Flashback: In 2009 Limbaugh accused Scozzafava of “widespread bestiality”
Rush Limbaugh faces a growing storm of criticism for his “slut-shaming” attack on Georgetown student Sandra Fluke.
His days-long tirade included Limbaugh asking where the young woman got her condoms “in the sixth grade” and suggesting that she was having so much sex that he was surprised she could still walk.
The talk radio host also urged Ms. Fluke to post videos of herself having sex.
If this sounds like a place we’ve all been before, it’s because Limbaugh launched a similarly venomous attack at then-Republican Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, from Governeur, in 2009.
Scozzafava was the GOP’s chosen candidate in the 23rd district special election that year and Limbaugh — like many conservatives — viewed her as too moderate.
“We can say that she’s guilty of widespread bestiality,” Limbaugh said. “She has screwed every RINO in the country.” (Hear the audio below.)
That incident backfired for Limbaugh, too. When asked by a reporter about the slur, Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman laughed and declined to condemn the remarks.
But Democrat Bill Owens quickly issued a strongly-worded statement, calling Limbaugh’s attacks “despicable” and saying that he was “personally” offended.
“Assemblywoman Scozzafava is an honorable public servant,” Owens said.
“Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing special interests that are running Hoffman’s campaign can’t even begin to compete with what she has accomplished over her career.”
Scozzafava went on to endorse Owens and the Democrat won the upset over Hoffman by roughly 3,500 votes. Did Limbaugh’s toxic rhetoric make the difference? Probably not. But it’s hard to believe that it helped.
Good for Bill Owens.
Thanks for digging this up and reminding us of it, Brian.
Limbaugh’s comments are disgusting.
But so are these:
Bill Maher’s comment about Sarah Palin:http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/report-bill-maher-doubles-down-calls-sarah-palin-c-word/
Ed Schultz about Laura Ingraham: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/25/unhinged-msnbcs-ed-schultz-calls-laura-ingraham-a-right-wing-slut/
Matt Taibbi: about Andrew Breitbart: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301
Guess we’ve got some pretty crummy individuals on both sides.
I agree we do.
I think Rush is different just do to the scale, the guy has a huge audience, the people above with the exception of Maher (who is as slimy as Limbaugh) don’t.
There are plenty of people who say reprehensible things. I try to do it once a day.
Here’s why it is different for Rush.
Bill Maher; comedian and not a very funny one. Does anyone really listen to him?
Ed Schultz; I have honestly never seen him and only vaguely knew he existed.
Matt Taibbi; was talking about Andrew Breitbart who had this to say about Ted Kennedy’s death:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/26/57997/breitbart-kennedy-twitter/?mobile=nc
The difference with Rush is that Rush is a hugely powerful figure in the Republican sphere. People are, or at least have been afraid to speak out against him. Why? Because he wields power. None of the people you mentioned hold any sway over left-wing political thought.
I won’t defend any of those people (Maher and Ingraham are the only ones I actually recognize anyway). However, Limbaugh is the trailblazer that guided the way to all of this nastiness and slander, and it is still he who pushes the envelope on incivility. And it is Limbaugh who is constantly coddled and treated like a legitimate political thinker by conservative politicians.
Note that the other examples are nastiness directed at other nasty pundits (I count Palin in the pundit category too). That doesn’t excuse the remarks, but there is always a lot of elbows thrown – I have listened to Ingraham, Breitbart, and Palin, and they are as nasty as anyone.
In Limbaugh’s latest case, his venom is directed at slandering and vilifying a citizen that was invited to provide testimony to a committee of Congress. That is intimidation against a citizen doing her civic duty.
The best coverage I have seen of the advertisers that are abandoning this program is on Fox. They are following this implosion pretty well.
“And it is Limbaugh who is constantly coddled and treated like a legitimate political thinker by conservative politicians.”
He is treated as a “legitimate political thinker” by more than just conservative politicians or we would not even be discussing it.
I’m not condoning what Rush said, but he apologized. Who here isn’t human and makes mistakes? It’s our responsibility to take ownership of our own mistakes.
Secondly, we don’t need to pass a law to limit free speech. We have an on/off switch on our TV and radio. We have the freedom, right now, to use it.
JDM, he only apologized after his sponsors started pulling ads. That’s no apology, that’s damage control. And I don’t call it a mistake if you do it day after day until it starts hurting your bottom line.
And who’s talking about passing a law to limit free speech?
Our society is quite contradictory in their thinking.
The gift of free thinking has evolved without the parameters of a standard of righteousness, (let’s take God out of everything even though the Founders included Him) and yet, we are offended when someone says something we don’t like.
