and pony show to distract everyone from what was being discussed in the first place means that the public never get to hear that the pill is used to treat serious medical treatments. Which means the part of the public who just wants everyone who knows how to make the pill shot into space or something can keep on self-righteously arguing for it to be erased from the Earth EVEN if they would otherwise start questioning their absolutist stance.

        I’m very much in favor of the pill as birth control and think the people who are for preventing OTHER people from getting birth control are dangerous. But if you can get people to back down from an absolutist, extremist, fanatical stance, it’s a baby step towards tolerance. It’s like getting a racist to grudgingly realize “they” aren’t “all” like that. It’s a crack in the armor.

        You can’t just stop them from having what they want – you have to get them to want it less so they don’t try for it so hard (and obnoxiously), and hopefully eventually stop wanting it at all.

    2.  if primitive cults aren’t legally allowed to practice female genital mutilation on the children of their inmates,  why then should the catholic minority be allowed to dictate policies that cause direct medical harm?

      1. And have nothing to do with their tired, 2000-year old good ol’ boys rulebook…

        …as they pop vigara covered under their insurance…

    3. Here is $.02 back at you. 
      Insurance benefits are partial compensation for working, just as is a paycheck or vacation pay. The worker has earned that benefit and/or contributed additional money for it. The moral objections of the employer are meaningless in the equation because it is the employees decision to make use of the benefit that he/she has paid for. 

      The employer has no more right to register a moral objection to the health decisions of the employee than they do to object to how the employee chooses to spend the paycheck that the employee receives from them. Does the Catholic Church have the moral right to control that?

      And lastly, if the employer is a Jehovah’s Witness, should they have the right to preclude blood transfusions due to moral objections?  Or a Christian Scientist to prevent medications of any kind. This religious belief argument is nonsense. It’s a red herring to obscure the attempt to cripple movement to national health insurance.

      1. This is the real reason for this epileptic fit masquerading as public debate.

        Red fucking herring. Everyone knows Libaugh’s an utter prick already, but that’s the only reason most people are talking about it.

        Ask yourselves, if this bullshit wasn’t filling the airwaves, what else might we be hearing about right now? You can bet the Republicans would rather you didn’t.

  19. Of course, this whole misogynist smear happens to totally align with near-term neoliberal agendas.  Since the Republicans and the right in general have *absolutely nothing to offer* the general public by way of a cure for the current economic crisis that would not be a repetition of the very policies that caused the crisis in the first place, they fall back on vile misogyny to shore up their base.  Calling women sluts and going after contraception is a *great* way of hiding the fact that they’ve got nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

    1.  Except it’s a TERRIBLE way of hiding the fact that they’ve got nothing.  It is a monumental misstep that is going to cost them a massive number of votes — not to mention hurting Rush’s bottom line as his advertisers trip over each other running away.

      1. They cross the line in order to discern it, and push it back further. 

        Making such statements and such extreme views a large part of the public discussion gives the illusion that a majority actually prefer their viewpoint. 

  20. has anyone done a proper study to see if convicted sex offenders are overwhelmingly Republican?

    1. I don’t know that anyone has. But as conservative “values” are repressive, and repressed people eventually act out somehow, it would not surprise me.

      There is almost always a fine, upstanding Republican leader or lawman getting caught acquiring young men and meth for personal use after leading the charge against homosexuality or serving on the front lines of the drug war

  21. If the government is paying for health care – on any level – eventually they are going to want to interfere in it.  I pay for my own health care and I get what I want.   If the federal government is paying (i.e., using our taxpayer money) for it, then of course they are going to try to dictate how they want us to behave.  Don’t they always?  They always  think they know what is best for us.

    So I am rather astonished that anyone at all is surprised that the federal government  is trying to interfere now.  

    1.  Speaking as someone who’s in a country where the government pays for healthcare – no, they don’t want to interfere with providing healthcare. They have a vested interest in stopping things that make people sick in the first place, not in stopping sick people from getting better.

      Remember, the government is elected in. A great way to get elected OUT is by saying “We’re going to kick sick people out of hospital beds.” Everyone knows people who are or have been in hospital – especially the older demographic, who vote a heck of a lot more than 20 year olds.

      It’s like going after seniors supplements – every government that even MUSES about reducing Old Age Security payments promptly gets defeated. The seniors hear about it, and then the seniors vote them out. Poof.

      Insurance companies don’t get voted out if they don’t pay up.

      What the government does when its involved in healthcare provision is make sure birth control IS covered, because stopping people from getting sicker keeps their costs down. Healthy citizens are hard working citizens that earn more money and pay more taxes. Healthy, happy citizens with jobs don’t want to change who’s in charge.

      The government is OBSESSED with getting people health care.

      1. Yep, for government to have the benefit that preventative care provides is awesome. 

        You in Canada too? Let’s not forget that we pay for healthcare via our taxes, because stating that government pays for healthcare is playing into the right-wing arguments against universal healthcare. 

        I’ve benefitted from the healthcare system here, and after being born and living 30 years in the US, I now ENJOY paying taxes.

        Seriously, it makes me happy. 

