Print This Post
Feb
28
Dumping on conservative talk radio
Filed Under Carnivals, Culture, Government, Media, Politics, Republicans, conservatives | 10 Comments
I am in no position to dump on conservative radio as a segment or genre – I just have never listened to even a remotely adequate amount to make a statement anyone would trust as anything other than my more or less uninformed by experience opinion. I know – what a break with what many bloggers do: make opinions about things with which they have no firsthand experience.
However, Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief of The Moderate Voice, where I’m a co-blogger, wrote this post about conservative talk radio that asks, “Is Conservative Talk Radio Wrecking The Right?” The entry should be read in its entirety as should the comment thread.
Others seem to think Joe is on to something and he links to those here.
The first link is to the same-named, “Is Conservative Talk Radio Wrecking The Right?” and posits that,
[B]ack in the late ’80s and early ’90s, I found Rush Limbaugh a refreshing voice on the radio. He was funny–sometimes very funny–and he often made good points. Yes, he was sometimes obnoxious, and yes, sometimes his jokes were a little too cruel. But he was also saying things no one else had the guts to say, and in any case he was entertaining. Even though I disagreed with him frequently (but not always), he was at least a refreshing voice in our national political dialogue.
…
Nowadays when I listen to conservative talk radio, I’m often appalled. Paranoia and rage seem to be the top agenda. A sense of humor and basic humility seem to be missing. As a non-conservative with some conservative views, I find this disappointing at best. On the issues, I’m still sympathetic to many conservative viewpoints. Indeed, I feel that conservatives are a vital, indispensable part of a healthy body politic. But all I seem to hear or see nowadays from that sector is rage and fear.
Joe then links to Below the Beltway’s post called, “How Limbaugh, Hannity, And The Rest Ruined The Right” which turns to the same The American Conservative piece that launched Joe’s posts. The AmCon piece is titled, “How Radio Wrecks the Right.”
How does radio the wreck the right? I could summarize what those four items say but I think the subtitle for the AmCon cover story says it all:
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
In other words, you might prefer to have a beer with certain politicians, but that, again, has and should have no connection to whether we should allow them to govern our country. AmCon’s conclusion:
There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Ideas must be marketed, and right-wing talk radio captures a big and useful market segment. However, if there is no thoughtful, rigorous presentation of conservative ideas, then conservatism by default becomes the raucous parochialism of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and company. That loses us a market segment at least as useful, if perhaps not as big.
Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism. Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right?
Finally, back to Joe’s first post that asked the question: he tells us why any of this consideration matters:
The question is whether conservative talk radio will continue to grow as a dominant high profile voice of Republicans — one that decidedly turns off many independent, moderate, centrist, conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans, and young people who are not “damaged goods” baby boomers (like me) and makes them think this is what the Republican party is and stands for — or whether it can go back to being one tool in the GOPs’ get-out-vote arsenal.
I’d add that it also matters how much they like cash, because so long as capitalism remains the holy grail of these high profile Republican voices, they’ll continue to push aside any effort to suggest that there’s any higher purpose than capitalism itself.
Odd how losing political clout doesn’t even seem to be enough of a threat to this primacy of capitalism to make them change what they’re doing or how they’re doing it – yet, as Joe says.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:35 pm February 28th, 2009 in Carnivals, Culture, Government, Media, Politics, Republicans, conservatives | 10 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
Limbaugh’s “magic trick”: he gets off on knowing people feel offended
Filed Under Gender, Media, Sexism, Women, conservatives | 9 Comments
There’s nothing magical about it – it’s always been obvious, and ill.
But he thinks it’s amusing – it’s all in there on Rush Limbaugh’s second day of the Female Summit (which I gather was part of a regular feature with open phone lines):
Why would I tweak ‘em [women who are "truly on the fence about him"]? Because I can and because I enjoy the hell out of it.
Sounds like a malignant narcissist to me and far from something to admire – making himself feel important by being mean and getting pleasure from it.
