I will put my Conservative credentials up against just about anyone. The first President I voted for was Ronald Reagan. I was a founder of the Conservative Student Union on my College Campus. As a lawyer I have given countless pro-bono hours to conservative legal causes and worked on the campaigns of some of the most conservative politicians this state has seen. As a result I tend to get a little testy when somebody tells me I am not conservative enough because I am pro- immigration and support immigration reform. The truth of the matter is that pro- immigration is the conservative stance. Whether a position is conservative or not depends not on what Rush Limbaugh says but on whether it adheres to bedrock conservative principles.
For instance, we believe in a government of limited powers enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the constitution explicitly give Congress the right to regulate immigration. You can find the power to regulate immigration only if you infer it from other enumerated powers in the Constitution such as the Naturalization clause or the Commerce clause. Of course we have all seen what happens when liberals “infer” powers from the Constitution.
On May 21st 2012, the Bayshore Teaparty issued a press release endorsing Ron Paul for President of the United States of America, and with great pleasure no less! They state in their endorsement that they are tired of the GOP ramming candidates down their throats. The Bayshore Teaparty, headed by its founder, Barbara Gonzalez, has made this decision based on principal missing the true importance of this 2012 election, which is to defeat Obama at all cost! What’s more, she talks about Mitt Romney’s left-leaning policies, never mentioning any of Ron Paul’s dangerous agenda!
According to Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, Paul is not a teaparty candidate. Limbaugh stated on his radio broadcast, “Paul blames America for 9/11. This is NOT what the teaparty thinks.” Paul is an Isolationist! How will he protect us from enemies foreign and domestic if he admits that America should stay out of foreign policy? Remember America is the Infidel, and we are on every terrorist group “hit list”. What will Paul do if Iran is allowed to complete its mission to develop a nuclear arsenal and threatens the destruction of the United States and Israel with it? How can America trust such a kook?
In an article written by journalist Ben Adler dated December 22, 2011, Adler states, “Paul is not a true libertarian: he takes socially conservative stances like opposing immigration and reproductive freedom. He is a non-interventionist.” How then can the BSTP with all good conscience endorse such a man? The answer is clear…it’s the principal of the thing! This is not about teaching lessons: this is the most important election of our time! BSTP talks the talk about restoring America to her former glory. Does this mean taking a step backwards and ignoring what happened on the day when we got hit by terrorists on American soil? Is this no longer an issue? How will this resonate with families who lost loved-ones on that dark day? Perhaps the Bayshore Teaparty is being influenced by the Obama administration that suggests terrorism is no longer a threat to us.
My husband and I were once proud members of the Bayshore Teaparty. We shared common principles and beliefs, but no longer. I wrote to Barbara Gonzalez expressing my concerns over the Ron Paul endorsement, Gonzalez accused me of being influence by the media. Well to sum it all up, the Bayshore Teaparty has gone rogue with this perilous endorsement! Perhaps the teaparty should stand by its original policy and stay away from endorsing candidates; in all probability…they would be better off for it.
The Obama campaign will intensify its efforts to boost the President’s standing with women this week with a mailing to over 1 million female voters in more than a dozen battleground states, according to The New York Times.
The campaign’s effort to rally women around the health care law had been long planned, to coincide with the second anniversary of Mr. Obama signing it on March 23, campaign officials said. But the effort has gained intensity, they added, because of recent controversies over contraception, abortion and education in Washington and in state capitals that have energized people in the campaign’s far-flung field offices who are essential to putting any national strategy into action.
Late last year, two and a half months ago, the chatter was that Obama was in trouble with his liberal base as well as the rest of the electorate. The economy was the majority’s concern.
In the last two months, George Stephanopoulos introduced contraception into the GOP primary debate, Rick Santorum and the left stream media kept that chatter alive. Obama announced that contraception will be covered under ObamaCare and Rush Limbaugh called a law student a slut and a prostitute.
Now, instead of focusing on the economy, energy prices and the emergent inflation that hasn’t caught the media’s attention yet, we are engaged in a culture war designed by the Obama campaign to shore up the President’s support with his base and scare women about the evil white men who run the Republican party.
How easily manipulated we are.
The general election campaign is well underway. However the GOP is still fighting over minor differences between it’s potential candidates and is not yet engaged against Obama.
Far be it from me to note the superficial and inconsequential, but when I see Fluke I think more “chaste librarian” than raging “slut.”
By Olivia Nuzzi
The Sandra Fluke-Rush Limbaugh drama has succeeded in sparking a national debate about false equivalency in the media. Of course, things like sexism and misogyny exist on both the right and left. But on which side is it worse? And on which side – if any – is it fundamental?
In a piece posted here yesterday, Art Gallagher attacked “misogynists lefties” whom he admitted he had “never heard of” until The Daily Beast’s Kristen Powers brought them to his attention. Though, not knowing about these media figures didn’t stop Gallagher from blindly agreeing with Powers that they were “misogynists.”
