US Politics: 1950's edition

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I hope Ms. Fluke sues the ever-loving shiat out of him. Seems to me to be a pretty clear cut case of slander. And he's already admitted that he screwed up...

[Shryke]

Funny thing, even with how much of a non-apology it was, he's already getting some flak from the right about "caving to the evil liberal media".

And no, this should not be ignored. Attacking him through his sponsors is exactly how this should have gone.

[Sci-2]

Rush is just one more brick in rape culture. Birth control == porn star who should put up sex videos of herself on the internet?

Jeez Rush, we know you're hard up but come on - she could be your granddaughter.

[RWHamel]

I hope Ms. Fluke sues the ever-loving shiat out of him. Seems to me to be a pretty clear cut case of slander. And he's already admitted that he screwed up...

I do think she has a Libel/Slander case.

[Paladin of Ice]

I'm seeing stories that ProFlowers has pulled heir advertising from Rush, bringing the total to 7 companies to do so.

Here's the story google news is linking to.

ProFlowers says on its Facebook page that it has suspended advertising on Limbaugh's program because his comments about Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke "went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company."

The company had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected how it dealt with its advertising partners.

Limbaugh called the 30-year-old Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" after she testified in support of national health care policies that would compel employers and other organizations to offer group health insurance that covers birth control for women.

He apologized to Fluke on Saturday.

[TerraPrime]

Mitt Romney vs Mr. Burns: Which billionaire misanthrope said this? You decide.

http://whyevolutioni...ns-vs-mr-burns/

Also, Obama may actually be doing something that FLoW HAS to support. Will he, and then suffer an aneurysm? Or won't he, and fight to the bitter end to justify why? Stay tuned!

, starts around 3:00 mark for the call to end government subsidies to oil companies.

[Atreides]

So apparently Romney wrote an op-ed in 2009 suggesting to President Obama that he implement the individual mandate federally.

First off, I can't believe that this hadnt' become a story until now, and second, I just don't know how you spin this one if you're the Romney team.

It was probably Obama's October Surprise. And the Republican establishment is pulling for Romney, so they obviously didn't want it getting out. Poor Romney, exposed as being even more of a liar and flip-flopper than previously thought. Is there anyone who is a more defines "typical politician" more than Romney?

[Jon Sprunk]

It was probably Obama's October Surprise. And the Republican establishment is pulling for Romney, so they obviously didn't want it getting out. Poor Romney, exposed as being even more of a liar and flip-flopper than previously thought. Is there anyone who is a more defines "typical politician" more than Romney?

This is my guess. I'm sure the Obama re-election campaign has a lot of info about Romney and Santorum (old speeches, statements, commericals, etc...) that they are waiting to use once the general comes around.

[TerraPrime]

I also wonder how the Republican candidate would or would not talk about it.

I think there's very little chance they won't talk about it, whether the SCOTUS ruling is favorable to them or not. If the court rules in favor of the mandate, then the battle cry would be to elect enough GOP to undo it legislatively to stem the over-reaching of an activist court. If the court rules against it, then the slogan would be that it's a great success and a public referendum on the failure of the Democrats' vision. The talking points practically write themselves in either case.

[awesome possum]

So apparently Romney wrote an op-ed in 2009 suggesting to President Obama that he implement the individual mandate federally.

First off, I can't believe that this hadnt' become a story until now, and second, I just don't know how you spin this one if you're the Romney team.

I imagine they're hoping people are paying attention to Rush Limbaugh.

[Kelli Fury]

Wait Rush Limbaugh is still alive?

I think that if Republicans get to make a law highlighting links between single parenthood and child abuse, Democrats should get to make a law highlighting links between being a Republican Moral Preacher and soliciting gay sex in public restrooms.

As much as I hate the hypocrisy, I think bringing out the pitchforks when a conservative jackass gets caught getting blown by a handsome 19 year old aide sends the wrong message. People who hate it because it's gay sex hear you and think "SEE, even the liberals are outraged!" There is no way to effectively make it clear it is the hypocrisy you're railing against instead of the gay affair, especially when it is a thousand times bigger and more talked about when it's same sex, even among supporters of gay rights. I hate that people who try to penalize other for their choices are making the same ones, but I don't want to reinforce the idea that sex is more shameful and deviant when it's same sex.

[SkynJay]

I do think she has a Libel/Slander case.

I was wondering if there is any chance of a sexual harassment case. I am as far from knowing the laws as can be, but i would assume that if a person told their co-worker to put out a sex tape it would qualify. Does distance change that?

[Kalbear]

I'm pretty sure it's not sexual harrassment any more than someone commenting on how hot Angelina Jolie is would be. There are proximity and duration arguments for harassment, IIRC. Neither of which apply. If they worked together this would be something that would probably go on Limbaugh's record. But they don't, so it's just a case of slander.

[Tempra]

I do think she has a Libel/Slander case.

I don't know. Limbaugh's comment that she is a slut surely would qualify as an opinion that is not actionable. His comment that she is a prostitute, however, is a tougher call and could presumably be considered a false statement, not an opinion. What could save Limbaugh is that he was commenting on a matter of public interest, which is precisely the type of language the first amendment seeks to protect.

I am sure Fluke will receive a large check to make the matter go away.