Guess that’s just that morally superior conservative thought – practiced by Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Peter Boyles – that’s eluded me all these years. My kids are going to be so deprived.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:32 pm February 27th, 2009 in Gender, Media, Sexism, Women, conservatives | 9 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
[update] U.S. to boycott Durban II due to anti-Semitic, anti-Western attitudes
Filed Under Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Israel, Jewish, Politics, Race, Religion, Social Issues, leadership | 5 Comments
The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.
Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April.
The conference reprises the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa that devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all. Canada and Israel have opted not to attend the conference, and some U.S. Jewish groups had been pressing the United States to do the same.
Preparations for a draft document so far have seen Iran leading a coterie of nations blocking inclusion of anything that might guarantee Jewish protections – including mention of the Holocaust – while inserting draconian language guarding Islam against “insult.”
Here is the Jewish Week blog post from this morning that foreshadowed this move:
Recently the administration rejected the advice of the ADL and several other Jewish groups and announced it would send a delegation to preliminary talks laying out working papers and an agenda for the conference. While conceding that the conference was shaping up as a rerun of a 2001 session that turned into a festival of Israel bashing and outright anti-Semitism, administration officials expressed the hope they could change that and help turning Durban II into a conference that genuinely examined issues of racism and xenophobia worldwide.
That decision ignited outrage from the Jewish right, which accused the administration of selling Israel out, but most major Jewish leaders said they understood the decision and would support it – as long as administration officials stuck to the red lines they laid out in their initial statement.
In recent days it’s become clearer their effort to modify the conference has not worked; today there is talk in Washington that the administration may getting ready to walk away from the conference.
That could be the subject of a conference call with Jewish leaders later today.
I would guess a more official word from the White House or State Department (Hillary Clinton?) should be following. I’ll update this post when it does.
Update: Ben Smith has more at Politico where he identifies the White House aides who indicated the pullout and states that President Obama is expected to make a statement about the boycott sometimes this afternoon.
H/t to Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece at The Atlantic on speaking with Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl’s father, about the upcoming conference.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:06 pm February 27th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Israel, Jewish, Politics, Race, Religion, Social Issues, leadership | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
Obama to repeal last-minute Bush “conscience rule” regulations
Filed Under Abortion, Barack Obama, Civil Rights, Ethics, Gender, Health Care, Law, Politics, Science, Social Issues, Women | 3 Comments
Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.
…
Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, and two family-planning groups have filed lawsuits challenging the Bush rule. They argue that it sacrifices the health of patients to the religious beliefs of medical providers.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has reported cases, such as that of a Virginia mother of two who became pregnant after she was denied emergency contraception. In Texas, according to the group, a rape victim had her prescription for emergency contraception rejected by a pharmacist.
The Obama administration does not challenge the underlying premise of conscience rules, but the Bush-pushed regulations in late 2008 are overbroad and unncessary.
On Thursday officials stressed that before the administration finalizes the rollback, a standard 30-day comment period seeks input from people across the ideological spectrum.
“We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard,” said one official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the policy change.
The officials said the administration would consider drafting a new rule to clarify what healthcare workers could reasonably refuse to do for their patients.
For more than 30 years, federal law has allowed doctors and nurses to decline to provide abortion services as a matter of conscience, a protection that is not subject to rule making.
The Associated Press and USA Today report the move too.
Additional resource: National Women’s Law Center information on the regulations
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:07 pm February 27th, 2009 in Abortion, Barack Obama, Civil Rights, Ethics, Gender, Health Care, Law, Politics, Science, Social Issues, Women | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
Rocky Mountain News live-blogs its death
Filed Under Business, Economy, Gender, Media, RIP, Race, Tools, Wide Open, Writing, social media | 8 Comments
Sucking in air – that was really hard to write – but it is its death. (Here’s their formal announcement.)
From Editor and Publisher John Temple’s column today, Why Denver can’t support two papers.
Temple lists a bunch of truths about the industry’s current state of being (an oxymoron almost) and gives numbers related to dropping circulation. But that doesn’t really tell us why this city can’t support two papers. After reviewing financial elements related to circulation, advertising, and other revenue-related points, Temple says:
The economics have to work if a city is to have two newspapers. They don’t anymore. So Colorado will lose a part of its lore, a part of its identity.