I have a big problem with anyone making a diagnosis from a distance. Is Rush Limbaugh a misogynist? I suppose to figure that out you’d have to talk to his mother and four wives.
Does Rush Limbaugh say misogynistic things, and has he done so consistently throughout his career? From his claim that having “two or three abortions” is a part of a feminist “paying her dues” to his cracks about First Lady Michelle Obama’s figure, the evidence isn’t difficult to find.
However, none of that means that Limbaugh is without insight. And liberals who nod in agreement with the establishment left – conceding that he’s a mere useless blowhard – are not doing themselves any favors.
Limbaugh is right on occasion – there are indeed militant feminists, and what they espouse is arguably as harmful as Mel Gibson calling your daughter “sugar tits.” Admitting that doesn’t mean that I’m not a feminist, it means I’m not an ideological imbecile (though the readers on this website may disagree.)
The assertion that “lefties” are never reprimanded for their sexist or racist remarks may read as accurate if you live in a bubble. Evidently, Gallagher’s bubble hasn’t yet been punctured by reality on this topic.
Last May, MSNBC host and converted-liberal, Ed Schultz, was suspended by the network after calling Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut” on his radio program. I condemned that statement, as did every one from Alyssa Rosenberg from the left-wing Think Progress, to the Women’s Media Center’s President Julie Burton, to Keith Olbermann – that’d be one of those “misogynists lefties” Gallagher had “never heard of.”
In 2008, the National Organization for Women (NOW) circulated a petition, protesting MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ “record of ‘overt sexism when discussing women.'” They based this claim on research conducted by the known-liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America. The left-leaning NOW denounced Matthews for “sexist comments” made about Hillary Clinton, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the female correspondents who he worked with at MSNBC.
Also in 2008, MSNBC suspended Tucker Carlson’s guest-host David Shuster for suggesting that the Clinton campaign had “pimped out” Chelsea Clinton.
The late, great Christopher Hitchens was often the subject of liberal rage for his alleged sexism in the form of observations such as “Mrs. Clinton, looking like the dog being washed” and assessments of that same target as being “flagrant, hysterical, repetitive and pathological lying.” One of Hitchens’ later works, a Vanity Fair piece entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny” saw him denounced as “sexist” by Mediaite’s Rachel Sklar and comedian Sarah Silverman.
In 2010, liberal hero Michael Moore, along with noted feminist author Naomi Wolfe, was the subject of a left-wing protest labeled “Moore and Me.” After making comments deemed “insensitive” regarding rape allegations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and offering to post his $20,000 bail, Moore was declared a “rape apologist.” Also smeared with the label was Naomi Wolfe, who – along with Moore and a handful of others – refused to condemn and dismiss Assange by virtue of the unclear rape allegations made against him.
And should you be under the impression that those on the left are only castigated when they’re criticizing fellow liberals, you’re mistaken.
Keith Olbermann has come under fire numerous times from the liberal and feminist establishments for his bombastic remarks about conservative women. In 2009, Olbermann was called out by the left-wing Air America’s editor of news and politics, Megan Carpentier, for “belittling” Malkin’s voice with his impersonation of her. Carpentier went on to suggest that Olbermann’s attack relied on “silly stereotypes” and “imagery that brings to mind victims of domestic violence.”
This past November, Bill Maher – another one of those “misogynists lefties” Gallagher had “never heard of” – was scolded by feminists after he made a joke about the detention of CBS’s Lara Logan, wherein he suggested that America would be willing to send Elisabeth Hasselbeck to Egypt in exchange for the safe return of the foreign correspondent.
The Sandra Fluke-Rush Limbaugh episode is a unique one, mainly because Sandra Fluke is not a public figure. Limbaugh did not simply take a one-shot at a commentator – he used his platform as the loudest voice in radio to verbally batter a civilian for days.
Far be it from me to note the superficial and inconsequential, but when I see Fluke I think more “chaste librarian” than raging “slut.” Not to mention, Fluke’s testimony itself had nothing to do with sex. Which leads me to believe that Limbaugh didn’t even bother to listen to her speak – and perhaps he didn’t even bother to look at her. Had he done so, he would’ve witnessed a civil woman discuss a friend who paid, out of pocket, for the birth control pills she was prescribed to treat a medical condition.
It’s true that both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders, followers and mouthpieces who often thoughtlessly employ incendiary rhetoric. But it’s also true that those with sharp tongues on both sides of the aisle face consequences.
Unfortunately for ideologues, more people are governed by their sense of Right and Wrong than Right and Left.
Olivia Nuzzi was briefly a MMM contributor until Dan Jacobson’s triCityNews lured her away with money and colorful language. We’re glad to have her back, even if only to set us straight.
In a column published yesterday on The Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers, who is also a FoxNews analyst, calls the leftist media on their hypocrisy over the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy.
