Limbaugh Reaches a New Low

Via Media Matters, I wasn’t shocked to find that Rush Limbaugh was happy to mock the White House appointment of Adviser on Violence Against Women Lynn Rosenthal, but felt it necessary to point out his thoughts on what one who occupies the appointment would advise: “Put some ice on it.”

It’s a domestic violence adviser. What the hell kind of advice are you gonna get? About the only kind of advice – I mean we’re talking about democrats here, right? We’re talking about the party of Bill Clinton. So I assume If you’re going to have a domestic policy adviser, the advice you’re gonna get – put some ice on it. Your lip’s a little bleeding and swollen – put some ice on it, as you leave the swanky motel room.

Domestic violence, domestic policy, same shit. Read the whole transcript after the jump; his complete inability to make sense shines through.
Note: A reader pointed out that this comment was meant to be a reference to Bill Clinton’s allegation of rape against Juanita Broderick, in which in her story, she said Clinton told her to put ice on her swollen lip after the alleged attack.


Transcript
So now we got a czar, we got a domestic violence czar – I had a story, that’s what she’s calling about – the opening hour of the program, they just hired a domestic violence czar. An adviser. They’re not calling it a czar, but it’s a czar. It’s a domestic violence adviser. What the hell kind of advice are you gonna get? About the only kind of advice – I mean we’re talking about democrats here, right? We’re talking about the party of Bill Clinton. So I assume If you’re going to have a domestic policy adviser, the advice you’re gonna get – put some ice on it. Your lip’s a little bleeding and swollen – put some ice on it, as you leave the swanky motel room. Domestic policy – domestic violence adviser – why do you need any advice on that? There are some instances where it’s justified and you need an adviser to tell you when, in case the woman’s a republican and the husband’s a democrat, it’s perfectly understandable why there would be domestic violence, we’ve got to allow for this? What the hell are we doing here?

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

44 Comments

  1. Morgan
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    Limbaugh is disgusting. I don’t even know what else to say about this. I’m angered and disgusted.

  2. Furiousfemale
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Why this man still has a following and is considered the “head” of the Republican party is beyond me.

  3. Marc
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Where are the conservatives screaming sexism now? We did our part defending Palin against Letterman’s sexist comments. If the Republicans want legitimacy, it’s time they step up and call out Limbaugh.
    But as I suspect, that’s probably not going to happen.
    Where are the “pro-life,” conservative feminists now?

  4. liz
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    He attacks things for no reason whatsoever. I think it is just part to keep the myth of the much-despised “liberal” going.
    I think that many hard-line conservatives, the 30% who still liked Bush last fall, are just into the team mentality. It has nothing to do with substance but with “them” being more moral, richer, and upright than “we” are. That’s why the oxymoron of the “swanky motel” sounds preposterous. It is. He’s trying to say implicitly that liberals are rich. They way they have been able to characterize liberal people (and I mean gotten away with all kinds of misrepresentations) for so long is all that the GOP has right now.

  5. Scarlett.Speaks
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    I don’t understand the point of labeling the position a “czar”. Is she going to suddenly have totalitarian rule over the entire country?

  6. Furiousfemale
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Anyone else think he’ll make Keith Olberman’s Worst Person in the world for this?

  7. LindseyLou
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Without a doubt! (Although, I have to say that I wish Olbermann weren’t so obsessed with the creep.)

  8. alixana
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    It’s a common description of people at the head of an issue.
    From Wikipedia:
    In the United States the title “czar” is an informal term for certain high-level officials, such as the “drug czar” for the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, “terrorism czar” for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, “cybersecurity czar” for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and “war czar” to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  9. Serena
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Limbaugh is a total ass wipe. I don’t know why he doesn’t just retire.

  10. mae
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    It’s scary to think that he has millions of listeners every week who just soak up and parrot every single word that comes out of his mouth.

  11. liz
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Yes, I think it was Reagan’s invention in the 1980s when the rise of more power for people with power really got under way.