Why is the state losing the Rocky rather than The Post?
Contrary to a lot of what has been written, the Rocky is not struggling financially any more than The Post. But its owner, the E.W. Scripps Co., sees losses in Denver worsening and little prospect that the business can be turned around, even in a one-newspaper town. That’s why they decided to leave Denver, after running newspapers here for more than 100 years.
If we had solved our circulation and advertising problems, perhaps Denver could have had two major newspapers for a while longer. But ultimately, it appears inevitable that there would just be one.
Sigh.
Well, with all due respect to John Temple, especially at this time and because he has spent so many years in the business, I think he’s taken the easy way out. Everything he wrote is true, factual, believable and related to why Denver can’t support two papers.
But he pulls the punch on the more gut-wrenching fact in all this: Denver readers either do not want or cannot or will not use, access or otherwise financially support two Denver papers.
Maybe that’s implied in what he’s written – maybe he realizes that because it’s the readers desire to buy the paper that ultimately drives the need for it, in conjunction with the ads to pay for it.
But this change in readership desire is completely missing from John’s review. And I think that’s a critical flaw in the analysis presented to the public.
Rambling warning: if you really hate it when I tell stories, then this is your chance to skip it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:59 am February 27th, 2009 in Business, Economy, Gender, Media, RIP, Race, Tools, Wide Open, Writing, social media | 8 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
Fairness Doctrine revivial is dead
Filed Under Barack Obama, Congress, Government, Media, Politics, Republicans, Whitehouse09 | 10 Comments
Talk about much ado about nothing. From The Hill:
The Senate voted Thursday in favor of an amendment to the District of Columbia voting-rights bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which critics say would decimate conservative talk radio.
The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
Republicans have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act in the House as well, but Democrats are not expected to allow a vote on the bill.
Legislation would have to pass both chambers of Congress and receive President Obama’s signature.
What this means is that the FCC would still be permitted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but President Barack Obama does not support that:
President Obama does not support reviving the so-called Fairness doctrine, an aide said on Wednesday, knocking down speculation that Obama was open to reinstating the rule requiring broadcasters to air alternate perspectives on controversial issues.
…Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, said Obama “does not support the Fairness Doctrine,” and never had. He pointed to comments from a spokesman during the 2008 campaign to that effect, saying Obama was now “reaffirming” his opposition to the abandoned rule.
But that doesn’t stop fearmongers from, well, fearmongering. But they have to find a way to continue nurturing distrust so you know, it’s all pretty predictable.
Actually, this whole thing with the Fairness Doctrine is identical to the conservatives whole “We have to march against FOCA!!” (Freedom of Choice Act that would protect the right to choose for women via congressional legislation and law as opposed to Roe v. Wade and state law only).
What’s the similarity? It’s a well-known fact that neither the president nor the Democratic leadership in the House or the Senate has any interest in bringing up FOCA in this legislative session. It is off the table.
But, again, that doesn’t stop fearmongers from fearmongering. Any predictions on what the next topic for fearmongers will be? There are so many to choose from when you fear everything that isn’t what you wanted. Stomp your foot!
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:57 am February 27th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Congress, Government, Media, Politics, Republicans, Whitehouse09 | 10 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
PD: Strickland’s efforts: power trip; when it was Petro’s idea, it was comprehensive consolidation
Filed Under Democrats, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Republicans, Ted Strickland, leadership | 4 Comments
Honest to goodness I cannot make this up.
Here’s today’s Plain Dealer editorial about Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s budget plans to reduce duplication and inefficiencies in how the state government is organized:
One aim of Gov. Ted Strickland’s proposed $54.3 billion budget is to widen his power, …
Really!? How!?
One instance cited by the AP: “A host of state boards and commissions [would be] consolidated under the Department of Administrative Services.” Administrative Services is Ohio’s housekeeping agency, led by a Strickland appointee.
Sheesh, I thought – that sounds awfully familiar. Oh yeah! Maybe because former Ohio Attorney General and Republican primary candidate for governor in 2006, Jim Petro, wanted to do the same thing:
In a major policy address Thursday, (gubernatorial candidate) Jim Petro unveiled a two-year plan to radically change the way state government operates. It calls for consolidating Ohio’s 23 Cabinet agencies into nine and ending duplication among the state’s 270 regulatory boards. Through attrition and time, he contends the changes would reduce the state workforce by 20 percent and save up to $1 billion annually.
