doesn't say much for you.

I don't think Missourians should be proud of just anyone born here. I think a famous person should be someone our children should look up to. Putting this Missouri boy on a pedestal with people who have made great contribution to this country is a mistake and demeaning to the current group of heros.

It is very sad for the people of Missouri when a man can openly call a Woman a slut and prostitute and then honor him by placeing his bust in the Capitol's hall of the famous.

that's pretty much what i was going to say. yes, he is extremely rude and extremely narcissistic. there are a lot of good people from missouri. do we really have to waste time on this guy?

It does, because Ms. Baker didn't remind liberals that their policies don't work, give them proof of it, and don't let them change the subject to their 'feelings' or 'you're being mean' when they hear it. We need more people pointing out this stupidity on a daily basis.
I'm personally not a big fan of Rush, I don't like the way he goes about things, BUT, he is a Missouri Hall of Famer for his Broadcasting career. People who want to keep him out of the "Hall Of Famous Missourians" only want him out because they believe it's better that the liberals own the media. Well they already do, there are THOUSANDS more broadcasters, everywhere in the industry, who are just as, if not more biased, they just lean the other way. At least Rush presents facts, and isn't trying to promote a bunch of stereotypes (which they claim to be against). Most of these people who don't want to honor Rush, would love to see Seth MacFairlane, John Stewart, Bill Maher, or Steven Colbert honored. It's about the political stance they've been trained & conditioned to have by EVERYTHING else in the media.

Amen brother

I love name calling by people. Calling one of the most well-known and financailly-sucessful broadcasters in history an idiot, a career I worked for 30 years and worked it in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine Act was eliminated (guess what Bonnie, there'd be no Rush Limbaugh if it were still in force) is hilarious. Bonnie, maybe you should be directing your idiot tag to the FCC Commissioners at the time.

No Bonnie, you are the " crock "

Thanks Meg, you are exactly that, a sad representation of Missouri.
It's amazing how it only takes one liberal to bridge the gap from a daily broadcast to premeditated, criminal, corporate embezzlement of a billion dollars.
If that wasn't enough of a stretch, Meg wants you to believe that a radio broadcast can 'ruin the lives of many families'. Only if it's a conservative broadcast, I guess.
She just showed why you can't have a fact-laden discussion with a liberal, because they take every point and stretch it to something else, and as in her parallel, one almost never has anything to do with the other.
Oh, and Jefferey, we can ALL actually thank Bill Clinton.
Thanks Bill for driving away businesses (NAFTA & Regulation Addiction), Thanks Bill for crashing the housing market (Fair Housing Regulatory Act), Thanks Bill for raising taxes on businesses, employees & consumers high enough to ensure that we have fewer of all three, Thanks Bill for starting this amazingly fun downward economic spiral, Thanks Bill for making folks like Meg & Jefferey believe it's not what the people spend that grows an economy, but what the Government spends.
Thank you for Political Correctness, without you, it wouldn't be able to trump & devour the Constitution. And most of all Bill, thank you for Oklahoma City, I mean, let's face it, how else were we gonna be able to get rid of that pesky White-Water investigation. (Didn't know that one did you?)
So yes, thank you Bill. And you too Jefferey.

Dennis, I'm with you. Limbaugh is "infamous" and not worthy of any type of honor. We have real issues in the state and Steve Tilley's underhanded move to prevent Missouri citizens from knowing the event was even taking place is horrible. I am a Democrat, my husband is an Independent and we both are outraged by Tilley and his abuse of power. We will be sending contributions to whoever challenges him in future elections.

I'm LMBO about the private ceremony. They're not doing anything you can't do. Yes, you can book the chamber for private use. There's a procedure that allows it. Homework helps. Oh, BTW, Bob Griffin didn't allow dissenters to speak either...

Not allowing dissenters to speak? I believe you got your parties mixed-up. Rush is FOR the 1st Amendment. It's the left side of the aisle that wants to take that away. (political correctness, muzzling Rush, trying to end call-in shows, etc)
FYI - for 2 months the MO Dems have been throwing a fit (voicing their opinions, even though you claim they weren't allowed to) & threatening to disrupt any service or ceremony. The state police were there because of those threats, it wasn't to keep out Democrats you idiot, they were allowed in, they just weren't allowed to be a disruption.
It's confusing how a Dem would have an issue with how this was handled in the first place. They LOVE segregation. poor/rich, black/white, gay/straight, old/young, blue/red, veterans/non-vets, ______-Americans....... All they ever do is put people in little categories. How else are they supposed to condition thier followers on how to think about each those groups? Ever notice, they all think the same thing? Watch, now they will all collectively call me a name.