Say it in the movies, say it in jokes, but don’t say it in the political arena. Especially if you’re a Conservative.
I don’t buy into the idea that there is a difference because Rush is hugely powerful. The other individuals’ statements about other people are just as crass.
In Limbaugh’s latest case, his venom is directed at slandering and vilifying a citizen that was invited to provide testimony to a committee of Congress. That is intimidation against a citizen doing her civic duty.
TomL, Ms. Fluke is no more deserving of propriety than any other American citizen. That is a weak argument in my opinion! If people are going to slap Rush on the wrist for his language, than oppose it in all forms to all people.
It’s always been strange to me how liberal and/or feminist women want the world to know their capabilities are equal to a man’s, but they strike like a cobra when something is said to them they don’t like.
Walker, most people apologize when confronted.
Walker: “And who’s talking about passing a law to limit free speech?”
Leon Panetta, United States Secretary of Defense
(link to whitehouse.gov)
http://tinyurl.com/7s4qwr6
Getting Rush off Armed Forces Radio is a law limiting free speech? Who knew? I always thought laws had to go through Congress and be signed by the President. But then, conservatives often have quite a different interpretation of the Constitution.
Someone should ask Doug what he thinks of Limbaugh’s comments concerning Fluke.
JDM, do you call it a “law limiting free speech” when conservatives call for cutting funding for NPR?
The trouble with Rush is he is a comedian who thinks he is a thinker of great thoughts.
.. the insults seem to be predominately sexual inuendo.
Frustrated little troll of a man.
Walker: “JDM, do you call it a “law limiting free speech” when conservatives call for cutting funding for NPR?”
I’m not afraid to admit when a good point has been made, even to my detriment. There is probably a nuance of difference, but I cannot think of it, nor do I wish to take the time.
Good point, Walker.
Though it is a tempting trade, no free speech, for Limbaugh’s silence…
You are right Pete, I totally agree.
The guy is kind of funny sometimes, but sometimes the way people hang on his every word, they buy into the idea that he is a thinker of great controversial thoughts.
If you listen to his whole show which I do on occasion; its all pretty much a joke and he knows it is a joke. I think the advertisers are a big big deal though we will see how that goes. It is kind of sad that actual real conservative politicians are worried about him or worried about offending him.
Calling Rush a comedian and a “joker” is disingenuous. Why would Romney be afraid to criticize a comedian? It seems conservatives just can’t admit that Rush is one of, or even the leader of the GOP.
I think if we’re honest, truth resonates with us no matter package it comes in. Sometimes it ain’t pretty. We often shoot the messenger with the message.
Limbaugh has his faults. But he has created a platform for what he believes is true regarding Conservatism and is effective.
I just don’t have a problem with men duking it out. I am not interested in living in a world immune from bad language at times. And if one oversteps his or her bounds, then apologize and move on.
Rush isn’t always right. But he’s not always wrong, either.
Can we cut through the drama of what offends us and really listen to both sides of individuals who claim to love America? I would say that half of our energy is fighting among ourselves with the peripheral.
Thing is, often the truth offends us, too.
We love sexual humor. Blond jokes are always funny. Racial jokes are funny too. Religious jokes make me roll on the floor. But it’s bad…always was, always will be, and it shouldn’t be tolerated except maybe the auto repair garage, where we know we’re in the company of morons.
Kathy says: “Ms. Fluke is no more deserving of propriety than any other American citizen.”
I think the courts have recognized a difference between ordinary people and public figures such as entertainers and politicians. Any good professional in entertainment, broadcasting or media knows that this line exists. Larry Flynt got away with slandering/ libeling ( I have a hard time with the legal distinction) Jerry Falwell because the courts recognized Falwell as a public figure. If Larry Flynt had said similar things about someone like Ms. Fluke he very likely would have lost in court.
Kathy, I’m not trying to nit-pick. There is a real legal distinction. Just as it is usually fairly obvious when someone makes a genuine apology and when they don’t really mean it. When my kids did something mean to each other I made them apologize and if the apology didn’t seem sincere I made them kiss and apologize. They learned to seem sincere pretty quickly even if they didn’t feel it.
Issuing a written statement doesn’t have the ring of sincerity to me, though I wouldn’t suggest Rush should try to kiss and make up.
The “dislikes” on some of the comments from Conservatives on here is very telling.
My comments were an honest attempt to be open-minded and suggest meeting Liberals half-way; to agree with what we all agree on (I’m assuming), that we love our country, and build from there.
One Conservative comment agreed that Walker made a valid point. This is mature.