Legislative leaders — all Republican — are stressing the need for caution and careful study but welcoming any suggestions on how to help address next year’s budget, expected to be the most difficult in decades. Other governors and candidates for governor have suggested similar proposals, although none quite so comprehensive, and have met with mixed success.
Of course, who does Ohio have to thank for the desire and need to consolidate the government?
Gov. Bob Taft campaigned on a plan to make “government smaller.” Once elected, we learned he would shrink it by one Cabinet director — a feat achieved when he merged the Bureau of Employment Services with the Department of Human Services. The resulting bureaucratic monster has been a financial and managerial disaster so severe that even agency Director Tom Hayes, known as Mr. Fix It, has been unable to repair this one.
What a difference four years – oh, and a governor from a different political party – makes.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:32 am February 27th, 2009 in Democrats, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Republicans, Ted Strickland, leadership | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
27
Mary Taylor: “The most meaningful change is no change at all…”
Filed Under Mary Taylor, Ohio, Politics, Republicans, conservatives | Leave a Comment
“But a return to the basics,” she’s quoted as saying.
I promise – I still want State Auditor Mary Taylor to buck her old boy Ohio Republican Party as much as if not more than anyone, but wow, if she keeps saying reactionary out of touch with reality stuff like it sounds she said last night at the Ross County annual Lincoln Day Dinner, I can see how she’s got just as much a handicap as the rest of their options.
Some other notable comments by Taylor that show more of the same disconnect:
Taylor, the only Republican seated in a statewide position, called for her fellow Republicans to return to basics. While she spoke of presidents Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, it was early 1940s Ohio governor John Bricker she presented as a good example of the party when faced with a $40 million deficit.
“He didn’t raise taxes, he didn’t raise fees, and he didn’t run to Washington for a bailout,” Taylor said, drawing a comparison to current Gov. Ted Strickland.
Instead, he reorganized state government and had eliminated 2,000 state jobs to balance the budget, she said.
Well, I don’t know the first thing about Bricker or Ohio in the early 1940s, but I do know that Pearl Harbor was on December 7, 1941 and I can just bet that the country’s entrance into WWII helped the economy a whole lot. You can read more about the economic rebound brought on by our entrance into the war here (the html version is here).
Taylor also said this curious thing:
She also expressed concern about the casual switch from talking about billions to trillions of dollars. She related the numbers to years, explaining that while 1 billion seconds would take us back 32 years to 1977, 1 trillion seconds would send us to about 29,000 BC, when Ohio still was covered by a glacier.
Huh? Comparing monetary units to the number of seconds we count backwards to 29,000 BC? At least we know she may not be an Intelligent Design or Creationism in public schools proponent.
Okay Ohio Republican statewide potential candidates – carry on.
Hooo…
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:19 am February 27th, 2009 in Mary Taylor, Ohio, Politics, Republicans, conservatives | Please comment
Print This Post
Feb
27
First African American, and first woman selected as Columbia dean
Filed Under Education, Gender, Race, Women, Writing, leadership | 2 Comments
From the Columbia University Spectator:
Michele Moody-Adams, vice provost for undergraduate education and professor of philosophy at Cornell University, will become Columbia College’s next dean, assuming the mantle from Austin Quigley and becoming the first woman and first African American to hold the post. She will begin her tenure on July 1, 2009.
Moody-Adams will also take on an additional title, vice president for undergraduate education. In the newly created position, she will be the spokesperson for undergraduates to the senior administration. She will also hold an appointment in the philosophy department, where she eventually hopes to teach.
Moody-Adams’ role will extend beyond the college, tying her into the central administration as part of Columbia’s emerging vision for greater integration. In an e-mail notifying undergraduates of the appointment, University President Lee Bollinger lauded Moody-Adams for “ensuring the integrity and coherence of undergraduate curriculum and instruction at Cornell and overseeing a number of academic and residential initiatives.”