Devon, I certainly won't call you a name and although I apparently differ from you politically, surely you see a problem with the Speaker using the House for a private ceremony excluding the citizens of Missouri who have expressed an interest? I would hope that all of us can agree that the business of the state should be performed in the open and with the participation of all citizens.

Tamara, I have a problem with most of the things the government does these days. And assuming things take place in the open in our government anymore is very trusting of you.
Now, I will admit, I have not researched it, but I believe they used an area that can be 'rented' out for different events. Is that the same place they usually do it?
If that's the case, I do not have a problem with it.
But yes, the closed-door lawmaking needs to be rangled-in a bit, to say the least.
First step (of many very simple ones), end all lobbyists & all lobbying.
However, good luck getting a politician to agree to that. If you find one, vote for him.
Might as well try to get the farmer to quit milking the cow.

If Rush deserves this honor so does Jesse James, or maybe he already is. They may have had another secret ceremony and he is right beside Rush, as a ghost. Most of the positive you credit Rush with, he also accomplished

Would you go to a Hall of Fame ceremony if deranged nutballs were publicly threatening your life? Probably not.

Now I can resonate with this idea. The Greeks believed that it wasn't possible to call a person "good" until they were dead, because until the story is finished it is hard to accurately judge the quality. And it was the Romans who noted that all "glory is fleeting." Who remembers MOST of the people who are in the Hall now and what they did?

But I'm still puzzling why we do this in the first place? There isn't any practical value to the exercise except "feel good." What claim can Missouri have on ANY of these people other than they drank from her water and lived briefly on the land? Why do we as co-dwellers in the state somehow want to feel pride (or shame) over the actions of someone that we can't take any credit (or blame) for?

I think Gary's comments are wise. We really don't know who will be regarded as notable in posterity. Someone suggested Ken Lay as an illustration of someone "famous" but not worthy of induction. This illustrates Gary's point; in a few years nobody will know who Ken Lay was. We should be cautious inducting living people who are controversial. Noteriety brings fame but not necessarily the kind of fame we want our children to emulate. Widely loved people, like Stan Musial, with a record of unquestioned excellence would be exceptions to the rule and should be inducted in their lifetimes. Incidentally, I do listen to Rush Limbaugh and usually agree with him. This does not keep me from observing that he is a boastful, arrogant, insecure and lonely man. He is human like the rest of us and needs our compassion.

Gary speaks my mind.

Josephine baker DID save lives. She worked for the French Resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Baker

"Later in 1941, she and her entourage went to the French colonies in North Africa; the stated reason was Baker's health (since she really was recovering from another case of pneumonia) but the real reason was to continue helping the Resistance. From a base in Morocco, she made tours of Spain and pinned notes with the information she gathered inside her underwear (counting on her celebrity to avoid a strip search) and made friends with the Pasha of Marrakesh, whose support helped her through a miscarriage (the last of several) and emergency hysterectomy she had to go through in 1942. After her recovery, she started touring to entertain Allied soldiers in North Africa. She even persuaded Egypt's King Farouk to make a public appearance at one of her concerts, a subtle indication of which side his officially neutral country leaned toward. Later, she would perform at Buchenwald for the liberated inmates who were too frail to be moved."

"After the war, for her underground activity, Baker received the Croix de guerre, the Rosette de la Résistance, and was made a Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur by General Charles de Gaulle."

Or do you just not know this?

That's called saving lives? That's like saying Gary Sinise and Bob Hope saved lives. American soldiers had to intervene and save French lives. Besides, who believes wikepedia, LOL

Would you prefer it if he made everyone else pay for his prescription drug abuse?

I'm not excusing it, I'm just wondering why you don't have a problem with the Governement and/or major TV networks spreading disinformation, encouraging hate, and dividing people. Each & every one of those things happened one morning in about 2 minutes on NBC Today show recently. Why don't you have a problem with that?

Michael,
I don't know if we would agree or disagree on most things. My feeling is we would disagree more than agree, but I love talking to people who understand that emotion hardly ever plays a part in a wise decision, or intellegent conversation. No matter what your view is, brother, I respect you.

Enough said! Rush Limbaugh is a Missourian and has worked his butt off (taking nothing from the government) and should get in! Whether you like him or not - his name is known!

Have you ever watched David letterman?

Very well said, Devon!

This is a star worthy comment. It made me laugh! Thanks for adding a smile to my Friday.

You are hardly a Christian calling Rep. Tilley a member of the Ku Klux Klan. You have the audacity to use the term hide. I'm not surprised by your comment, you hide behind a screen name without identifying yourself. A typical Internet drive-by political-commentating wannabe.

Mr. Simon, have you looked at the non-anonymous comments? Hardly the voices of measured reason.

