Would Mitt Romney Invite Rush Limbaugh To Sleep In The Lincoln Bedroom?

I think many Republicans were stung Sunday when conservative Establishment type, George Will, went on national TV and explained to the viewers that the phony-baloney Republican leadership claims to want to go to war against Iran but that they're afraid of big fat, drug addicted cream puff Rush Limbaugh. It must have come as a particular slap in the face to the Establishment candidate, Willard, who studiously ducked the Limbaugh controversy. David Axelrod was happy to pounce on the frightened hapless Romney in a discussion with Anderson Cooper on CNN:

"I was kind of shocked, Anderson, when Governor Romney all he had, all he had to say about the thing was, 'well, that isn't language I would have used.' What about the spirit of what was said? I thought that was a cowardly answer and it was a test of leadership and one that he failed... I thought it was unusual that so many leaders on the other side of this debate, in terms of the political debate, took a pass on this whole thing-- a powder on this whole thing. Everyone should have stood up and said this was inappropriate as apparently many of Rush's advertisers now have said it was inappropriate."

Stephen Colbert was far more devastating in his critique of Limbaugh's unhinged attack on Sarah Fluke. Crooks and Liars caught it:



He even got into the language Willard might have used rather than the language Limbaugh did use that he says he wouldn't have used. "He might have used 'trollop' or 'wanton harlot' or 'bowlegged dumpster skank.' That video above, by the way, is one of the best pieces of political satire I've ever seen on television. Do yourself a favor... watch it.

One person more than a little bit sorry that Limbaugh and far right extremists in the party have dragged the Republicans into this swamp of contraception, something that is horrifying women in every state-- including, of course, Republican women, but especially independent women-- is Alaska's senior Senator Lisa Murkowski. She voted for Roy Blunt's deranged and misogynistic anti-contraception amendment last week and she's already saying she wishes she could take back her vote!

[T]he most interesting nugget in the [Anchorage Daily News] interview is her apparent concession that voters see this battle as one about contraception, and not about religious liberty-- which is to say that Republicans may be losing the framing war. From reporter Julia O’Malley’s account:

What Murkowski told me I already suspected. She’s a moderate. She supports abortion rights and contraception coverage. She also doesn’t line up completely with the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control. She regretted her recent vote.
 
“I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me,” she said.
 
She’d meant to make a statement about religious freedom, she said, but voters read it as a vote against contraception coverage for women. The measure was so broad, it’s hard not to read it that way. I suspect Murkowski saw that, but for reasons she didn’t share with me, voted for it anyway.

...[H]ere you have a case where a self-described “moderate” Republican didn’t support the compromise solution proposed by Obama even though by her own admission opposing it meant letting down her constituents, who view this issue (she concedes) the way Dems have framed it.

Most polls have shown that broad majorities, including of independents, support Obama’s birth control coverage mandate. If bipartisan “centrist” compromise is no longer possible in Washington, perhaps the fact that self-described moderate Republicans are not willing to vote for centrist compromises-- even ones they believe are right on the merits-- has something to do with it.