Dave Griffey, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Shea

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print



Dave Griffey at his blog Daffy Thoughts wrote this about the recent comments by Rush Limbaugh regarding sexual morality:


What Rush Limbaugh said is here.  What Rush Limbaugh didn’t appear to say in the least was that rape is defensible.  I’m no fan of Rush, and you’ll notice I seldom reference him.  Not that he isn’t right sometimes.  Sure he is.  My favorite reference is the time he observed that the Baby Boomers are the first generation in history that didn’t have to grow up.  Good observation there.

Nonetheless, he’s problematic enough for me to look to other sources for opinion.  Still, with that said, he doesn’t deserve to be falsely accused of something as horrific as defending rape unless it can be demonstrated that he unequivocally said rape is defensible.  What he appears to be saying is what many have said over the years, and what we are witnessing today.

Assume, just for a minute, that Donald Trump is innocent of the accusations being made against him.  And assume, just for a minute, as opposed to what Major Garrett on CBS said yesterday morning, that he doesn’t have to provide evidence to show he is innocent, but that the accusers have to show evidence that he is guilty.  Assuming this basic ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard that was so crucial in the late 90s, we can say that what Trump has said about and to women is vulgar, despicable, deplorable, wrong, bad, horrific, and anything else to drive home the point.  If, that is, we say there is such as thing as objective morality.

The problem Rush has is that those who are saying this are some of the same who stood idly by 4 years ago when similar things were said about Michelle Bachmann, 8 years ago when worse was said about Sarah Palin, her daughter, her children, and almost 20 years ago when more than one accuser of Bill Clinton was called a liar, a whore for the Republicans, and trailer park trash.  All while we were told that when it comes to sex, nobody cares, there are no real objective morals, it’s up in the air, it isn’t important, and it doesn’t even matter if we lie or commit perjury. As long as you have consent – and even that seemed to depend on who was saying there wasn’t consent involved – everything was fair game.

It’s a fair statement and a fair observation.  Perhaps he didn’t do the best job conveying that view.  But nothing in the complete statement suggests he was defending rape or in any way suggesting rape is not wrong or that there is a problem with being upset about rape.

Mark Shea showed up in the combox and, as usual, was the quiet voice of reason:

What he did was sneer that critics of non-consensual sex are “rape police”. Normal people just call them “police”. Because non-consensual sex is rape. And you defend it. Because you guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels defending the sex predator you have made your Dear Leader. Good job.

To which Griffey responded:

No Mark. What he did was echo your complaint that you have rightly made for years. That when you boil sexual morality down to ‘consent and everything else is off the table’ you’re going to have a major problem on your hands. I absolutely agree, and it’s one of your best observations. It was his, too. And Trump is not my dear leader. I have said time and again that I won’t vote for him any more than I will vote for Hillary. Again, don’t buttress your arguments with false accusations. The point of this post. BTW, you’re always welcome to comment, but it would be nice if the same was extended to me.

I then added my two and a half cents:


To be fair to Mark he really wasn’t responding to what Limbaugh wrote, but rather what the straw man Limbaugh he has constructed in his mind wrote. The proof of this of course is that Mark didn’t link to the whole post that the actual Limbaugh wrote.



Dealing with the actual arguments that real people make tends to be harder and more time consuming than tackling straw men of our creation, but it does have the virtue of honesty and actually attempting to advance a debate.

More to explorer

Brightness to the Sun

  This is the one hundred and tenth anniversary of the birth-day of Washington. We are met to celebrate this day. Washington

Hate Crime

News that I missed courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a statement to D.C. police given Tuesday, senator and presidential

PopeWatch: Cardenal

  Hattip to commenter Greg Mockeridge.  Pope John Paul II shaking his finger at Ernesto Cardenal, Culture Minister for the Sandinista government


  1. Mark Shea is an idiot.
    Hillary Clinton is a murderous pathological liar.
    Her husband Bill Clinton is a rapist.
    Mark should shut the heck up before increasing his stanatd as an asinus maximus any more.