One thing I have noticed since The Patch has turned to the partisan political game to increase viewership, is that there are plenty of non-anonymous commenters jumping in.

Extremist blowhards have never minded showing their names and faces. In fact, they relish the attention it garners them - ala Limbaugh and dittoheads.

Kind of sounds like an unqualified President I once heard about.

I disagree with you. Words are incredibly powerful and have lasting and enduring impact. The choice of words that an individual uses to make any point shows as much about that individual as about the point. This is certainly true of Rush and his vicious and misosynist word choice about a woman expressing a viewpoint different than his own. Democracy is a messy, debating and sometimes raucous experience in itself but I think every citizen is responsible for how his or her view is expressed. Language does matter and each of us, entertainers too, have to live with the consequences if they cross a line of decency. For those who doubt the power of words, I suggest they refer to their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and female friends as "sluts" and " prostitutes" for a day and see what type of response they get.

Words are certainly powerful and important, no question. But my point still stands. Language is being increasing used in this country as a way of limiting discussion--use of terms like misosynist [sic] are descriptive of a viewpoint and fair game in a dialog, but we've come to the place where all one need do to shut off discussion is to apply the label and dialog is supposed to stop--"if you continue the discussion, then you must be like them." The idea ceases to be the topic.

Try Googling Groupthink: " A psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking."

There are really only two words in play in the current discussion: "Missourian" and "Famous." Rush is both (you've clearly heard of him.. all of us here have). I've already gone on record that I'm not even sure why we have a hall of famous Missourians at all, but perhaps you are suggesting that we should redefine the designation to "Famous Missourians that are acceptable to a significant majority of our citizens" or something?

William, I think you understood my position about the importance of language but not my point about the choice of those words and the furthering of an individual's position. When one chooses inflammatory or insulting words while trying to get a point across it can be assumed that those words were meant to be inflammatory or insulting. That this might negate or erode credibility of the issue being discussed can be the resulting consequence of such behavior. The listener does not have the responsibility to look deeper at "the issue" and ignore the offending language that the speaker obviously chose. Especially if the listener is any woman who uses birth control and is therefore lumped into a derogatory class of "sluts" and "prostitutes" as was the case in this instance.

Groupthink has always existed, in fact most team building. management approaches and governments have used it for centuries. Critically examining and holding speakers responsible for their choice of words is actually the opposite of "Groupthink".

I think that the difference in the words "famous" and "infamous" is in play here as well. I think that Rush falls under the definition of infamous, due to his own action and choice of words, than under famous. Maybe we need a hall for "Infamous" Missourians?

Hmm. Doesn't work that way with me, I guess. Whether or not I'm offended is entirely under my control. By allowing others to affect how I think is self-limiting and closes off an avenue of information that might be useful or helpful.

Again, HOW something is said is more important to you than WHAT. You didn't hear his point about birth control because of the word slut--you quit listening (if indeed you ever have) and have thus mischaracterized the clear point he was making. He never said women who use birth control are sluts... the point was about women who were arguing that their so-called private matters should be paid for out of public coffers, that a woman's "right to make decisions about her body" has now become a matter that the rest of us need to pay for.

But my main point is simply this: just because I read Steven King doesn't mean that I approve of and use the "F" word in language. Just because I listen to Bill Maher doesn't mean I use the "C" word. Just because I listen to Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean I approve of everything he says or am a misogynist, a racist, or condone the use of sexually charged language. But he does challenge GroupThink in ways that I personally find helpful.

But whether or not he's enshrined in some dusty hall in Jeff City is of no importance to me whatsoever. I'd rather we melted all the bronze busts down, sold the scrap and reduced taxes. But that's probably inflammatory, eh? I guess I'm a bronzaphobic :-)

William, you are right, I did not pay any attention to what Rush Limbaugh had to say about insurance coverage of birth control because of the word "slut". I, like the rest of the nation, heard his words and his characterization of a citizen and student who uses birth control (not in anyway introducing the idea of who was paying for it) as a "slut" and a "prostitute" who should provide video for his own pleasure pretty much turned me off of any position he was poorly trying to make. Being very, very aware of the fight for reproductive freedom in this country, I had already heard this "argument" from others who expressed their views and used words which did not insult or malign to get their points across. I do not agree with that position and can certainly use my own words to express my thoughts without resorting to such. All language, and the people who use them, are not equal in the ability to express thoughts, convey ideas or persuade people. Personal attacks on a private citizen simply stating her opinion goes way beyond that, in my opinion. It certainly says more about Rush and his character than about any political position he might have taken. I, and many other Missourians, still do not think that those who do not move along the discussion are deserving of such honor. Again, infamous, yes - famous, no. Moving out of groupthink, can you in anyway see how his words might have damaged his attempt to convey his point?

