Limbaugh: Kids Healthy Eating Project Valid Reason NASCAR Booed First Lady
On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh “explained” all the reasons why Michelle Obama was booed at Sunday’s NASCAR race. The First Lady appeared with Dr. Jill Biden, the Vice President’s wife, to deliver in person their support for military families, part of a campaign the two women have been working on all year.
READ:Â Defending Cain, Limbaugh Says Women Lie About Sexual Harassment, Invokes Tawana Brawley
No one disputes the fact that NASCAR fans booed Michelle Obama, not Rush Limbaugh, not right wing propaganda outlet NewMax, no one.
Here are Rush Limbaugh’s reasons and defense of the booing:
“People don’t like being told they’re lousy parents, and Mrs. Obama has done that. People resent Mrs. Obama’s bizarre need to tell us what to eat and how much to exercise.”
“Mrs. Obama has a husband who runs around and apologizes for this country that he was elected to lead, Australia the latest example.”
“I’m also pretty sure this crowd is not eager to go out and buy a car that you have to plug in in order to drive. This is not a Prius, Leaf, Volt, plug it in and charge it and drive for 40 miles kind of crowd.”
“People who go to NASCAR races are the very people her husband called ‘bitter clingers’ when things aren’t going well. What do they do? Well they cling to their guns and they cling to their religion,” Limbaugh said, mockingly, of President Obama’s comments during the 2008 campaign.
Limbaugh of course also blamed Solyndra, and the President’s so-called “bankrupting of the economy,” as reasons the NASCAR crowd booed Mrs. Obama.
Then there was Limbaugh’s lie about the Affordable Care Act, what he calls “Obamacare,” which he falsely states that “65% to 70% of Americans who want no part of her husband’s healthcare plan.”
For the record, Forbes — hardly a progressive outlet, wrote last week that “a new CNN poll conducted during the period of November 11-13, 52 percent of those surveyed indicated that they now favor the mandate. This is a 6 percent rise in support since the question was last put to the public by a poll in June of this year and the first time those in favor have moved into the majority column.”
Limbaugh, is a fiction writer at best, and a liar at worst.
Jay Busbee, at Yahoo! Sports, today wrote,
NASCAR fans skew conservative. You know that, I know that, politicians know that. An overwhelmingly white fan base, rooted in Southern conservative values (we still have a pre-race prayer, for heaven’s sake) … it’s no surprise that NASCAR generally tilts right.
Which would be just fine, if that tilt didn’t slide into toxicity. But on Sunday afternoon at Homestead-Miami Speedway, it did.
Moments before one of the greatest races in sports history, certain NASCAR race attendees — I’m not dignifying these cowards with the term “fans” — showed why this sport will always have trouble getting respect from the mainstream of America: they booed the First Lady of the United States.
Inexcusable. Unforgivable. Don’t give me the “free speech” argument. Don’t give me the “Obama sucks” argument. Don’t try anything you can possibly do to rationalize this away. Why? For a very simple reason, one that supersedes both politics and sport:
You don’t boo women.
You don’t. Especially not in NASCAR, which reveres Mother’s Day so much it won’t even schedule races on that day. It’s stunning that we’ve slid this far as a culture that something as simple and profound as respect for wives and mothers is now this cheap.
This is not about politics. This is not about “free speech.” This is about being enough of a man (if you’re a man) and enough of an American, whoever you are, to recognize that we should hold ourselves to some higher standards in our public life. (And this also isn’t about stay-in-the-kitchen sexism. If we can agree to hold open a door for a woman, can’t we agree it’s acceptable not to boo her?)
If it was President Obama up there? Sure, boo your head off. Same thing if it was former President George W. Bush. The president takes the job, he should deal with the fallout and the negative opinion. But to boo the man’s wife? Especially when she’s engaged in that most conservative of pursuits, supporting military veterans and their families?
Come on. You just harmed the image of NASCAR worse than anything that Obama ever could have done.
Look, I get the reasoning, twisted though it may be. Michelle Obama is married to the president, and many in NASCAR nation have profound philosophical differences with the president, to put it politely. Whether NASCAR fans who break from Obama have legitimate political arguments with the way the president runs our country, or whether they’re just ticked that things ain’t as good as they were back when (and nobody ever says that in NASCAR, do they?), they can and should be allowed to express their grievances with him in public. But to do it by attacking his wife?
For the record, as hated as George W. Bush was, no one ever booed First Lady laura Bush, and Rush Limbaugh never once said that Mrs. Bush — a librarian whose pet cause while First Lady was getting kids to read — “People resent Mrs. Bush’s bizarre need to tell our kids what books to read.”
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qxc37zzp4yE%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