…
Moody-Adams graduated from Wellesley College in 1978 with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. She attended Somerville College at the University of Oxford on a Marshall Scholarship and received a B.A. in philosophy, politics, and economics in 1980, and went on to earn Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1986. Moody-Adams wrote her dissertation on “Moral Philosophy Naturalized: Morality and Mitigated Skepticism in Hume” under the supervision of philosopher John Rawls. Before coming to Cornell in the fall of 2000, Moody-Adams worked at Indiana University, Bloomington as associate dean for undergraduate education.
…
Many congratulations to the new dean.
One writer’s comment: Notice how every paragraph’s first sentence starts with the new dean’s last name? Nuh uh.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:39 am February 27th, 2009 in Education, Gender, Race, Women, Writing, leadership | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
26
White House alumna & Strickland legal counsel appointed to Franklin County bench
Filed Under Courts, Law, Ohio, Politics, Ted Strickland | 2 Comments
Two lawyers working in state government have been chosen by Gov. Ted. Strickland to fill open seats on the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.
Kimberly Cocroft, a 35-year-old Democrat, works as deputy legal counsel in Strickland’s office. The other appointee, Laurel Beatty, 34, also a Democrat, is director of legislative affairs in the secretary of state’s office. Both women will begin their judgeships April 6.
I wrote about these opening here and noted very specifically something which the Ohio Republican Party’s expected bash piece about the final candidates who didn’t get the nod leaves out: all four of the final candidates who were not selected have already run for judicial posts and lost. Each and every single one of them.
Kind of an important fact the Republicans seem to like to ignore (losing that is).
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:39 pm February 26th, 2009 in Courts, Law, Ohio, Politics, Ted Strickland | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
26
Rush’s Greatest Sexist Hits & more poll info on weak performance w/women
Filed Under Barack Obama, Elections, Gender, Media, Politics, Sexism, Social Issues, Women, conservatives | 4 Comments
Just the messenger.
Someone asked me yesterday if it was possible the gender gap was simply a product of it being more likely that women are Democrats and men are Republicans, so I ran the numbers this morning by gender and party and here’s what we got
Democrats: Women 14/73 (-59), Men 22/73 (-51) GENDER GAP: 8
Republicans: Women 75/19 (+65), Men (84/13 (+71) GENDER GAP: 6
Independents: Women 30/56 (-26), Men 55/32 (+23) GENDER GAP: 49
So there is a gender gap within both the Democratic and Republican respondents to the poll, but the really huge one is among independents.
The Republican ladies love you Rush, and I don’t think you have much chance with the Democratic ones. But you really need to appeal to those moderate women if you want to get that approval up over 50%.
Thanks to everyone who has been linking here. One of my favorite posts about Rush Limbaugh and his Female Summit is from Tennesee Guerilla Women and includes this greatest hits of d’ohs re: why women might not be listen to him, ever:
Sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh — Hillary Rodham Clinton:
“She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. … Men will know what I mean by this.”
“Mrs Clinton Testicle Lockbox is big enough for the entire democratic heirarchy.”
“Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
“I don’t know why the B-I-itch is staying in.”
Sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh — Nancy Pelosi:
“[If Pelosi] wants fewer births, I have the way to do this and it won’t require any contraception: You simply put pictures of Nancy Pelosi … in every cheap motel room. … That will keep birthrates down because that picture will keep a lot of things down.”
Sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh — Elizabeth Edwards:
“Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.”
More sexist comments by Rush Limbaugh:
“Some of these babes, I’m telling you, like the sexual harassment crowd. They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”
“If I were Bob Woodward, I would be on a lookout for Mrs. Clinton and her testicle lockbox.”
Amanda Terkel at Think Progress has more sexist comments from Rush — including this gem:
“She’s actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn’t have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat’s taught me more about women, than anything in my whole life.”
It’s amazing to read these statements by Limbaugh and juxtapose them with his rant yesterday about people needing to leave Bobby Jindal alone. Talk about dishing it out but not being able to take it, wow.