Like Rush and his other defenders, you are missing the point. It's about the issue itself, which Rush completely and seemingly intentionally misinterpreted, the words he used are just the icing on the cake. The issue was regarding a woman who used a medication categorized as "birth control" for other medical uses having nothing to do with her "personal habits or lifestyle". As one of the many women who also uses this medication for health reasons, and who firmly believes that health insurance should provide medication which I need to live a healthy life, I refused to be shamed into feeling that I have an irresistible sex addiction and should be sending sex tapes to Limbaugh.

I can't imagine anyone would call a man a slut or sex addict for using a heart medication, which coincidentally may allow him to engage in sexual activity without dying of a heart attack in the act. I also can't imagine that someone would demand the video of his sexual acts either.

Much like Mark Twain, Limbaugh is very skilled at creating fiction and comedy. Unlike Mark Twain, Limbaugh tries to pass what comes out of his blowhole off as fact.

And now we (finally) come to the point. You "firmly believe" I should pay for your "healthy life." Surely you can see that the definition of "healthy" is completely open to just about any interpretation a beneficiary wants to make? Anything from insulin to implants is up for grabs, removal of a hangnail all the way to body sculpting can be characterized as necessary for a "healthy" life. And without *any* discussion of underlying cause or effect.

Now I personally like the approach that what you do with your life is none of my business... and it used to be a two way street. But now we are entertaining the idea that society is somehow on the hook to pay for you to be "healthy," while making NO judgement about whether it's an excessive or even legitimate claim. Let's assume that someone with a sexually permissive lifestyle has the same need for birth control as a cloistered nun (they're both women and can easily get a doctor to say that both need medication "for health" but for entirely different reasons--one because of her lifestyle choices, the other by reason of medical conditions outside her control). The rest of us are just supposed to foot the bill with complete trust that the money in play won't in any way impact the claim by doctor or patient.

Duh.

I'll openly accept the label of "skeptic." But to say I'm anti-woman or uncaring would be just another of the usual techniques designed to take the focus off the topic at hand and avoid engaging the problem.

William, you and I obviously have very different views of the role of our government in providing care and support for citizens - hence the difference between "liberal" and "conservative". Leaving the ideological differences aside, can you acknowledge that Rush's delivery of his political position was extremely offensive? I absolutely accept that some people will see this issue from a different perspective than mine and I respect and support civil dialogue. Rush, however, is a divisive, insulting and polarizing character - regardless of his political views - and that makes him unworthy of being honored as a "Famous Missourian".

Allow me to remind you that Sandra Fluke was discussing whether health insurance should be responsible for treating a medical condition with hormonal medication that is misjudged by many. Her request was for congress to mandate that they do. No one is asking for you to pay for any treatment but if that were the case and we're only looking at costs, I'd assume it makes sense to cover the my medication which is merely a fraction of the cost of the surgeries needed to correct the damage done by the untreated disease. In my case, no treatment at all would leave me unable to perform my job, and I'd be a huge drain on society.

I'd like to withhold tax dollars which paid this Rush bust, which, unless it was donated, DID cost the taxpayers money.

Kevin, I've seen this mentioned in earlier posts. Who made threats and what were those threats specifically? Who reported receiving threats and what has been done since then? I've certainly heard and been part of the healthy and civil debate about the inclusion of Rush but I must have missed that someone or some group was threatening. Anyone know more details or can refer me to a source I can get more info about this? Thanks!

Thank you for responding, Kevin. You say that there were not any threats of violence but of possible disturbance in this particular case. Where would I go to learn more about those specific threats if the media doesn't report them - I mean, would it be the Speaker's office that made that decision to protect from harm, or a police department? Freedom of speech does allow for dissenting opinions to be expressed - but you feel that in this case, there were more serious threats?

Truman WAS a president of the U.S. so that should score some points, but there were voters for Dewey, as famously pointed out at the time.

Excellent point, Scott!

Show me a hero and I show you how he/she's a bum.

Sure you are. If insurance companies are required to cover a procedure as a matter of law, they have to get the money from somewhere--it isn't free. Premiums are designed to cover the expected costs that must be covered by the insurance company.

So which is, Jody? You're not asking me to pay for your medical coverage or you are? You prove my earlier point: self-labeled compassionate people will not stay on topic, but much prefer to engage in throwing sand rather than address the issues.

We're not talking about just "a few bucks." A 3 day stay in a local hospital just over a year ago was right at $36,000 dollars for a very basic surgery, so we're not just talking "a few bucks." Medical care is VERY expensive and growing.

I assume you haven't been keeping up with what's going on in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (the so-called "PIGS")? We're talking about countries that are going broke because they don't have the revenues to pay for the outflows.

Now THAT'S appalling.