Powers doesn’t want anyone to give Limbaugh a break over calling Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” On the contrary, she says his apology is an inauthentic attempt to keep his advertisers from abandoning him. She’s probably right. Kirsten wants Rush to grovel more and to call Fluke on the phone, just President Obama did.
While I agree that Limbaugh’s comments were inappropriate and over the top, I predict that Fluke will parlay the resulting exposure into a lucrative media career. Watch out Rachel Madow and the lefties on The View — Sandra Fluke is your new competition. If living well is the best revenge, we’ll be seeing more of Fluke gloating than we’ll see or hear of Limbaugh groveling.
Powers has nothing to worry about. Fluke is no competition for Kirsten. Kirsten has integrity.
Which is why Powers calls out Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman and a couple of misogynists lefties I’ve never heard of (I’m sure they’ve never heard of me either), in graphic detail.
What if they said those horrible things about Jews or African-Americans, Powers asks rhetorically as if the answer was obvious.
The answer is obvious, but not the one Powers was implying. If Matthews or Olbermann said something racist about a Jew, nothing much would happen. If they said something racist about an African American, they would be boycotted and/or fired. Only Whoopie Goldberg, Jessie Jackson and rappers are allowed to make money using the N-word.
Bill Maher, the “grand pooh-bah of media mysogyny” is allowed to make money using the C-word. He can refer to conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum’s wife in sexist and sexual terms, make money and get a pass from Gloria Steinem.
Powers says that unless the left stream media starts holding their resident misogynists to account, “the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.”
What fight against media misogyny? Powers just laid it out perfectly in her piece. The left isn’t fighting against media misogyny. They are the media misogynists!
The right doesn’t have a media misogyny problem. Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Megyn Kelly, Sarah Palin and a great deal of the FoxNews talent, including Powers are not demeaned by male members of the media right or center right. When male members of the media right, like Bill O’Reilly for example, criticise Maddow, The View women or Nancy Pelosi, he never does it in a misogynist manner. I’m sure someone can come up with right wing media types on the fringe who are consistently misogynistic, but no one with the prominence of Maher, Matthews or Olbermann.
Limbaugh is not consistently misogynistic, like those lefties. I don’t know what is in Rush’s heart, but if he was consistently misognynistic his career would be over. And not because of the left wouldn’t tolerate it. Rush’s listeners would not tolerate such behavior.
Rush Limbaugh didn’t apologise because the the outcry from the leftist media and the Democrats. He lives for and cashes in over outcrys from the left. He apologised because of the outcry from Republicans and his right-wing advertisers.
We’ll know the left is fighting against media misogyny and that the Democratic Party truly stands for women’s rights when President Obama’s Super PAC returns the $1 million dollars that Bill Maher donated.
Powers is too smart to have the audacity to hope that happens. Otherwise she would have called for the President’s PAC to return the money. She left that task up to The Weekly Standard.
In the meantime, the “fight against media misogyny” is a “proxy war for the Democratic Party,” just like this whole fabricated contraception controversy is a proxy war for the Democratic Party.
“Contraception is working just fine. Leave it alone.” ~Mitt Romney answering George Stephanopoulos’s questions regarding States having the right to ban contraception during the New Hampshire GOP presidential debate
President Obama and his allies in the mainstream media completely fabricated the recent contraception controversy in order to distract America from its real problems which are likely to get worse between now and November 6.
Rather than talk about almost 25 million working age Americans without jobs, Obama wants America to be afraid that his Republican challenger would ban birth control if elected.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, formerly President Bill Clinton’s Communications Director, went to great lengths during the New Hampshire GOP presidential debate to get a sound bite of Mitt Romney saying that States have the right to ban birth control in early January.
In November of last year, Obama told then Archbishop, now Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the leader of the Catholic Church in the United States, that he “get most of what he wanted” regarding contraception as the White House was hashing out the implentation of ObamaCare.
By early February, Obama changed his mind,betrayed Dolan and shifted the national debate away from the economy and on to issues that were “working just fine” — birth control and religious freedom — when he announced the ObamaCare regulations that requires all employers, including those affiliated with religious institutions, to provide health care that includes the cost of contraceptives.
Romney avoided the trap in January, but Rick Santorum jumped into it with both feet in February, as did Republicans in the House and Senate.
Rush Limbaugh did the congressional Republicans a favor by drawing attention to himself, and away from the Blunt Amendment which was never going to pass, with his crass remarks about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law School student who is as much a part of this Obama change the subject gambit as Stephanopoulos is.
But Limbaugh did Obama a bigger favor. The President called Fluke yesterday to thank her for speaking out for women’s rights. Now he’s framing the contraception debate as a women’s right’s issue.
Fluke is not a 23 year old coed who can’t afford birth control as originally reported in the media. She’s a 30 year old women’s rights activist. It was no fluke that the Democrats wanted her to testify before congress. She’s likely to be the President’s 2012 Obama girl.