[Spring Bass]

This should be an . . . interesting spring. We've got the on-going Euro-drama (now with Spanish inability to meet pre-arranged deficit agreements and the continuing Greek calamity), plus a possible Israeli assault on Iran that might draw the US into a bloody regional war. At least Obama's smart enough to do as little as he can in terms of making a military commitment to Israel against Iran.

[Kalbear]

I don't think that's true about Israel. Israel has shown that they were willing and able to take direct action without anyone else's support. They are one of the few nations that I'd say means what they say when they threaten.

[awesome possum]

Interactive map of Obama's 2013 Budget proposal.

This thing is pretty neat. You can split it up by Biggest Increases/Decreases, Discretionary/Mandatory, Department total, and Changes.

I look at it and I see something everyone can point to something they'd be happy about while pointing to something they're unhappy about.

I like the defense money being funneled into public works. The Federal Highway Administration would see a 104% jump in funding, railroads get a 77.4% increase while the NOAA gets a 203.4% increase (which still amounts to next to nothing in federal dollars).

I don't like how these increases are matched by a nearly 30% cut from the corps of engineers - we're going to add more public works but fire the people who build them (no worries, I'm sure our corporate friends will be happy to step in!).

I don't like how Education and Labor take hits, but I'm sure conservatives would love them - if they were anyone but Obama's ideas. In which case they're still socialist. Or something.

[TrackerNeil]

A bit unfair on the 1950s (a time when the US had income tax brackets of over 90%, and where a Republican President could make speeches criticising military-industrial complexes).

I am glad someone said this.

Speaking of bygone times, I am currently reading Rule and Ruin, which describes the takeover of the Republican Party by movement conservatives. I am on the parts about the Goldwater nomination in 1964, which is sort of a dark mirror to today's GOP primary. The main difference is that in '64, it was the moderates who were trying to save the party from a conservative, instead of the conservatives trying to head off a (perceived) moderate. Neat stuff.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

His comment that she is a prostitute, however, is a tougher call and could presumably be considered a false statement, not an opinion.

I odn't think that was actionable either. I didn't listen to it, but I've since read the transcript, and the "prostitute" comment was simply horrible rhetoric related to the fact that she wanted a subsidy to afford birth control.

Limbaugh deserves a swfit kick in the head from conservatives, because this woman's testimony was riped to be bashed, and he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, one of the cardinal rules of testifying (or making an argument as a lawyer) is not to make factual misreprentations that are easily proven wrong. She claimed that birth control cost $3000 over the 3 years of law school, when in fact (and has been pointed out since by many) Target and others have long offered birth control pills for only $9/month, and Target has a pharmacy right near the law school. That's not a $9 co-pay -- that's the total cost, even for someone without insurance.

It would have been perfectly legitimate (and effective) to simply point out that she was either 1) deliberately misleading the American people and Congress by inflating the price by about 900%, or 2) apparenlty had so much disposable income that she didn't bother shopping around. Crying poor over nearly $100/month is much more sympathetic than complaining about a lousy $9/month, and misrepresentations like that generally aren't appreciated when people learn the truth.

Second, she was a lousy representative for the arguments in support of the "no copay" rule. In fact, she was almost the poster child against such a rule. The right kind of person to testify would have been a woman who had an unplanned pregnancy because she couldn't afford birth control due to the price. But this woman wasn't priced out, nor did she even claim to know anyone who was priced out -- even at the horribly inflated $3000 figure. They all managed to buy it anyway, which makes the need for a subsidy to no-pay look a lot more questionable. That's hardly surprising, because anyone who can afford horribly overpriced Georgetown Law School isn't going to be sent over the edge by a $9/month copay.

Moreover, she's hardly a sympathetic representative. She's a 30 year old woman, paying $50,000 to go to one of the best (and most overpriced) law schools in the country. She's all set up to be a 1%'er herself. So she didn't need BC to be covered to afford it, because she was able to afford it anyway. What she really was demanding was coverage so that she and her law school friends could have a bit more pocket money for clothes, beer, concerts, partying, etc.. She should have been attacked as a self-centered, spoiled elitist, and contrasted with all the tens of millions of non-Georgetown Law women who have managed to budget, and to take responsibility for the financial costs of their own life choices. "My body, my choice, your wallet" would have been a much better conservative counter to this than Limbaugh's juvenile, offensive, and counterproductive attack.

[TerraPrime]

Speaking of GOP primaries....

What is up with that? Does the GOP really think doing all this under-handed tactics to get Romney his nomination is going to do any good in terms of motivating your base? I can't imagine the Maine primary voters are very pleased to have their votes essentially stolen by the party officials, for instance. Michigan had some irregularities, too. Plus a couple other states.

If only the party leaders can simply anoint Romney, and not have to worry about the farce that is the Primary nominations and process!

I mean, why even have primaries and waste people's time if you're just going to put Romney on top regardless of the outcome? I'd think that even if I were a Romney supporter, I'd be pretty disenchanted with the party in how heavy-handed they are in pushing their candidate, and how little respect they showed for primaries in general, this season. For conservatives who want smaller governments because they want to see that their actions make a difference and that the course of events are not dictated to them, having the primaries hijacked into a "Let's all vote for Romney!" sit-com should be a bit of cognitive dissonance, I'd think.