Yet, it is apparent that even attempting mediation with a calm tone is not appreciated by some on this forum.
Then duke it out people. Hopefully, you won’t devour yourselves!
Hey, tootightmike, I like what you said. Good point.
We can use some propriety in this society – even though we sit at the altar of raunchy entertainment. Thing is, I’m not sure how well we’ll do since we want it 24/7. What you take in definitely comes out in some shape or form.
The important thing to remember, and I’m glad this is being pointed out on this comment thread, is that conservatives are always victims no matter what they do.
Kathy, I’m not trying to nit-pick. There is a real legal distinction.
It’s too bad there has to be a legal distinction, but people have lost the “art” of self-governing themselves. Our society has evolved to “if it feels good do it” — in the name of freedom — but don’t you dare say anything. There’s where we draw the line.
Seems like an oxymoron.
I agree that “to whom much is given much is required”. There is certainly a higher accountability with individuals who are in leadership positions or have an audience.
It’s just that I don’t get how some of the biggest opponents of what Limbaugh said, (along with other public figures caught in sex scandals), do some of the same things. I don’t care if there is a legal distinction with public figures. It is self righteous and hypocritical to point the finger — and be doing it yourself to a “lesser” degree.
We can talk legal distinction, and it’s true. But there is ultimately a moral code as well.
oa, I think it’s obvious, too, that name calling, labeling, and deciding if people are sincerely sorry, is not a way to bring unity to a divided country.
What Rush said was very mild compared to what is said by for example by Howard Stern.
It is kind of over the top the big deal that is being made about this compared to the absolute filth and garbage that is thrown at us in our media.
In the end this will be good for Rush.
One of the reasons there is a legal distinction is the difference in power relations. Politicians and pundits have access to a megaphone to defend themselves. If Maher says nasty, arguably slanderous things to Ingraham, she can answer back in a public forum (her show). Similarly, when Flynt slandered Falwell, it was the same. I am not really defending Maher or Flynt – what they said was vile – but their victims could, and certainly did, respond in a public way.
The Limbaugh case is different because it is a public figure with a megaphone attacking a private person who does not have this megaphone. Ms. Flake only has access when invited by politicians and pundits.
I certainly don’t agree that in Ms. Fluke’s case it is simply ‘an oversensitive feminist’ or other easy excuse. What Limbaugh did was completely fabricate the content of her testimony (read it, and see what I mean), then attempt to destroy her personal and professional reputation. Repeatedly and viciously. And at the same time ridicule the motives of any woman who needs or wants contraception. This is well beyond an offhand remark, and deserves every bit of outrage that it has received.
appologies are like art, i’ll know it when i see it!
i had a 6th grade teacher whose mantra was:
“There is a time and a place for everything”
(funny i kinda remember, then, he looked like Rush does now)
I spent a few afternoons at the chalkboard printing it repeatedly.
I agree a sense of humor is susbjective, but sometimes the art of humor is knowing when a fart at the dinner table is funny, and when it’s a fart.
This seems to be a common argument/tactic these days.
Instead of addressing the problem being discussed – in this case, Rush’s vile comments – people try to divert attention and refocus on other situations that they feel are similar but associated with the other side. Inevitably, the similarities are weak. But even if they weren’t…
We all did this as kids, right? “But… but… Johnny did it too… ”
Of course, most of us learned that just because Johnny also did something wrong, that didn’t get us off the hook.
In the world of logical fallacies, it is known as Tu quoque… or “You too!”
In modern, adult, political conversations, this tactic seems to be less about discussing the subject, and more about obfuscating and diverting attention away from the issue. In this case, trying to get us to talk about Bill Maher or someone else, instead of Rush.
Hopefully we don’t let it work.
Kathy’s defense reads like this to me: “1. Rush said something bad. 2. But others have said bad things too. 3. So lets stop picking on Rush”
dave: you left one point out – Rush apologized.
Here’s a “me, too” for you.
[Obama supporter] Bill Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.”
Do you remember Santorum getting called on the carpet for one of his supporters making an aspirin joke?
You see, dave, it’s media bias that makes us want to point out the “me, too’s”. It’s the media silence when the parallel thing happens on the left that needs pointing out.
reference for above quote: http://tinyurl.com/89a4v9r
Dave, according to one opinion writer at WaPo it’s also known as the “so’s your old man” defense.
JDM,
I’m curious. Do you believe that people can say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, as often as they want… and then all they have to do after that is apologize, and everything is ok?
Are we on the same page? Are we talking about Rush and what a vile man he is? Or are we talking about vile talk in general?
