enlarge

Credit: Media Matters

Word cloud of Rush Limbaugh's shows, February 29-March 3

After bleeding sponsors for the past couple of days it seems Rush Limbaugh has taken stock of what he said last week and issued a "statement." I call it a statement and not an apology because it really isn't much of an apology. Here's the full text.

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Let's take this apart a little bit. We begin with "illustrated the absurd with absurdity..." This is the excuse he always uses for whatever he says. He is an entertainer, entertaining. Yes, because it's so entertaining to suggest that hungry children dumpster-dive for their dinner. Or to call those hungry children "waifs and serfs dependent on the state." Or saying he hopes President Obama fails.

Har-dee-har-har, Rushbo. It's not funny, nor was it intended to be funny. Not even a little bit.

On to the second paragraph, which is where he shows plainly that he did not intend a real, true apology. By framing contraception as something for a "social activity," he endeavors to minimize and trivialize women's health needs. Yes, contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, for married and single women. But Sandra Fluke's testimony very specifically pointed to other uses for it, including treatment of PCOS (an incredibly debilitating condition), endometriosis, pelvic inflammation, ovarian cysts, and other conditions specific to women. Further, some women use it to actually regulate their cycles so they can become pregnant. Some young women use it to treat acne!

These are not social. These are not recreational. These are serious health issues. They matter, and they should be covered as part of health insurance that provides basic benefits. Rush Limbaugh intentionally tried to frame this as a debate about sex when it was never a debate about sex. He did it, and Fox News picked up the banner and marched forward with it to the point where now the "slut" meme has been echoed all over the Internet by the far-right wing.

I wonder, would he find it a joking matter if cholesterol medications were removed from a list of basic benefits? Or heart stents? Or blood thinners? They aren't optional for someone who is at risk of a heart attack.

His attack on a private citizen named Sandra Fluke was reprehensible, but the real damage done is the misinformation he spread about why contraception is a health issue, why it should be deemed a basic benefit in any health insurance policy, and why women should have affordable access to it.

Continue reading »

It appears that Target's anti-gay PR problems are getting bigger by the day. Looks like they have themselves a few "the Bible tells us it's wrong" fundies at the helm:

Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wants us to believe that when his company threw money into Tom Emmer's campaign for governor last month, it wasn't because Emmer's a raging homophobe, but because he's a raging pro-business tax-cutter.

But Steinhafel's limp non-apology apology last week hasn't satisfied his critics, and now it's getting harder to take his "no homophobe" plea seriously.For one thing, the apology came out the same day that the Huffington Post pointed out that Target employees had put quite a bit of money behind California's Proposition 8 measure. It's not really fair to hold a company responsible for the actions of individual employees, but the news served to muddle Steinhafel's message of (sort-of) contrition.

It's gotten worse from there. This weekend, The Awl noted that Target's work against gay equality goes well beyond the $150,000 it gave to the Pro-Emmer MN Forward fund. Steinhafel sent his daughter to Wheaton College, a Christian institution where being gay will get you expelled. The younger Steinhafel also studied at the Focus On the Family Institute, one of the leading proponents of therapy to cure gayness.

Meanwhile, one of the other executives with his hands on Target's political donation purse-strings has an even stronger homophobic pedigree: Matt Zabel, the company's VP of government affairs, is a former staffer for Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota senator who supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and sought to outlaw gay adoption.

When the Awl tried to ask Steinhafel directly whether he personally supported the legalization of gay marriage, this response that came back: "Unfortunately, we are unable to address the points or the questions in your e-mail to Mr. Steinhafel."

Robert Gibbs opened up his daily briefing today with a frank confession that the administration had made a decision on Shirley Sherrod's speech without all of the facts, and offered an apology to her directly.

QUESTION: And to a lot of people trying to follow this story, they see a government employee who ends up losing her job because of comments posted on a videotape that appears to be taken out of context. It just looks bungled. Is that a fair way to put it?

GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think this is one -- I think this is a fair way to put it: members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on this, have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think that is -- that is wholly and completely accurate.