Echidne of the Snakes offers up some greatest hits too, including this oldie but goodie:
Limbaugh’s views on women are crystallized in this ‘Rushbite’:
One of my fabulous routines concerns a San Francisco men’s club which lost its battle to exclude women from membership. The courts ruled that they had to admit women on the basis that businesswomen were being unfairly denied opportunities to do business. This is specious. How much business did women think they were going to get as a result of forcing their way in?
Anyway, after one year, the female members demanded their own exercise room. They were probably tired of being ogled by a bunch of slobbering men while they pumped iron in leotards and spandex. The men offered to install the first three exercise machines in the women’s new workout room. The ladies were thrilled. When they arrived on that first exciting day they found, to their stunned amazement, a washing machine, an ironing board, and a vacuum cleaner. Heh, heh, heh. (The Way Things Ought To Be, p.142-45 Jul 2, 1992)
Now, if they’d thrown in a Belgian waffle-maker, maybe, maybe…
Naw.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:20 pm February 26th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Elections, Gender, Media, Politics, Sexism, Social Issues, Women, conservatives | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
26
Limbaugh, conservative politicians & their power at mercy of women
Filed Under Campaigning, Elections, Gender, Government, Media, Politics, Republicans, Sexism, Whitehouse09, Women, conservatives | 38 Comments
First, I think Rush Limbaugh’s EIB Network Female Summit is more than just a stunt to attract more listeners, especially in the face of President Obama’s initial successes over the last few weeks. It’s a stunt, for sure, but I think there’s more to it.
Given what this media personality has said about women over the decades, it’s hard to believe he actually cares about what women think (and based on Day One of his Female Summit, it’s obvious that he has little interest in actually changing). I don’t think he does actually care very much – and certainly not about why the women who don’t like him don’t actually like him.
However, Rush isn’t dumb. Women are a key voter demographic. And even if Limbaugh’s stock with conservative white men deepens and broadens to include every single one of them, that maximization in loyalty and base will never reflect the electorate well enough to get Limbaugh or many of the conservatives he supports (read: Bobby Jindal) elected in the 21st Century – not even (and perhaps especially not) in a post-Palin world.
Nope – Rush needs to do some work with the women. He is trying to figure out how to design and implement a way to persuade, seduce or otherwise dupe women into listening to him long enough (he says it takes at least six weeks to get the gist of him) so that he can then be an influencer with them. He wants to help the conservatives re-consolidate their power in the post-2008 election watershed and that means reaching out, connecting with and convincing more women to support the conservatism he and those he supports (not that of politicians like Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins) espouses.
I got news for Rush Limbaugh: if he thinks a woman in this day and age would take 30 days and listen to any man for three hours a day every day just to get to know him, I am going to have to revise that “Rush isn’t dumb” statement I just made.
No way, no how and no 90 hours just to get the gist of Rush.
You lost us at “Ladies and gentlemen.”
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:44 am February 26th, 2009 in Campaigning, Elections, Gender, Government, Media, Politics, Republicans, Sexism, Whitehouse09, Women, conservatives | 38 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
25
[transcript] The Limbaugh Women’s Summit: Rush Babe – Denial ain’t a river in Egypt
Filed Under Gender, Media, Politics, Women, conservatives | 16 Comments
Many thanks to the numerous folks who’ve been linking to my posts about Rush Limbaugh’s Women’s Summit – now apparently called the EIB Network Female Summit. This Think Progress piece has nearly 150 comments – I’m sure there are some women with advice in there for Rush and why he’s got such an enormous gender gap in his listening audience.
Just a recap: As Rush announced yesterday, this Public Policy Polling report found that:
A new national survey from PPP finds 46% of Americans have a positive opinion of Rush Limbaugh while 43% view him unfavorably.
The numbers break down on demographic lines pretty much as one would expect. Men, Republicans, whites, and older voters like him. Women, Democrats, young voters, African Americans, and Hispanics don’t. The gender gap is one of the largest PPP has seen on any issue it’s polled in the last year, with Limbaugh having a +19 (56/37) net favorability among men, but a -12 (37/49) with women. 31 point gender gaps don’t come along all that often.
Emphasis added.
He was dismayed and decided to call for a women’s summit, as I wrote about here.
Today, he had his summit and you can read the full transcript here.
The highlights (which I hope people truly appreciate because I do not, as a rule, listen to or read Limbaugh but I put myself through the pain of reading the portions from today to get to the parts I thought readers might find the most interesting): Read more
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:57 pm February 25th, 2009 in Gender, Media, Politics, Women, conservatives | 16 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
25
Like vultures smelling blood: Casino proponents circle Ohio – again
Filed Under Economy, Gambling, Ohio, Politics, Social Issues, Ted Strickland, casinos | 14 Comments
In any other world, wouldn’t they just be recalcitrant incorrigibles who don’t understand the meaning of “No”?
The group backing the plan — led by Penn National Gaming and My Ohio Now– would also include Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert and Cleveland businessman Jeff Jacobs, sources have told the paper.
…
One casino would be in Cleveland, though not in the Flats area where Jacobs owns property, the sources said. The other locations would be in Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo — all urban centers.
No racinos this time, though.
The article uses the word “desperate” to describe Ohio’s leaders and their relationship to revenue schemes (Bernie Madoff would see them as an easy target too I suppose), but any leader who wants to tell us that casinos are the answer, long-term or short-term, – especially after President Obama’s speech last night which emphasized sacrifice – has failed to either do the research or pay attention to the evidence all around us as to the unacceptable drain that hope in gambling brings to a region (see Detroit, Las Vegas and Atlantic City for starters).
Don’t do it. Do not do it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:12 pm February 25th, 2009 in Economy, Gambling, Ohio, Politics, Social Issues, Ted Strickland, casinos | 14 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
25
Carnival of Ohio Politics, #156
Filed Under Blogging, Carnivals, Ohio, Politics, Writing | Leave a Comment
Many thanks to Ben of Keeler’s Political Report for compiling this week’s edition of the Carnival of Ohio Politics #156. I think the image he’s chosen as representing 156 will make every visitor smile.
Old or new, wherever you are in Ohio, please feel free to submit entries for inclusion in the weekly round-up of what Ohio political blogs are yammering about. discussing.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:49 pm February 25th, 2009 in Blogging, Carnivals, Ohio, Politics, Writing | Please comment
Print This Post
Feb
25
Women don’t like Limbaugh so he wants a women’s summit
Filed Under Gender, Media, Women | 6 Comments
Another really.
First, here’s the information from Public Policy Polling. In addition to the gender gap discussed below, the poll indicates that few people think Rush Limbaugh should have much influence:
Even if voters are pretty split on whether they like Limbaugh or not, there’s more of a consensus on how much sway they think he should hold in American politics, which is not much. Only 23% of respondents said Limbaugh should have ‘a lot’ of influence and the most common answer, given by 42% of respondents, is that he should have no influence at all.
Even among Republicans only 39% think Limbaugh should have a lot of influence, an indication that some GOP elected officials have perhaps been more eager to stay on his good side than necessary in the early days of the Obama administration.
Now, from Limbaugh’s website re: the gender gap found by PPP:
“The gender gap is one of the largest [Public Policy Polling] has seen on any issue it’s polled in the last year, with [Rush] Limbaugh having a +19 (56/37) net favorability among men, but a -12 (37/49) with women.” I have a 37% approval with women, 49% disapproval. “Thirty-one-point point gender gaps don’t come along all that often.” Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is an opportunity here, because this takes us to the age-old question: What do women want? Not even Freud was ultimately able to answer the question. Women generally, for the most part, can’t answer it, either. But it has never stopped people from asking the question: What do women want? Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers, a 31-point gender gap, it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit.
How:
We’ll have a summit of all the women in this audience — or as many of them as we can get into breakout groups — and perhaps devote an hour in an upcoming program to calls only from women who genuinely want to talk to me. They can be liberal, conservative. They could be non-audience members, could be audience members. But I want some of these women to start telling me what it is I must do to close the gender gap — or, if not what it is I must do to close the gender gap, what it is I’ve done that has caused the gender gap; assuming the gender gap is true and that the poll is true.
Ummm, you know – the women, who aren’t listening – they’re the ones ya probably need to hear from the most, yah?
When:
I don’t know if we’ll do it tomorrow because we got Obama’s big speech tonight, but we might. So, you ladies be on standby. Be ready at any moment for me to declare the summit officially underway, and we will take calls only from women who want to seriously discuss the proposition of this giant gender gap that I have, and what I could do to close it. In other words: What could I do to attract a higher favorability rating among more women in America? I own the men, and what must I do now to own women? And who better to ask than women? Including some of those who may agree that that I’m unfavorable.
After the non-sensical GOP response from Bobby Jindal last night – whom Rush says is the next Ronald Reagan (who was called The Great Communicator – that same Ronald Reagan?), I am seriously, seriously worried on behalf of my conservative friends. Who on earth are your real leaders and icons right now? Who measures up?
Me – I say Arnold and the Mods (the two GOP Senators from Maine – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and PA Senator Arlen Spector). But I’m really not the right audience to be addressing this question.
Who – who measures up?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:41 pm February 25th, 2009 in Gender, Media, Women | 6 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
25
Jindal: I just gave the GOP response; now I’m going to Disney World
Filed Under Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Government, Whitehouse09, conservatives | 2 Comments
There are plenty of reviews out there – you can find pretty much anything you want to support what you thought. My thoughts are in the live-blog here and my thought about how he talked down to viewers/voters/adults and spoke as if he were speaking to first-graders is echoed in many places.
Here are four for you to check out:
The New York Times‘ David Brooks (hattip Blogger Interrupted):
10:29 EST (Nate): If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that’s because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again.
I don’t know who Kenneth the Page is other than what Andrew Sullivan includes here but I see what people are talking about:
Stylistically, he got better as he went along but there was, alas, a slightly high-school debate team feel to the beginning. And there was a patronizing feel to it as well – as if he were talking to kindergartners – that made Obama’s adult approach so much more striking. And I’m not sure that the best example for private enterprise is responding to a natural calamity that even Ron Paul believes is a responsibility for the federal government. And really: does a Republican seriously want to bring up Katrina?
Winners and losers, according to the Washington Post.
One more, just one more – from The Moderate Voice editor-in-chief, Joe Gandelman:
Can Democrats, Republicans and independents put aside political biases and just bluntly say it after they’ve taken their hands away from their eyes?
Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s speech in replying to President Barack Obama’s speech to Congres wasn’t “da bomb” but “a bomb.”
To paraphrase the late Jackie Gleason, his response made the atomic bomb look like a firecracker.
His entire post is worth reading.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:37 pm February 25th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Government, Whitehouse09, conservatives | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
25
[videos] President Obama’s Address, Gov. Jindal’s response
Filed Under Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Congress, Whitehouse09 | Leave a Comment
President Obama:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Huge hattip to Jack and Jill Politics.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:18 am February 25th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Congress, Whitehouse09 | Please comment
Print This Post
Feb
25
[Text] President Obama’s Address, Gov. Jindal’s response
Filed Under Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Congress, Economy, Politics | Leave a Comment
What I remember: President Barack Obama didn’t say anything about coal or labor. Jindal didn’t make any sense but did mention Katrina and natural disasters a lot. Obama does still seem to be in campaign-mode – I’d heard that from
I hosted this live-blog on behalf of the Political Voices of Women – which was packed to the frame’s edge with participants (thank you!) and you can read the re-play – it’s got some great exchanges.
Many thanks to the other PVOW hosts:
Janet Shan of Black Political Thought
Marcia G. Yerman of The Huffington Post
Tami Winfrey Harris of What Tami Said
Pamela Lyn of Pam’s Coffee Conversation which I just added to my blogroll (sorry Pam!)
And founder, Catherine Morgan
If I’ve missed anyone, please leave a link in the comments and I’ll update the post.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:49 am February 25th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Congress, Economy, Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Feb
24
Hilda Solis confirmed as Secretary of Labor
Filed Under Barack Obama, Government, employment, hilda solis | Leave a Comment
Strange long path but now confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Congratulations.
It was not unanimous but 80-17.
Here’s more from NPR.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:01 pm February 24th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Government, employment, hilda solis | Please comment
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
