My Last Post On Rush Limbaugh's Comments

Melinda Henneberger at the Washington Post frames her argument from a woman's point-of-view -- which is a bit different from my take -- but her piece is spot-on:
[H]ate speech doesn’t tumble from the mouths of people who respect or are in any real way friends of women.

We have been here before, of course. Lots of times, in fact. Yet have we learned anyhing?

If we had, we’d know that the vile things comedian Louis C.K. has said about Palin and her family should have disqualified him from performing at this or any other year’s Radio and TV Correspondents Association dinner. He did withdraw as host one day after Greta van Susteren of Fox News called for a boycott of the June event. But has she also joined the boycott of Limbaugh, then? No.

Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin has gone a step further, announcing that her Twitter aggregation site,, is rushing to Rush’s defense and becoming one of his advertisers. (“Our business is fledgling and the ad revenue we generate may be small,’’ she said in a news release, “but we are grateful for the opportunity to reach Rush’s massive audience – and to show our support for his work.”)

Work that includes years of the kind of disrespectful comments that Malkin herself has endured.

Current TV’s Keith Olbermann, who has verbally assaulted Malkin in the past, apologized and said he wanted to try and do better. But in the same segment, he explained why his attacks and Rush’s are, yes, “apples to oranges.”

“I said Ms. Malkin was animated by, “mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big, mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” That doesn’t imply violence against women. It implies, rather clearly, that there’s no human being inside Michelle Malkin any more, just meat.”

Anyway, Malkin does not accept what she not surprisingly sees as his non-apology, pretty much as Fluke did Limbaugh’s.

Palin, too, is selectively offended — understandably outraged by Maher’s nastiness, but unperturbed by Limbaugh’s.

Exactly like Democratic Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Jan Schakowsky, who’ve called for Rush’s head but have nothing to say about Maher, whose show I was a guest on once — and in one of the most surreal moments of my life, found myself defending Jesus in front of a studio audience.

This determination to find our political adversaries guiltier of misogyny than anyone on the home team goes back at least as far as Bill Clinton, whose long history of treating women with the respect you’d show a Kleenex was and still is a topic off-limits in polite Democratic company.

I often wonder if there’s any wrong action that wouldn’t be defended by political teammates with cries of, “At least he didn’t x, y, or z, like the other guys did.” But if there is a line partisans wouldn’t cross to defend their own, I haven’t located it.

The irony is that any official willing to challenge an ally in that way would reap political rewards. Yet if there is such a giant, he or she has yet to step to the mic.
My emphasis.

I know that it's a long one -- but you should also check out the entire article. Sh*t. I wish I could put my thoughts into words that well.

For the record, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Louis C.K. are all just as bad as Rush Limbaugh.

Any way you slice it, all of the above-mentioned politicians, pundits and talking-heads are wrong because they are determined "to find our political adversaries guiltier of misogyny than anyone on the home team".

And you can replace "misogyny" with just about anything.

This is precisely what is wrong with our political discourse folks.