I think, without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology. I would do so certainly on behalf of this administration.

I think if we learn -- if we look back and decide what we want to learn out of this, I think it is, as I said, everybody involved made determinations without knowing all the facts and all of the events.

When pressed on the reason for the rapid-fire response, Gibbs had a reply that should have made everyone in the room step back and offer their own apology, but instead it just fired up the machine louder, because if there's anything the mainstream White House press hates, it's being held accountable.

GIBBS: I can't speak for everybody involved. But I think we live in a -- I think we live in a culture that things whip around, people want fast responses, we want to give fast responses and I don't think there's any doubt that if we all look at this, I think the lesson -- one of the great lessons you take away from this is to ask all of the questions first and to come to that fuller understanding. I say that, again, from the perspective of this administration, I say that from the perspective of those that cover this administration, and those that are involved in the back-and-forth in the political theater of this country.

And more:

QUESTION: It does sound like you've spoken to the president about this. If so, does he think she was a victim of a rush to judgment?

GIBBS: Again, I don't think I'd be out here, Matt, giving you the answers that I just gave to Ben without having those reflect the feelings of the president and the feelings of the members of this administration.

True to form, questions revert back to the horserace mentality so pervasive in Washington DC:

QUESTION: What if any concern is there within the administration that this handling of Ms. Sherrod could hurt the president and the Democrats as well in the elections?

GIBBS: Your question encapsulates a little bit of what I was talking about a minute ago. I know there is a -- we have this society and this culture now that's pervasive in this town where everything is viewed through the lens of who wins, who loses, how fast, by what margin?

You know -- look, a disservice was done, an apology is owed. That's what we've done. This administration has never looked at -- I think if you go well back into the campaign -- never looked at a scoreboard at the end of each day to figure out where we stood.

I'm no Robert Gibbs fan, but I don't think he could have done a better job keeping the message focused on the wrong done to Shirley Sherrod and the White House message of apology and conciliation, despite every effort to deflect it.

Continue reading »

If you were watching last weeks' live blog of BP CEO Tony Hayward's testimony before Congress, you got to experience my shocked reaction to Joe Barton's shameless apology to BP for having to escrow $20 billion for victims' losses due to the oil spill.

Later in the same day he apologized for that apology after some Republicans called for his head (and ranking member status).

And then he decided the apology for the apology wasn't all that necessary after all. Are you following all this?

A staffer is now taking the hit for actually posting this tweet, but I have no doubt the cue was Barton's.

Bottom line: Joe Barton thinks BP has been unfairly treated for having to take responsibility for the devastation in the Gulf.

This is how shills are born. They come into the world as politicians "representing constituents." When the constituents they represent are the wealthy oil companies in their districts, they sell themselves to the highest bidder, BP, in this case.

Joe Barton, as you might recall, was one of the chief architects of the Cheney Oil Act that gave BP the necessary exemptions to drill that well without all of the required EIRs (Environmental Impact Reports). Joe Barton is Big Oil's handmaiden, and he is shameless about it.

Conservatives fuel Barton's walkback of the walk back, decrying Big Government and its heavy hand on the shoulder of corporate America. Yes, the Party of Personal Responsibility is certainly all for Personal Responsibility until, well...someone is responsible. Then it's not really all that necessary to believe in personal responsibility.

Or to believe in corporate "person"al responsibility. The smell of Barton's hypocrisy is as pungent as the stench of oil washing up on Louisiana shores.

Chalk another one up for the good ole boys of the South Carolina GOP. Every time I read something about this group it feels like a slow, deep slide back to 1865.

The Lexington County Republicans censured State Senator Jake Knotts Friday night for his nasty racist remarks about "ragheads." Here's the quote:

"We've got a raghead in Washington, we don't need a raghead in the Statehouse,"

His apology was even worse than the original quote. He justified his idiotic racism by claiming to be in a casual setting and conversation. I see. If one is relaxed and just chatting, being a racist is ok? Well, it's ok if you're the GOP in South Carolina. Bless their hearts.

