Their Gods Speak

9:05 am EST March 10th, 2007 | Republicans | 14 Comments

Rush Limbaugh – conservative icon, White House guest, Republican propagandist (also racist, misogynist, and junkie) – calls John Edwards a woman as he continues the tradition.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

14 Responses to “Their Gods Speak”

  1. Benny says:
    March 10, 2007 at 10:57 am

    Sometimes The Nation publishes doh opinions like this one .

    Donut of the day for calling Edwards, “First Fag”.

    It doesn’t bother me that he is the First Woman’s Rights president (as he is, and I’m aware that’s different from what the NYT Sun called him) as much as bad photoshopping and the Breck Girl said in a perjoratively way on Rush’s site. If I were the Breck shampoo company, I’d demand royalities from FreeRepublic.com and talk show hosts like Rush for using that term. Like Coulter learned this week in which 7 newspapers have dropped her column, the only way the RWN gets it is when their wallets are thinner, not when they have been shouted out.

  2. fd10801 says:
    March 10, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Seems to me that Limbaugh was quoting someone else.
    I guess the headline wouldn’t have had the same impact if it read: Gerstein calls Edwards First Woman President

  3. Nimrod Gently says:
    March 10, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    And Rush Limbaugh Reprints It In Full, Goes LOL And Expands Upon It.

    Not very catchy is it, Eatdi- I mean Frank?

  4. Mike says:
    March 10, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Well, since comparing political candidates to women has now been declared an act of bigotry, I suppose that we will be seeing no more of that stupid picture of Rudy Giulianni in a dress, eh?

  5. fd10801 says:
    March 10, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Mike: You mean the one Oliver uses all the time? (And used even before Coulter’s Comment)

  6. Nimrod Gently says:
    March 10, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    False equivalence. It’s what’s for dinner.

  7. calling all toasters says:
    March 10, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    I suppose that we will be seeing no more of that stupid picture of Rudy Giulianni in a dress

    Because if the picture exists, then Edwards actually is gay?

    Or if the picture exists, “faggot” is no longer a slur?

    Or is it that what Rudy Giuliani does in public is nobody’s business, just like what Edwards doesn’t do in private?

    Really, give us all more detail on your reasoning.

  8. Diamond LeGrande says:
    March 11, 2007 at 1:33 am

    Jeez, Limbaugh is so pathetic that he can’t even come up with his own attention-grabbing barbs. Limbaugh is a pathetic relic. He needs to yield to more timely right-wing blowhards.

    On the false equivalence front:

    Well, since comparing political candidates to women has now been declared an act of bigotry, I suppose that we will be seeing no more of that stupid picture of Rudy Giulianni in a dress, eh?

    Oliver does not use that picture to compare Giuliani to a woman, or to call him a homosexual. He uses it to point out Giuliani’s tolerance for homosexuals, an anathema to the Religious Right. If Giuliani is the nominee, either the Religious Right buckled over to power, or Giuliani decided to start hating gays to get power. Hence, the constant reminder. But Frank knew that.

  9. Oliver Willis says:
    March 11, 2007 at 3:13 am

    Also, I didn’t have to photoshop a picture of Giuliani in a dress the way that Limbaugh makes Edwards into a woman, because Rudy Giuliani has – on numerous occasions – actually worn a freaking dress.

  10. fd10801 says:
    March 11, 2007 at 4:44 am

    If Giuliani is the nominee, either the Religious Right buckled over to power, or Giuliani decided to start hating gays to get power.

    I’ve heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but — day – um!

    I still think he was mocking Giuliani, considering that even if he did wear a dress “on numerous occasions” (which I doubt, but, if he did, it was as a costume, not a flirtation with transvestitism), he still wears a suit most of the time. There are plenty of pictures of him not in a dress.

  11. Nimrod Gently says:
    March 11, 2007 at 9:06 am

    Frank di Salle’s amazing Moebius Strip Reasoning.

  12. Rounds77 says:
    March 11, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    It must be that conservative men see themselves as real manly men and see non-conservative men as, well, something else. Or could it be that all they know how to do is smear and degrade? Like children, not men.

  13. PD100 says:
    March 12, 2007 at 1:29 am

    -Just a minor case of projection on Big Pharma’s part. C’mon, the guy needed an elephant’s dose of Viagra just to get it up in Costa Rica -on his income.

    The OxyMoron will die alone.

  14. Duros62 says:
    March 12, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    even if he did wear a dress “on numerous occasions” (which I doubt, but, if he did, it was as a costume, not a flirtation with transvestitism)

    Bill Mahr (I’m sure you don’t waste your time there, Frank) had about 8 different pics of Rudy in drag. From 8 different occasions.

    Please bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of cross-dressers are straight men, so let’s not cast any aspersions on Rudy G.’s sexual preference.
    Though it doesn’t seem too bright to, y’know, do it in public so often when you’re trying to get a pres. nomination.