  12. llevinso
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    “Limbaugh Reaches a New Low”
    You know, the guy continues to impress me because just when I think he can’t make me think LESS of him, he does/says something like this. Bravo!

  13. Lilith Luffles
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Of course only Limbaugh and his followers would be baffled at the idea of a domestic violence adviser. But I do wonder… Had Sarah Palin done this, would he be singing a different tune…?

  14. Toni
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Which is good for Democrats. Independents won’t vote for Republicans who look up to a guy like Rush.

  15. norbizness
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    A new low? Come on, that’s totally misunderestimating the 600 hours of uncontested garbage he spews into the airstream each year. Hell, I remember him BEFORE Clinton, at the time when he was just becoming a national presence: his main targets were homeless people, immigrants, and feminazis.
    Then all the factors came together: (1) the rise of the know-nothing right (exemplified by Pat Buchanan at the 1992 GOP convention that I protested), (2) the election of a boomer President and a smart, professional First Lady, and (3) the subsequent electoral success of the Republicans led by Newt in 1994, the class that included a lot of the crazies we’re still dealing with.
    Of course, each class of Republicans gets progressively dumber and more inured to their shrinking demographic of perpetually scared, theocratic, old white people. This core listenership is beyond useless, beyond education, and should be ideologically quarantined with no oxygen given to fuel their idiocy.

  16. Toni
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Why doesn’t my Death Note really work?! Seriously, I’ve written his name in there but so far nothing has happened. Not that I thought it would really work anyway.

  17. Athenia
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Rush Limbaugh’s sense of masculinity is really f’ed up.
    It really makes me sad to think that there are guys out there agreeing with him when he says stuff like that.
    However, I wonder if there are any listeners out there who are victims of domestic violence or who have friends or family who have been victims. I bet he’s not so funny then. I wish those listeners would call him out.

  18. Ruby
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I try really, really hard to just file away Rush Limbaugh under the “not worth even getting mad over” category, but damn I have difficulty.
    A week or so ago he likened Sonia Sotomayor to a cleaning lady and I couldn’t keep from getting livid. And now this.
    Remember when Don Imus got in such hot water…how is it that Rush spews such racist, classist, sexist, and just plain stupid garbage every day and has faced no repercussions.

  19. norbizness
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Imus was on MSNBC and I forget what radio station in NYC, two owners that are at least amenable to pressure. Rush is in the Clear Channel cocoon and is their cash cow. I’m not even sure he has major corporate advertisers because he’s self-sustaining with print subscriptions from his drones.
    So all you’re left with is a quarantine and using him as a campaign prop against GOPers in unsafe districts (especially if the candidate is between a rock and a hard place in a light red or purple district).

  20. Lisa
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Probably because he signed a 400 million dollar 8-year contract last year. There’s a huge audience for hatred, making it an extremely lucrative business to be in.

  21. gothicguera
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    DEAR Mr. Limbaugh
    F— you
    guera
    let’s write letter demmading that he alpogize!

  22. ikkin
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    …in case the woman’s a republican and the husband’s a democrat, it’s perfectly understandable why there would be domestic violence, we’ve got to allow for this? What the hell are we doing here?
    What the WHAT? No sense. The craziest thing about Limbaugh is that he just freestyles throughout the entire broadcast. It’s just a stream of his crazy, confused consciousness.

  23. Disarm33
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Why do people still listen to this guy? Even the republicans I know don’t take him seriously and think he’s disgusting. I guess I tend to avoid people who would think otherwise though. He is so full of hate and bigotry.

  24. dr4lom
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Well it’s a poor invention from the get go. Czar was the title used by the Russian government before the Communist Revolution. I’m not saying that to patronize anyone, but the title is just a fancy way of saying dictator, something the Bush Administration was happy to promote, but not quite the idea Obama is going for. I believe when the comments of “Car Czar” came out, Obama very explicitly claimed there would be no more Czars. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a bunch of small feudal states. Maybe that’s the America Rush wants us to live in so he can be given a title too!