I am talking about the latter.
Pick on Rush all you want. I agree he was out of line. He agrees, too. The point of the debate I think — if we all really care about civility — then all of it should stop.
We should be mature enough our modern, adult, political conversations to stand up for what is right in both camps.
“it’s also known as the “so’s your old man” defense.”
Hahaha, I like that much better!!
Kathy, of course you are talking about the latter.
You and JDM just happen to be the only ones trying to do so. And as I explained… it is clear why you are doing it. Because it helps you not talk about Rush.
Which is fine. We understand it. It is more important for you to point out that both houses are dirty than it is to admit that your own needs some cleaning.
I get the urge to not take responsibility without also pointing fingers… I do. Like I said, we all did it as kids.
I don’t think it is a surprise to anyone that the American public is getting more rude and crass all the time. Entertainers will try to push the boundaries.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that people of every political stripe say nasty things that they target toward their core audience who may find their statements amusing simply because they know it will annoy the other side.
Stop with the Bill Maher stuff because it isn’t the question at the moment. Bill Maher has had his moments in the bad-boy spotlight. I’m not defending him; I don’t think he’s very funny or all that clever.
Kathy, just because you get some dislikes doesn’t mean we don’t love you for who you are–or maybe who you could be if you became a little more liberal.
I’m curious. Do you believe that people can say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, as often as they want… and then all they have to do after that is apologize, and everything is ok?
Talk about switching gears, Dave. Now we’re going to open the conversation to everyone?
Good. Let’s hear some of the Liberals on this forum address their own and stop high-fiving each other for your adolescent quips!
KHL, I am honestly not offended by the dislikes (if you think I am). In fact, I am not offended easily at all.
Of course I favor Rush in the sense that I like his bluntness about what he perceives as truth. I happen to agree with much of what he says. I also have listened to him long enough over the years to see how he nails anything that, in his opinion, defies Conservatism.
You might love me more if you knew how much some of the scared-of- feminist-women-Liberal-men I know would like me to help them regain their manhood through letting them be in charge for a change. You know, the whole “woman scorned” thing.
But that’s a whole ‘nother topic!
Kathy, JDM’s comment (at least the part I am engaging him about) dealt with the topic of this blog post and the issue being discussed… which is Rush and his vile remarks.
I certainly have no problem engaging you in a discussion about that as well. But that appears impossible right now because you seem more interested in ducking the topic so you can point fingers elsewhere.
Dave, the way I am seeing it is, the bottom line is that Rush is being singled out. The topic of this thread is that very thing. I get that.
But how much can we dissect him? Without taking a look at all of the poor choices of words and statements directed at those in the political arena?
I guess for me, the discussion is ended since there is no more to say about Rush. He was wrong. I have said it. But I don’t shoot the messenger just as I am assuming the Liberals would not want their messengers shot. The whole topic we are discussing lends itself to finger pointing. But know that I haven’t intended it to be for diversion, but to lay some framework in looking at the whole problem.
If anything, this diverts us from working together for common ground and unity, asking ourselves: what is it that both camps wish to preserve?
Interesting discussion.
People tend to use inflammatory language and remarks when they cannot win an argument or debate on the issue and its merits. I think that’s what happened here. Worth mentioning, though, in describing the differences, ever notice how you never see Rush outside of his bubble of his radio show? He doesn’t go onto CBS or CNN or any impartial forum. Say what you want about Bill Maher (and I personally think he’s not only a good comedian but a highly intelligent and effective debater), Bill Maher often frequently appears in other forums than his own show, and debates the issues he believes in directly with others who disagree with him. Like to see Rush do some of that…or Bill O’Reilly, for that matter as well. It’s easy to be “right” when you’re in your own bubble, and have absolutely no one to challenge you. If you look at it that way, then with all due respect to Rush’s supporters, maybe he was due to be challenged for once.
dave :”JDM, Do you believe that people can say whatever they want, … and then all they have to do after that is apologize, and everything is ok?”
Everyone is human, and should be listened to when the apologize. Did they just say, “I’m sorry you’re such a moron that you don’t understand things” or did they address their own issue.
After that, frequency of such occurrences can also come into play. I think it is up to the individual when they can tolerate an apology, and when enough is enough.
I don’t think khl, for example, should have to tell me when my tolerance level is reached. I’m guessing khl thinks the same about me.
off topic: I resisted using the term, “everyone is a sinner”.
I wonder how those who think that we evolved from primordial mud explain how we ever evolved into liberal and conservative combatants who argue over Rush Limbaugh.
Just sayin.