        1. Yeah… I live in Australia (where healthcare is covered) and I laugh as this ridiculous debate rages. It belies logic why any party would go out on a platform of not providing healthcare. It’s like looking into a portal into Dickensian England or something. History will frown on the Republicans of today like we from on the Southern slave owners of yesteryear.

    2.  HEAR HEAR! Interfering with health care should be left to the states.

      The ignorant, arrogant, sexist bastards in state legislators know far better how to keep the women folk in line. They can customize their laws to better humiliate, deprive, and belittle people. All in the name of morality and “respect for Life.”

    3. Your insurance plan must be different than mine. My company fights tooth and nail to control what services I receive. Their policy is to make more money by curtailing their coverage at every opportunity. They keep armies of lawyers to enforce the incredibly complicated and obscure provisions of the contract. They also willingly screw the doctor who makes the slightest misstep in protocol. No one gets exactly what they want from the current system.

      1. Yes and these d-bags all want “guberment” out of the decisions . Could you imagine what your health care plan would be if your company was left to decide what was covered? The people left in the GOP are so brain dead they think this will all work out fine. Yeah- for the company, but let the people die. Typical GOP line of thought.

    4. If private industry is paying for health care – on any level – eventually they are going to want to interfere in it.  I get my health care through my company and I get what they want.  If my company is paying (i.e., working out a deal with the insurance company) for it, then of course they are going to try to dictate how they want us to behave.  Don’t they always?  They always think they know what is best for us.

      So I am rather astonished that anyone at all is surprised that for-profit health insurance costs too much and provides inadequate coverage.

    1.  Didn’t the women in an African country stop having sex to get the men to stop fighting? I think it worked. This would work best if congressmen’s  wives started the ball rolling. Wouldn’t THAT be a headline!

  22. Practically every one of the slurs in the original post seem to ignore this simple fact:

    more sex does not equal more birth control.

    I’m kind of appalled to think of the national conversation being significantly influenced by anyone who is unaware of or who chooses to ignore this.  It’s so wrong it’s bizarre – like having the immigration debate driven by people who are most concerned that foreigners are going to use up all our air.

    1. Michelle Malkin married in 1993 (at age 23) and has had only two children in almost 20 years of marriage. This implies that at least one of the following scenarios is likely:

      1. Malkin rarely has sex with her husband. This could help explain why she thinks any woman who would have sex for non-reproductive purposes is a “slut.”
      2. Malkin (or her husband) have fertility issues that preclude any need for birth control. This could help explain her apparent ignorance of how birth control works.
      3. Malkin has used some form of birth control and should know better. This would make her a big fat hypocrite just like many of her peers.

      (NOTE: normally I wouldn’t attack the character of another person based on speculation about their sex life, but I make an exception here since she did so first.)

        1. Also possible, but since she and her peers established that we’re now allowed to make sweeping assumptions about the sex lives of others based on scant information I’m going with #3.

           In fact, I’d also wager good money that her employer’s health insurance covers birth control.

      1. Isn’t Reagan great… for quotes that show you how not to be? “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so” 

    2. It’s so wrong it’s bizarre – like having the immigration debate driven by people who are most concerned that foreigners are going to use up all our air.

      Been following the immigration ‘debate’ in Australia, have you?

  23. And people wonder why we think Right Wingers are total douchebags…. Sigh… Losing faith in humanity. People are so darn ignorant.

  24. The difference between the actions of Maher and Limbaugh is clear to anyone who bothers to look.

    It’s one thing to call a person you don’t like names. It may or may not be juvenile, but it’s just a way to express one’s displeasure. E.g. “Obama is a c*cksucker”.

    It’s quite another thing to try to attempt to discredit a person/engage in character assassination by aggressively criticising an unrelated type of behaviour or affiliation. E.g. “How dare that n*gger think he can be President?”

    One is acceptable, the other is not.

    What Rush and his ilk are saying is that women with an active sex life do not deserve to have their opinions taken into account. Only they are not honest enough to say it outright (I guess even they understand on some level how ridiculous such an opinion is). Instead, they want to repeatedly insinuate it by repeating disparaging allegations against someone they do not like.

    EDIT: There is also the fact that, for the same reason we would not tolerate a grown man beating up a little girl, the amount of effort pundits (who, by definition, have a decent amount of public exposure) should spend attacking an individual should be a function of that individual’s own public exposure (and, hence, ability to fight back if desired).

  25. Something I read somewhere that I’d like verified here.

    Fluke was ostensibly denied because the hearing regulated only one speaker and their first choice, the Chair from the Separation of Church and State Flynn, was their first choice but was swapped at the last minute, and then not allowed by Issa, is the reasoning behind her denial.

    Granted her opinion would’ve been just as valid and undeniable without a vet, but should this rule be pointed out anyway?

  26. Let me just re-iterate A comment I made three-and-a-half years ago:
    Republicans are racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, Willing to hijack the government to abrogate others’ First Amendment rights while claiming to protect them, homophobes. And this is merely their social policies. We’re all feeling the results of their fiscal policies.

    This needs to be the time that their “place” in modern society is relegated to the same “place” we reserve for KKK adherents, neo-Nazis, and sociopaths. They, those that pay them, and those that support them need to be told, in none-uncertain ways, that they are actively doing evil, and we aren’t buying it.

Comments are closed.