  25. BodyPart
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    “Bill Clinton’s allegation of rape against Juanita Broderick”
    Bill Clinton was raped by Juanita Broderick?
    BTW I like all those “allegation”s and “alleged”s with which you litter that sentence. What if Clinton was a GOPer?

  26. Zyfron
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Obviously because you need a heart to have heart attacks.

  27. Nettle Syrup
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    I hate the way that even some feminists disbelieve a victim (or even several victims, as in Clinton’s case) just because they like the person and he’s considered a liberal icon.

  28. dormouse
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    In this quote, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t seem to understand that the Domestic Violence Adviser advises the President and Government officials on the issue at hand…not domestic violence victims. Unless, of course, there’s something we don’t know about Michelle Obama….

  29. attentat
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Maybe I’m crazy, but on the Limbaugh scale, this doesn’t seem that bad.
    It doesn’t sound to me like he’s saying that “put some ice on it” SHOULD be the advice given to survivors of domestic violence, but that that is the advice that a Democrat WOULD give because… I’m not sure, it’s still Rush we’re talking about here.
    Of course, the fucker is still mocking the appointment of this position, for which he is still a terrible person.

  30. MaggieElisabeth
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    I know Rush Limbaugh is awful and tons of people listen to him and he is a part of our culture whether we like it or not…
    But…
    Sometimes I wish we would just ignore him. I see his comments all over feminist websites and The Rachel Maddow Show, etc etc. And I just feel like we’re giving him so much attention.
    Thoughts on ignoring the bully? Would that work? Or is it sticking our heads in the sand?

  31. nestra
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Not to mention cherish their photo ops with him. Disgusting.

  32. nestra
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    I agree. I interpreted it only as a cut on Democrats, that the party isn’t interested in fixing a problem but on putting bandages on the aftermath. Frankly, I’m shocked that anyone can read anything else into it.

  33. A male
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    THANK YOU.
    I like former President Clinton, but also hate how so much of his past is simply overlooked, because PEOPLE LIKE HIM. Yes, Limbaugh is a politically motivated asshole, but Clinton is a numerous times alleged sex offender, just like many college students and soldiers who are hated here. He just gets treated differently.

  34. Nettle Syrup
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Whilst I’m glad that you think so too, I’m confused you’d start by saying you like him. I mean, you can like his policies, and even be on his side in a lot of arguments, but liking him personally seems to be odd if you agree that he’s probably a sex offender.

  35. Tracey T
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Ughhh, this comes really close to leaving me literally speecheless. It’s because normally I would say something along the lines of: He needs to be stooped, or Something needs to be done about him. But since Tiller’s murder I am not able to say/write such lines so easily. So, I’ll stick with a simple Fuck you Limbaugh, fuck you.
    And this ties into an earlier post on “guilty” pleasures: I listen to/watch Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly. It is probally one of the most unhealthy things I do to myself if for know other reason it works me up into a furry of anger, especially realizing the people who believe their outright lies, which I have basically no way of releasing.

