Keeping An Eye On The Rush Bust

Perhaps you have heard:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri House has spent more than $1,100 in taxpayer money on a security camera to keep watch over a new bronze bust of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, the House clerk said Thursday.

Now, I have not written much about the embarrassing fact that Rush Limbaugh, whose colossal intolerance is robust enough to give bigotry a bad name, is now firmly ensconced in the Hall of Famous Missourians, thanks to Missouri House Speaker Steven Tilley, a Republican from Limbaugh’s part of Missouri.

Recently calling a college student a “slut” and “prostitute” for daring to speak her mind on the availability of contraception, Rush apparently upgraded his credentials for admission into what we will now definitely have to call the Hall of Both Infamous and Famous Missourians.

When Rush was officially inducted this week, the event, which traditionally is open to the public, was a secret affair attended only by Republicans—because only Republicans were invited! That’s some honor! Congratulations, Rush! You’re such a special Missourian that only other special Missourians understand what you mean to the state. The rest of us just understand that you’re mean.

In any case, as police stood guard to make sure the orgy of  adoration was not interrupted by reality, Limbaugh, never missing an opportunity to show off his Missouri humility and humanity, said of his critics:

They’re deranged. They’re literally deranged.

Ah, a proud moment in Missouri history!

Finally, I learned today that not only will taxpayers foot the bill to keep Rush’s marble head under surveillance every minute of every day, it is the only marble head in the place that actually needs a security camera! Kudos, Rush!

House Clerk Adam Crumbliss told the Associated Press:

We recognize that there was a level of controversy around it, and we want to make sure that property is protected.

No, no, no. That’s not what the camera is for. It has nothing to do with “controversy.” As everyone knows, marble is susceptible to acidic substances, and I have it on good authority that the real reason for the camera is to keep adoring Republicans from making love to Rush’s mug when the lights go out.

Smoooooch!

Previous Post

10 Comments

  1. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought something like this possible. (I guess I’m still a political naif, but I’m learning.) However, Duane, I think we should be grateful for this because it will provide political talking fodder for ages. Nobody could make this stuff up, except come to think of it, Al Capp or Walt Kelly.

    Like

  2. The fact that this was done in secrecy and the only invitees to this were Republicans bothers me more than the fact that he was voted in. After all, it is for ” famous” Missourians, not the most liked.
    My question is who funds this center. If it is funded by tax payers, then all should have had access to this event.

    Kabe

    Like

    • You know, KABE, I could more understand putting Limbaugh in that Hall if he were not still on the radio doing his nasty business. But this induction came at a time when his prestige sorely needed a rehab job, and the GOP in Missouri gave it to him. The fact they had to do it in secret says it all.

      Duane

      Like

  3. ansonburlingame

     /  May 28, 2012

    To all,

    This comment has nothing to do with the Limbaugh event in Missouri. Instead it is a comment on “old” blogs and comments thereto that recently appeared and I went back to read them.

    By old I mean “before” the outrage expressed by both sides in the “censorship” debate that occurred earlier this year. In those old blogs, specifically about the iraq War and Reagan, Duane and I were sitll “talking to each other” and the comments between us was senseable, as well as exchanges with others.

    I’m sure the censorship issue raised much bad blood and as well the campaign is now in full swing. Perhaps those two events are the primary cause for the increasing Great Divide, herein and in the country at large as well. Too bad is my thought on such.

    “There outta be a way” to ……. But damned if I can see how to ….. right now.

    Anson

    Like

    • King Beauregard

       /  May 29, 2012

      Yes, I think you may be on to something about how the censorship issue has something to do with bad blood in this place. You might go a step further and be explicit what that censorship issue really was: Geoff posted a piece with a link to a piece on his own site trashing Duane, Duane changed the link and announced he was doing it, and you started going on about “integrity” or “free speech” or whatever argument you felt would make Duane the clear evildoer in the matter. (You also claimed to know at least one case where Duane changed the words in a post, a claim that you quietly stopped making once it was clear you didn’t have the goods.)

      I can understand a person thinking, for about a half second, that the guy running a blog shouldn’t have any control whatsoever over the responses posted there. For a half second, but no longer. There are all kinds of reasons why changing or controlling responses might be justified; the specific reasons (and the specific actions taken) may be up for debate, but in and of itself, managing responses isn’t inherently wrong. In this specific case, Duane felt he had no obligation to advertise a site that was trashing him; I agree. And yes, I would feel the same if the tables were turned — there is free expression all over the Internet, if you like someone’s commentary you can just click on their name to see more, there’s no reason to turn one person’s blog into a link dump (especially one where the links are dedicated to trashing that blogger).