A censure is fine and well if it actually means something. But in the case of Lexington County, it means next to nothing. Remember, these were the same yahoos that censured Senator Lindsey Graham because he said climate change is real. That censure led him to his twisty gyrations last week while arguing against the Murkowski amendment to reverse the EPA finding on greenhouse gasses while not actually coming out and saying climate change is real.

So a censure means very little, and Knotts' response affirms it.

"No, I'm not going to resign from office and they can say what they want to," said Knotts. "I made a mistake. I immediately recognized it and apologized."

And of course, Knotts had his defenders:

During the meeting, people spoke up for and against Knotts.

"I actually thought the apology was just as bad, the attempt at the apology was just as bad as the original remark," said Joshua Gross.

"I do not feel like we should be divisive and sew more discord by doing something so ugly as to censure him," said Tommy Blonk.

But don't despair, because there are worse threats to the Lexington Party GOP than racists. There are...(cue scary music, please) LIBERTARIANS.

Knotts says libertarians have infiltrated the party and are the same group of people who called out US Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on an energy bill, but didn't vote to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his affair.

Poor Knotts. He just can't bring himself to say "teabaggers", can he? In South Carolina, that just might be a hangin' offense.

Good ole lyin' Joe the Hon Wilson (I swear, that's how his campaign disclosure reads) won't quite withdraw his endorsement, choosing instead to walk that thin line between losing donors and losing his soul, assuming he had one:

Congressman Wilson released a statement Thursday evening saying he "strongly supported" the actions by the county party.

"Senator Knotts did not reflect the values of our citizens in his language or in the tone of his remarks and certainly did not reflect mine," said Wilson.

That stops just a bit short of an endorsement withdrawal. I'm sure Lyin' Joe knows it'll all blow over soon enough and be a thing of the past.

If it doesn't, they've always got the voting machine strategy to fall back on.

Gosh, if you want to deflect a conversation away from the real issues into invention and stirred-up righteousness, I guess one way to do it is for a career hardhead like 89-year old Helen Thomas to say something incendiary, regret it, apologize for it, and have her colleagues throw her right under that bus waiting outside the White House press room.

Let's start with what she said:

OFF-CAMERA: "Any comments on Israel?"

HELEN THOMAS: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, not Poland."

OFF-CAMERA: "so where should they go?"

HELEN THOMAS: "Home. Poland. Germany. America. And everywhere else."

As Squareboy on Daily Kos said, it's hurtful to hear that. She should apologize.

And she did. Here is her full apology:

"I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon," she wrote.

ADL rejects her apology because it does not "go far enough". Craig Crawford and her agent dump her. Lanny Davis, always right in front whenever possible, condemns her. Ari Fleischer cries "Off with her head! (And her job)." Rick Lazlo piles on. Joe Klein wants her sent to the back of the bus room. Sarah Palin tattoos her as racist. A local high school replaces her as their graduation speaker. Red State froths. NewsMax has a field day. Winger blogs everywhere are blessed with outrage and attendant traffic. The din is so loud everyone misses her apology. The right continues to bearhug anti-semitic Pat Buchanan, who is routinely applauded for his support of right-wing causes. He doesn't have to apologize.

Meanwhile, Hearst has not made a decision on whether she will keep her place as part of the White House press corps.

I am not going to defend what she said. I understand that it is hurtful and offensive to many. However...

She apologized, folks. This pile-on looks to me to be opportunistic and driven by RedStaters and Freepers out there who have a long-standing hate on for Helen.

I just did a little search here on Crooks and Liars. I found references made by Fox News personalities to her as the "wicked witch" (no apology). Tony Snow paints her as a representative of Hezbollah. No apology. Ann Coulter called her an "old Arab" and scrubbed her website of all reference when it was caught. No apology.

Helen Thomas is the one who asked the tough questions of the Bush Administration about why we're in Iraq, why torture was sanctioned by Bush appointees, why it was okay for President Bush to dismiss the bloodshed in Iraq as a comma, and the White House's support for Tom Delay when he was charged with money laundering.