  36. A male
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    I can say I like former President Clinton and Michael Jackson, about as much as I like other strangers, because I am not one who so clearly defines people based on one aspect of their lives.
    When I knew men and women in prison or at the substance abuse meetings during my nursing school studies, I simply knew them and saw them as people (with medical or psychiatric concerns), not convicted rapists, attempted murderers, family abusers, drug dealers and drug addicts. The prison nurses told us they deliberately avoided knowing the crimes inmates committed (e.g., covering up areas of their info), to be able to serve them. They also made the deliberate choice to be corrections nurses. For a time, I was interested, as well.
    When I accurately report that Michael Jackson or former President Clinton are accused sex offenders, that memory comes maybe number two to what they did during their careers: one time “King of Pop” or well liked US President.
    Remember last week’s “heartbreaking” link about the man from Africa who is an admitted rapist, who later devoted himself to the cause of reducing violence in Africa, and sought out the woman he raped to apologize?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8115219.stm
    What immediately struck me about that article was firstly, that it was from the viewpoint of an admitted rapist, who offered his version of “why” he and his friends raped a young girl. How often do we get that on Feministing? How many people would be willing to listen to and EMPATHIZE with a RAPIST?
    How many known rapists can we feel sympathetic to (who are not rich, famous, well liked, or among our circle of family and friends)? If someone had immediately taken revenge on him at the time, or he had been legally sentenced to a long term in prison (or if the victim had NOT later forgiven him but pressed charges, which he claims he would have accepted), he would likely not have been free to perform his current work with young mothers, or his anti-violence work with young men.
    If Clinton had been taken down early in his legal or political career, by simple scandal or an actual conviction if the jury accepted it, we would not have had a President Clinton, and just maybe, no Hillary Clinton, either.
    Is it timing which makes the difference in our attitudes? There was a time when I wanted to kill the man who sexually assaulted me (I was carrying a knife during the attack), and my original intent hearing my wife’s stories of abuse, was to kill the people around her who had abused her, including her college classmate (who later married her best friend, she still sees both of them), and her stepmother. I later decided against it. Incredibly, my mother-in-law dotes on the grandchildren when they are together.
    Is it our perception of what the (accused) offenders made of their lives? If Clinton had immediately been driven out of office in shame or jailed in Arkansas, leading a more common life today (or behind bars), would we care about who he was?
    Did the African man deserve to be free to become who he is? Did Clinton deserve to avoid scandal, investigation and possible prosecution, back in the day to be the well liked President with the famous and ever more influential wife? What makes them different from those who commit crimes we hate, right now, or those we cannot forgive or forget?
    Those are troubling thoughts.

  37. lefthandedpenguin
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Maybe our first grade teachers were right. “If you ignore them, they’ll stop trying to annoy you.”

  38. A male
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Oops, Clinton in Alabama.

  39. A male
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    Arkansas. I don’t know what I’m thinking.

  40. A male
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 2:03 am | Permalink

    “normally I would say something along the lines of: He needs to be stooped, or Something needs to be done about him. But since Tiller’s murder I am not able to say/write such lines so easily.”
    The difference between feminists and anti-choice murderers claiming to be Christians, is feminists would probably start a campaign or boycott instead of condoning or carrying out murders of those they do not like.

  41. A male
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    Ah, so you probably needn’t concern yourself that your venting would be read that way.

  42. Nettle Syrup
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    ‘How many people would be willing to listen to and EMPATHIZE with a RAPIST?’
    I don’t mean to drag this point out, because it’s off topic, and I really don’t mean to have an argument. But still, I have to respond, because actually it seems like most mainstream media and popular opinion would fit this category. Even if people would deny it, most of society is set up to have sympathy with rapists. Especially in my own country of the UK. An awful lot of people will be on the perpetrator’s side and blaming the victim for ‘leading him on’ or ‘asking for it’. Except, these rapists are not the ones people call rapists. These are the ones who people say are not ‘really’ rapists, not like those guys who jump out of bushes.
    And as far as I’m concerned, when someone rapes another person, that puts them beyond my being able to like them even a tiny bit. And you can go ahead and say my views are counter-productive to the goal of deconstructing the myths about what rape is all about (normal men, not monsters, etc) but I think it’s more important not to add to the idea that rape is no big deal, and a guy can still be decent if he rapes women. It’s time to stop being soft on rape, I think, and who is going to do that if it’s not feminists?

  43. Nettle Syrup
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    I wrote above that ‘if a man rapes women’ – I notice I’m only going by the majority of rapes here, them being male/female. I should say, ‘that a person can still be decent if they rape another person.’, be it man/woman/child or whatever.

  44. rebekah
    Posted July 7, 2009 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    you want to know what I’m sick of from this asshole? He calls feminist “feminazis” there is nothing nazi like about feminists, in all actuality we are about as antinazi as you can be so why don’t we continue to flood his inbox yelling at him for that? This asshole needs to be taken off the air.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

254 queries. 1.099 seconds