  2. If any are undecided, let us look at the practicality or even the pragmatism involved. If Trump is elected President, and does something terrible, we can impeach him in a fortnight. If Hillary, forget about it. We are toast. Any questions?

  3. “But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.”

    Sorry, but that is mocking the seriousness with which the Left treats consent. If Limbaugh were a more reasonable, magnanimous fellow, he would have said, the Left is right to insist on consent just as all good people do, and then made his point from there. But as usual he chose to mock them because he doesn’t view them as human beings worthy of respect but as the enemy.

    Since the original story was supposedly about “intellectual honesty”, how honest was Limbaugh’s insistence that the Left is uniformly in favor of bestiality? Sounds like ridiculous slander to me – much worse than the sort of libel of which Shea is being accused. But perhaps someone can link to credible evidence that most of the same people attacking Trump over consent are also approving of bestiality. Shouldn’t be too hard since the person everyone is defending on this site asserts that this is such a common liberal value.

    I also find it a bit ironic that the post begins with the assertion that Shea has made a full conversion to the Left. Is that intellectually honest?

  4. “I also find it a bit ironic that the post begins with the assertion that Shea has made a full conversion to the Left. Is that intellectually honest?”

    Yes, as anyone who has read Mark, as I have, since 2003 could quickly discern. The way I phrased it was full throated conversion to the Left. His support this year of Hillary Clinton, a complete pro-abort Leftist, is a demonstration that his conversion to the Left is virtually complete. Mark used to refer to Democrats as the evil party.

    “Sorry, but that is mocking the seriousness with which the Left treats consent.”

    Nothing could adequately mock the contemporary Left:


    “But as usual he chose to mock them because he doesn’t view them as human beings worthy of respect but as the enemy.”

    Leftists, by and large, are at war with normal human beings. Mockery is the mildest reaction that they should expect from people not members of their cult.

    “Since the original story was supposedly about “intellectual honesty”, how honest was Limbaugh’s insistence that the Left is uniformly in favor of bestiality?”

    Now you be honest Sancho. Thirty years ago the idea of gay marriage would have struck most Leftists as an absurdity. Ten years ago the idea that biological men have a right to use the ladies room would have struck most Leftists as equally absurd. When it comes to sex who knows what bizarre beliefs now will not be seized upon by Leftists as a sacred right? A political movement that views the slaying of unborn kids by their mothers as right and good is a movement that can embrace anything.


  5. You don’t suppose Mark is the beneficiary of some of that sweet, sweet Soros cash we’re all talking about do you?

  6. No. I have no doubt that Mark believes every word he writes and his beliefs are honestly held and not subject to bribery. More’s the pity for him.

    His beliefs, such as they are, seem to derive from a stew of emotion, much like Rod Dreher. The thing is, Dreher’s reflect his protean moods (and abiding anxiety) and, bless his heart, he does backtrack when he’s overtaken by events. Shea’s seem to derive from a consistent substrate of rage, as well as doubling-down on whatever intemperate position he’s taken previously. Shea isn’t right or left. He’s a man deeply confused about the relationship between faith and public life (a vexing question anyway), ignorant about policy choices (we all are to a greater or lesser degree), and given to highly partisan reactions (contra, for example, George W. Bush and anyone who might defend him). I suspect his real problem is a deficit of liberal education which would help him filter and assess what he reads in the papers, as well as an unfortunate decision many moons ago to make his work what should have been his hobby. Amy Welborn also did this, but she’s not much invested in political questions and not contentious by default. William Donohue is highly contentious, but makes it a point only to address a restricted portfolio of questions.

  7. You totally lost me with that pic of the business end of a big bore revolver . . . I’m in dire need of a cold shower.
    I agree. I haven’t read Shea in more than ten years and I’m enjoying it.
    If Shea’s all-in for Hillary, it tells me three things. One, his true religion is leftism not Christianity. Two, he is a despicable excuse for a human being. Three, he has lump of excrement for brains.
    Forget the shower. I’m rapidly running out to buy a couple hundred rounds of ammunition.

Comments are closed.