So ask yourself. Is this about an insult to Israel or an opportunity for wingnuts to USE an insult to Israel as a way to squelch Thomas' first amendment rights?

When you consider that question, also remember this was said in the context of an informal interview. She didn't say it in the press room; she answered a question as a citizen with an opinion. Her opinion may not be acceptable, but does she not have the right to one?

UPDATE: And the inevitable happens: Helen Thomas announces she is retiring, effective immediately.

DOWNLOADS: (712)

PLAYS: (1954)

Embed

Glenn Beck decided to follow up his brief and lame apology on his website for his wildly unpopular attack on 11-year-old Malia Obama last week on his radio show by giving a heartfelt, sincere mea culpa on his Fox News show yesterday.

Apropos of someone for whom "sincere" is just a schtick, the mea culpa was all about Beck -- a tale of how he was an a-hole to his wife, snapping at her and cursing self-righteously when she asked him what he was thinking, and then realizing he was wrong and begging her forgiveness and now the world's.

Funny thing about Beck and forgiveness: He's always preaching about the power of self-forgiveness -- that's what his whole "Christmas Sweater" schtick is all about -- but I always get the feeling that he never takes the crucial step of obtaining forgiveness from the people who he's actually wronged. I've always wondered whether he ever sought the forgiveness of the wife of his rival DJ in Phoenix who he called up on air and humiliated over her recent miscarriage. I'd wager not.

Nor did he yesterday at any point seem to contemplate that he's horribly wronged a young woman who has done nothing to earn such a vicious and nasty attack. Instead, it was all about Beck realizing he had broken one of his "rules".

What are Beck's "rules"? He put it this way -- when the subject was Sarah Palin:

Beck: There's a difference! Leave my family -- leave people's families alone! I don't think I've -- I mean, I don't think I have ever -- I mean, I made this when it was Bill Clinton -- you don't go after Chelsea Clinton! You don't talk about the Bush kids! Now, the minute they get into politics, that's a different story. You leave the families alone! We've never done anything but protect the families, and question why the White House would bring their children into political debate. Leave the families alone!

Yesterday, he continued on the same note, describing his apology to his wife:

Beck: I said, 'Honey, you are right. And there is absolutely no excuse or reason to ever, ever, EVER -- even come close to the line of dragging somebody's family into the debate! I- I've never done it! I've never done it! Until last Friday. And I hope that's my bottom.

It probably won't be, because Beck's self-delusion is still very much intact insofar as what constitutes "dragging somebody's family into the debate."

Because we still recall vividly what remains the scummiest Beck show ever on Fox News -- the one where Beck smeared President Obama's dead mother:

DOWNLOADS: (5464)

PLAYS: (4556)

Embed

You'll recall he tried much of the same kind of denial:

Continue reading »

Sid Rosenberg not happy about MSNBC issuing an apology for his racist remarks!

Imus: What happened, tell me?

Sid: I guess I said something, and ahhh..MSNBC issued an apology at my behalf last week without even asking me about it...maybe I don't want to apologize.

Then he later criticized Michael Jordan's brother for re-enlisting back into the army.

Sid: He's a no-name, who cares.

Video

On November 23, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that MSNBC had apologized for racist commentary delivered on radio host Don Imus's Imus in the Morning. In its apology, MSNBC stated: "The views expressed on the program are not those of MSNBC. Having said that, it was unfortunate that these remarks were telecast on MSNBC. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by these remarks."

from MMFA

From the November 12 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:

DON IMUS, host: They're [Palestinians] eating dirt and that fat pig wife [Suha Arafat] of his is living in Paris.

ROSENBERG: They're all brainwashed, though. That's what it is. And they're stupid to begin with, but they're brainwashed now. Stinking animals. They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now.

DOWNLOADS: (871)

PLAYS: (3209)

Embed

While CNN's Rick Sanchez isn't exactly an imposing media figure, and his "List" schtick doesn't exactly shake the world, but it does have an interesting quality -- it's drawn to a large extent from viewer input.

And so it was interesting that Glenn Beck's attack on Malia Obama and his subsequent lame-ass apology that really angered CNN's viewers. So Beck wound up on Sanchez's "List U Don't Want 2 Be On" this week:

This is apparently what many of you've been waiting for. It's around this time every day when I tell you who is on my list that you don't want to be on.

Sometimes we debate this throughout the day with my staff, our producers. Just about everybody gets in on the conversation. We take this pretty seriously, because it casts the person in a rather bad light oftentimes.

There seems to be, today, no debate, not from my staff, not from writers, not from my producers. And judging from what I'm reading here throughout the day on Twitter, not from you. In fact, you could say today's is a slam-dunk.

We are talking about the Fox News host and the radio jock who has been known to take repeated shots at President Obama, most notably at one point calling the president a racist. Defenders of this popular TV and radio personality say it's simply part of his schtick, but now many of you on Twitter and on blogs that I've been reading have come to the conclusion around the country and are saying that in this one case, he has gone too far.

Glenn Beck went on relentlessly last week on his radio show making fun of Malia -- Malia, the president's daughter. It seemed to go on and on and on, while Beck seemed to be literally -- you'll hear it for yourself, folks -- cracking himself up at the expense of an 11-year- old.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1035)

PLAYS: (4965)

Embed

Glenn Beck evidently realized that he had set himself up for endless mockery and serious public disgust by attacking Malia Obama yesterday on his radio show, so he promptly issued an apology -- of sorts:

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates. The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize--and as a dad I should have known better.

As Keith Olbermann observed, in naming Beck his Worst Person in the World:

Well, that obviously changes things, because Beck at least has shown that he realizes his own hypocrisy, and he deserves -- wait a minute! He did the very thing he was apologizing for, and he did it in the apology!

Olbermann points back to the opening line of the "apology":

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism ...

Olbermann observes:

In apologizing for putting kids into political debates, he put the president's kids back into political debates! This guy is so feral, that even in his brief moment of semi-sanity, he's still completely nuts!

It's also worth remembering that Beck's "rule" doesn't just pertain to children -- it regards politicians' entire families:

Beck: There's a difference! Leave my family -- leave people's families alone! I don't think I've -- I mean, I don't think I have ever -- I mean, I made this when it was Bill Clinton -- you don't go after Chelsea Clinton! You don't talk about the Bush kids! Now, the minute they get into politics, that's a different story. You leave the families alone! We've never done anything but protect the families, and question why the White House would bring their children into political debate. Leave the families alone!

As Zachary Pleat at Media Matters observes, Beck's apology is thus incomplete, by multiple standards:

Beck involved Obama's children in another attack on the president earlier this week, comments Beck did not address in his apology today.

Further, Beck limited his apology to just "my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates." But he has repeatedly stated that entire families are off-limits -- and he has dragged President Obama's family into "political debates" several times over the past year. In a sexist attack on the president's wife just last week, Beck referred to an image on the Drudge Report of Michelle Obama at a White House state dinner for the Mexican president and his wife, stating:

I don't think I've ever seen the first lady with her -- excuse the expression -- but with her breasts all smooshed up.

Beck has also repeatedly brought up Obama's parents on his Fox News and radio shows -- specifically in the context of discussing Obama's politics -- and more than a year ago, he made fun of President Obama's aunt.

Glenn Beck's apology is incomplete until he apologizes for all the other instances in which he dragged the president's family into his political attacks.

Indeed, probably the scummiest show Beck has ever put on was devoted to tearing down President Obama's late mother. He certainly never came close to apologizing for that.

But I think Beck's apology is incomplete in a much more important sense, as Karoli pointed out in her update: He failed to apologize directly to Malia Obama for mocking her, and to her parents for attacking their child.

Any real man making a real apology would have done that. This was not a real apology. This was half-assed ass-covering, at best.