      I notice this funny tendency among conservatives: when the details are against them, they revert to the most abstract of principles, because conservative thought most often sounds good in the abstract but fails at the point of addressing real-world details. In this particular case, you’ve reverted to the abstraction of “why can’t we all get along and discuss matters in civil fashion?” because the details of the “censorship issue” don’t show you to be an innocent, fair-minded pursuer of truth. Rather you were willing to make claims you couldn’t back up, and revert to whatever argument would support Geoff, who JUST BY REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE shares your political outlook and whose behavior on this blog you have likened to Patton driving a tank to Berlin. The devil is indeed in the details.

      Like

    • You know, Anson, it is too bad.

      But for the reasons that King Beauregard so elegantly summed up, it was inevitable.

      In addition to those reasons there are others, starting with the fact you just couldn’t seem to let go of Geoff Caldwell’s pant leg long enough to realize that he was not only damaging your own reputation as “I’m not sure, are you?” but he was detrimentally altering the dynamics we had as fellow Joplin Globe bloggers and commenters on each other’s stuff.

      Did you know Geoff first compared me to Joseph Goebbels more than three years ago? Before any of the stuff you and he later labeled as censorship? Huh? His attacks on me had nothing to do with censorship, Anson. They were rooted in professional jealousy. Yet I put up with them until that one comment he made a few years ago, after I had spent an hour putting together a response to something he had suggested, in which he said he was happy to have wasted my time. I vowed never to waste time like that again.

      But beyond even that, his attacks got even more personal in nature, as when he said the following—on your blog and without a complete rebuke from you:

      Dwain is a coward in the first and foremost degree. He didn’t serve, he doesn’t know. The only thing he does “know” is what is fed on the spoon into his mouth every morning form [sic] the DNC.

      Hell, on this issue he’s not even with his fellow liberals. As those that are respected have come out AGAINST the McCarthy type of censorship dwainbwain calls for.

      He is what he is Anson. A greedy, selfish little bastard living off the spoils of others that may very well lose their jobs over his and others contributions to the downfall of the USPS…

      Now, here is my point: Geoff wasn’t some anonymous commenter making these statements. He was an associate of sorts as a fellow Globe blogger, as we all were at the time. That makes what he said and did different, Anson.  And you just couldn’t seem to grasp that. Hell, he even attacked Jim Wheeler and called him names like “coward,” and Jim, who served in the Navy, has to be one of the most decent people in this town.

      And yet your response to another commenter at the time included this:

      Geoff call [sic] Wheeler and Duane names. Are they true and accurate characterizations of the two men. You have to decide for yourself and I will do the same.

      I don’t know, Anson, there’s just something off-putting about a blogging associate being so indifferent to charges that I am “A greedy, selfish little bastard.” It sort of, uh, makes me not want to associate in any way with such indifference.

      Finally, speaking of personal, what started the above commentary was a post you made during one of our last exchanges over Rush Limbaugh’s presence on the Armed Forces Network:

      To me it reflects your misunderstanding and perhaps in some cases suspicions or even disdain for our men and women overseas. You may feel they are simply young and impressionable young men and women unable to evaluate the likes of Limbaugh.

      I strongly objected to your claim that I may harbor “disdain for our men and women overseas.”  And you thought I overreacted. Well, although I consider myself to have fairly thick skin in such matters, I do have skin, skin that can be breached.

      Along with all the other things involving Geoff’s constantly calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and devoting a website to trashing me—all of which you supported with either your silence or your affirmations—I had just had enough. And even though you can’t understand that, one would think that you would at least engage in a little introspection, perhaps long enough to figure out that life is way too short for me to continue to engage in a time-consuming dialog with a person who showed so little respect for the mutual privilege.

      Duane

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  May 29, 2012

        Sorry Duane,

        I posted my response to King before I saw this almost simultaneous response. Thus I reply to the above.

        You and Geoff have been mud slinging stuff for as long as I have been blogging. My silence is just that, silience and an unwillingness to support either side in such matters. Never, as just an example did I resort to “dwainbrain”. Privately I even suggested a less aggressive approach to no avail. That is just an example.

