Skip to comments.Rush: “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke”; Update: Ironic tweet of the day
Posted on 03/03/2012 8:32:15 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Rush Limbaugh has posted a statement on his website this afternoon, forwarded by his brother David (one of my friends on line), apologizing for calling Sandra Fluke an insulting name while discussing her claims. It’s impossible to retain the context of his apology by excerpting it, so I hope Rush will not mind me posting it in its entirety:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
I think Rush did the right thing in apologizing to Fluke. However, let’s keep in mind that it was Fluke who made her sexual activity a matter of national political debate by insisting that the government pass laws and regulations forcing employers and insurers to provide her free contraception, and apparently as much as she and others demand. It’s Republicans who believe that contraception should remain a private affair, and that employers and insurers should be free to decide whether to cover contraception for their employees and customers or not. Democrats used Fluke to demand that those choices be stripped from private enterprises and instead be forced by the executive branch to entirely subsidize contraception.
That is the argument we should be making, as Republicans and conservatives. If you want your sexual choices to remain private, don’t use the government to force other people to subsidize them. Then we won’t have to turn the sex lives of Georgetown law school students into topics for political speculation.
Update: Along those same lines, does Donna Brazile also now oppose the government mandate to force employers and insurers to have a role in the decision to use contraception? She tweeted this message not too long ago (via Keder):
Agree! The government should have no role in contraception, and shouldn’t force employers or insurers to have a role in it, either. Keep it between the woman, her sexual partner, and her doctor. Well said.
Oh, wait, Brazile meant this in support of the mandate? She seems just as badly misinformed on the issue as her media colleagues … or as deliberately obtuse.
Sort of what I figured.
Even if someone needed a less-than-typical BCP, I can't see the generic equivalent costing more than 300ish/year (a tenth of what was testified too, IIRC). This should be the focus, whether the female student is telling the truth or not; and we should scrupulously avoid the "s" word, it does us no good, and it does us harm.
Take the long view of this:
a) It will all blow over, 2 weeks max. News cycle. The drive by will turn to something else.
b) She will still be a slut.
Ms. Fluke is hypothesizing the average “young lady” who needs that kind of budget to be a slut, or to have morals that would put even alley cats to shame, or whatever. And I still think that’s funny, even if Rush fumbled a bit clumsily with the rhetoric.
No gov’t role, except to fund it and encourage kids to do it
I love Rush but I hate that he said this. He has made the controversy about him instead of the real issue which is the erosion of our freedoms.
Rush is an important voice. We can’t do without him. He is threatened daily by those who hate. I can’t imagine how hard it must be for him to keep on keeping on for the cause of freedom and liberty in the face of all that comes against him. I am going to assume he had a good reason to do the apology. He’s been solid for so long and I’m not going to dump on him now. This has to be a hard weekend for him... Every day, Rush spends 3 hours speaking for us and doing all he can .. and things continue to slide downhill. I know he must be as angry at the Republican establishment as we are. Some days a person feels like it’s no use .. so shoot the wad. What went on in congress with that hearing was a national disgrace... just unbelievable that that hearing went on public television for the whole world to see... when we have much more important items that need fixing in this country. And that woman said all this with a straight face! The dems wanted to get us off track and they did... with help from the media. We are heading into a most important election. Rush isn’t about to do anything that hinders the outcome for the conservative cause. There must have been a good reason. I’ll still be listening to him on Monday... and I expect the left will be also. Go Rush...GO!!!
If the fairness doctrine applied to ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and CNN- then maybe we could talk. lol.
It never will, of course.
After all is said and done, I will not abandon Rush Limbaugh. I WILL contact those sponsors listed, and give them hell. We're at war, and we're here to fight. This is not the time to abandon a fellow warrior, if history is any indication...just ask George.
There was no need to press a technical point which was bidding fair to be the spearhead of the Rats’ entire thrust. Like in jiu-jitsu, sometimes yielding to an opponent is the best way of getting said opponent to land flat on his face.
Remember the $100 hammers?
Contraceptive companies are salivating at the thought of tripling prices when government becomes the prime buyer.
The left and MSM are for real this time. They want Rush gone.
They always have but they see this as their chance.
Such a faux controversy its not even funny, the left was embracing the s-word less than a year ago.
Agree - despite his high opinion of himself, Rush has always been good about not making himself the story...always the issues.
That did not work out this time...
Pretty much his weakest, post-addiction moment...
The Ivy is great for lunch but one thing I hate are the looks when you enter and they expect you to be “somebody” in the biz. Plus the paparazzi line up Robertson like they own the damn road.
Ms Fluke, if you read this, will you marry me? (Respond via FReepmail, thank you in advance.)
Here is the difference: George Washington never met with his British/American enemies in order to broker an agreement to avoid criticism of his actions. Rush undoubtedly did - that’s why he caved.
Had George Washington issued a statement in 1779 saying that he apologized to the British Crown for an inappropriate choice of words when directing his army to defeat the British, he would never have been the father of our country.
Had George Washington repudiated his beliefs and his loyal followers (as Rush did today), he would not have been the General of the Army, he would have been dishonored. He would have been Benedict Arnold.
And here is another difference: George Washington risked his life and all that he held dear. Rush risks a minor drop in advertising revenues. Not his life, not his fortune. His sacred honor? Gone. He bets that you and I will overlook his betrayal. Based on this thread, it appears that he was right.
Like to eat at the table to right just as you enter. you get to see everyone.
At Camponilles I just go all the way to the back.
Or La Orangerie. I hat French food but man! That is wonderful restaurant.
I think, however, my fAvorite is still Patina or that sister restaurant of theirs downtown.
Wait! I’m starting to brag. Stop me!
I have been reading on Facebook. The left is painting all his advertisers as woman haters. They really are insane. This wasn’t an attack on all women. It was an insult to ONE woman. I feel hopeless for this country sometimes.
Rush was pretty out of line with his comment, particularly if you read the script of what Sandra Fluke actually said (link is here: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/what-did-sandra-fluke-really-say/408191)
Whether contraception should be provided under insurance or not, calling Sandra Fluke a slut was not appropriate. Rush (or perhaps his legal team) have realized this.
Given that many married couples use the pill as contraception, does that make the wife some sort of prostitute under this legislation? If the wife doesn’t work and the husband does and he pays for contraception, does that make him a john?
Should contraception (such as the pill) be covered if it is used to treat a medical condition (other than avoiding getting knocked up)?
Is Viagra covered under current health insurance? Why shouldn’t the pill be treated similarly?
To each his own. We individually must make our own decision on how we will respond. It’s safe to say the public has heard from both of us on the subject. We agree to disagree.
“Should contraception (such as the pill) be covered if it is used to treat a medical condition (other than avoiding getting knocked up)?”
If the insurance companies decide to cover it, it should. The government should have nothing to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.