        As I recall I challenged your experience in understanding how men and women overseas think and act and their reactions to, specifically a Limbaugh broadcast. I offered three reasons for your call for not allowing Limbaugh to continue to be broadcast on AFR, call it censorship of Limbaugh by government edict. You took ONE of those reasons, only, told me to shove it up my ass and stopped all “talking” since then.

        As recent polls reflect a large marjority of men and women in the armed forces support GOP candidates. Jim wondered why in a recent blog. I provided my idea of why such a poll reflects the thinking of such men and women today, as well as that of many veterans of such service. You might check out that blog and comment.

        You are the other hand are generally vitrolic over supporters of any conservative thinking so I must assume you believe that most members of the armed services are polltically……..

        Is that a fair assessment of your political views, sometimes very disdainful political views pointed at many Americans? I sure read your blog that way.

        As for thick skins, if my skin was thin I would have left your blog long ago. No one can have a thin skin in today’s political climate.

        Anson

        Like

      • I recall these comments against Duane quite well. After challenging Geofry about his service ( I assumed no service ) and employment ( I already knew the answer, I just wanted others to compare ) I will not embarrass his fellow employees or organization, but lets just say they are both monopolies with higher than average pay and benefits than most in this area. Of course I was called names and such by Geofry. By the way AB, you did not give me a pass for anonymity like you did Anonymouse (?) even though I had explained my reasons in the past, which are work related. No hard feelings, just wanted to point that out.

        Now, Geofry wants everyone to believe that his personal attacks are worthy of being the victim of censorship. That is laughable. His attempts at journalism amount to nothing more than the garbage I see on my teens facebook pages. To call Duane a “greedy little bastard” is so far off base to Duane’s character that if Geofry were an actual journalist he would be fired. I have seen Duanes modest home. Very cozy home that he and his family have, but hardly the digs of a greedy bastard. And his 93 Chevy pick -up? lol Lets just say the we never ask Duane to drive. Anyone who knows Duane knows that financial gain have never been his motives for anything. Geofry’s attack on Duane’s union activity are even more outrageous and show a total lack of professionalism and lack of research. Duane made around one thousand dollars per year as an NACL local president. He received travel pay for a weekend in St Louis and Camdenton once per year and every other year to a nation convention. Also realize that he had to use vacation time for most of these trips and paid the tab for his family if they were to join him. He mostly lost money on these trips. Hardly the picture of a “Big Union Boss” as the right likes to characterize it. The hours he put in to benefit other make this pay almost non existent. MANY of them hard right conservatives I might add. Nobody lost jobs under his stewardship as Geoffry alludes, quite the opposite when jobs were wrongly targeted or a person was disciplined beyond what was reasonable.

        Duane does not need me to fight his battles by any means and would never pat himself on the back. I just wanted to point out the outright character assault by Geofry that is nothing more than outright lies that would probably result in a law suit if this were performed on a true Greedy Bastard by a true journalist.

        Kabe

        Like

  4. ansonburlingame

     /  May 29, 2012

    King,

    First of all, changing a link is in fact changing words from a commenter, simply as that.

    But that is beside the point, entirely regarding the censorship issue. It was much broader than that and you know it or should. But so what was my point.

    Many Dems and Reps can hardly talk to each other, at least publicly today, with reason and acknowledgment that both sides have some part of the ‘truth” or a path forward.

    To me at least this blog site typifies such a Great Divide. THAT is not a path forward solution, it is a call for yet more divide and rancor.

    To be a “true” conservative politically today, one must be anti-gun control of any sort, anti-abortion, and supportive of almost ANY “Christian” call to arms. Well baloney to those three points, just for starters, in my view.

    Then go check out the column last Sunday in the Globe for a gay woman challenging my views on “marriage” specifically “gay marriage”. She wrote as if I was some kind of homophobe when I fact I SUPPORT equality under HUMAN law for all men and women.

    I simply challenge anyone trying to use government to force their view of “God’s laws” down anyone throats, just as an example.

    Until both sides “lossen up” we remain on course for much greater disaster ahead for America in my view. And in some areas I am “loose as a goose” to do so.

    But I cannot even get most on this blog site to begin to agree that living within our national means is a priority, now, not some vague and undefined time in the future, just as an example.

    Anson

    Like

%d bloggers like this: