Skip to comments.Why I Apologized to Sandra Fluke
Posted on 03/05/2012 10:29:09 AM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Yeah, I knew it was getting bad. I was watching the media on Saturday, and I said, "You know what? I gotta call myself and cancel and suspend the Two If By Tea advertising." So I called myself to cancel the advertising. I got a busy signal so I couldn't cancel my own company's advertising. So Two If By Tea remains a sponsor of the Rush Limbaugh program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here, folks, looking forward to talking with you today as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears. Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, the e-mail address ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.
The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.
What's gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn't willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.
Now, the hearing that started all of this, I want to go back and put the timeline here in context, start at the very beginning. The hearing that started all of this was called by Darrell Issa, a California Republican, he's the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa is on our side. His point in calling this hearing was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired. But his committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. What this was all about was the president of the United States acting extra-constitutionally, mandating that Catholic churches and their schools provide contraceptives, abortifacients. He doesn't have that power constitutionally. He cannot mandate these things.
That was the original purpose of the hearing. He was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired, but his committee is made up of Republicans and Democrats and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. So the Democrats tried to play a game with Darrell Issa and his committee, and he rejected it. What they did was, they requested a witness for his hearing, a man named Barry Lynn to make their points for them. Barry Lynn is a guy that remits the Democrat point of view. They asked for him in advance. Issa's committee checked him out, invited him, and prepared for his testimony. Issa agreed he has a degree of expertise about the subject matter of the hearing, which was not contraception. That's what Obama wants to turn this to.
Obama is sorely hurting with women in preelect polls. He wanted to turn this into an issue much as they used to use abortion. So the Democrats played the game. What happened next is instructive, and it's very important. At literally the last minute the Democrats decided they want Sandra Fluke. What happened next, at the last minute the Democrats decided that Sandra Fluke would be a better witness for them, not because she had any special knowledge or credentials like Barry Lynn has, but because her optics as a woman and a college student, a 30-year-old college student and an activist on Democrat issues, by the way.
They thought all of that would show better than Barry Lynn. Now, this is at 4:30 p.m., 4:30 in the afternoon, the day before the hearing that the Democrats asked Issa to un-invite Barry Lynn, the guy they had asked for originally, and replace him with Sandra Fluke. Darrell Issa said (paraphrased), "Sorry, it's too late. She hasn't been vetted. We don't know who she is. She doesn't have any real qualifications to appear before this committee. We don't have the time to prepare for her and ask her questions. So the answer is: 'No. You cannot have her testify.'" All of this, by the way, is in a very interesting Washington Examiner article from last week, and I've linked to it at RushLimbaugh.com so you can read it yourself.
Now, the Democrats and the leftists sensed opportunity over this controversy that they created themselves. They publicly turned the situation they created to their own advantage. They invite Barry Lynn. They disinvite him at the last moment and they want him replaced with Sandra Fluke. "Who is this? We don't know who she is." The second panel of witnesses. It was Carolyn Maloney. If you don't recall last week, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, started shouting, "Where are the women? Where are the women?" They start saying Republicans hate women; they started attacking Issa and Republicans on the committee, saying, "They don't want hear from women! They're misogynist, sexist," or what have you.
Issa's committee invited the Democrat choice again, Barry Lynn, and the Democrats on the committee tried to replace him at the very last minute with this sympathetic woman when it was too late for the committee. So again they said no. So the Democrats played their game of lies, and Issa complained. On February 16th, he said, "The Democrats on his committee have appeared," this is a quote, "outright giddy in attempting to distort the testimony offered and purpose of the hearing." You bet they did. They wanted to turn this from a committee hearing on Obama and his unconstitutional mandate to the issue of contraception so as to bring back to life page 1-A of the Democrat playbook: Republicans Hate Women.
They wanted to change the whole subject. So how did they do it? Well, the Democrats have their own little subcommittee called the steering committee. This subsets inside the larger oversight and reform committee that Issa chairs. And they wanted their sympathetic witness on the record, Sandra Fluke. So they called her to testify before them, not Issa's committee. The subcommittee. They staged what was essentially a conference to look like a committee hearing. She gave the testimony that she was going to give to the full committee. It was taped and released and made to look like a committee hearing. And Darrell Issa had been right all along. Her testimony was not that of an expert.
It was just another non-expert person in this case, in Sandra's case: A 30-year-old, longtime birth control activist who went back to law school after a career of years of championing birth-control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left's true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you're listening to me for the first time, you may say, "Well, that's crazy." It's not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political.
Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends who she says couldn't afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn't pay for them. Georgetown paid for all of their other medical treatment, but it wouldn't pay for the birth control pills that these doctors prescribed should they be necessary -- or so she says. We still don't know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don't know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable. And Issa was right not to let her give the testimony, particularly when the Democrats foisted her on the committee at the very last minute for the express purpose of pulling this fast one, this trick.
Now, let's get a few facts on the record here. Georgetown is a Jesuit University. It's Jesuits, run by the Jesuits, which are a Catholic order of priests. Their policy on birth control is not exactly a secret. It's not given to you in a sealed envelope after you sign up. It's out there for everybody to see. It's a Catholic university! Everybody that goes to there knows. Miss Fluke stated on occasion she went there specifically to change the policy. If birth control insurance is important to you as an enrolling student, and you find out that Georgetown doesn't offer it, you might want to attend (or work at) a school that isn't run by Catholics. I mean, just a thought.
But if you know the place doesn't offer contraceptives when you sign up, and that is your big political issue, then why are you really there? Actually, they know what they're doing. They intentionally target schools like Georgetown to advance an agenda of ultimately forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs. All of this is to serve Obama's agenda. The agenda he worked all summer on. He abandoned it only when America stood up, united, and this said they would not tolerate tearing down religion to increase government's control over our lives. You did that. You stood up to him. You made him stop. That was a proud moment for all of us.
This is his second attempt at mandating Catholic churches and other organizations (under the cloak of a so-called committee hearing) be forced to provide contraceptives against their moral conscience, dictates, what have you. So Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old birth control activist gives unverified and inexpert testimony about how Georgetown's long-standing and public policy has hurt her unnamed friends. And let's be clear on something else. I haven't called Georgetown to see if they pay for birth control pills when being used to treat her medical conditions. I have no idea if they do or don't. If somebody at Georgetown wants to weigh in on that, I'd be interested.
But the point here is that this was an issue that represents a tiny, tiny slice of what the Democrats really want here. They use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers. Now, all of this is what I should have told you last week, 'cause this is what happened. I use satire. I use absurdity to illustrate the absurd. The story at the Cybercast News Service characterized a portion of her testimony as sounding like (based on her own financial figures) she was engaging in sexual activity so often she couldn't afford it. I focused on that because it was simple trying to persuade people, change people's minds.
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability, people providing for themselves when they're totally able to. The government has no business doing any of this, getting in people's bedrooms and mandating that other citizens pay for other citizens' social activities and so forth. That was the wrong one to focus on. I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. Don't be mad at them or mad at her. Everybody here was being true to their nature except me. I'm the one who had the falling on this, and for that I genuinely apologized for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.
Now, I've gotta take a break but I'm not through.
Do these pants make me look fat?
Old RUSH: "No; it's your FAT that makes you look fat!"
New RUSH: "Well; the preconceived idea embedded in the American male brain as to what constitutes FATNESS is certainly getting a workout in this instance."
Or SETTING them up!
On the other hand...........
Sarah!! It's safe to come out and play now!
Did you listen?
I agreed with what he said.....In fact I could see myself saying that exact same thing, after saying what he did...in the context that he said it.
Millions of Rush listener's have said over the years...."You are just saying, what I've been thinking". Period.
I don't always agree with anyone....let alone Rush. But, I've learned more info from Rush than you. Or anyone else...for that matter.
Is he the end all, be all?...Nope. Is he perfect? Nope. Are you? Nope. Am I? Nope.
Now, that’s funny!
I've eaten crow; you probably have as well.
It is NOT tasty at all; but HAS to be consumed to get over the ailment.
It depends upon what one washes it down with, as to whether the overall effect is refreshing.
In the last 15 yrs...have you been anything?
I'm sure that today's audience not only included all his regular fans but liberals nation wide and the entire MSM who were probably expecting Rush to be groveling and begging for forgiveness. They got quite the opposite......
They got the truth and the MSM is going to be hard pressed to spin his comments.......BRILLIANT!
Everything is about Money AND the hypocrisy of Personal Destruction AND Political Correctness defined by the LEFT.
They can use the N word, and the C word and the H-Hitler- word. They can demonize and destroy and move next door to you. They can draw you in their crosshairs while taking away your guns. They can deny you the words they use every day. It is only hate speech when it comes from our mouths. And we are the only racists.
We have come to the point where the First Amendment is secure only in Their hands. It only protects Them.
This is why Breitbart is our true hero. He would not be stripped of his right to speak and shout it from the rafters. He was not cowed by money. He got in their face and never backed down. He died at the ripe old age of 86 because he poured the life and energy of two days into the time we call one day of ours.
Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. jacques barzun
Im N C H MAD right now!
I hate ‘hate speech’ lawa.
And I want a First Amendment for Conservatives.
I see no IF.
A Statement from RushMarch 03, 2012
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 know that I sure need it; a LOT!
Rush’s contribution to conservative ideas occured when he was starting out nationally. At that point he served as a “party line” for conservatives all over the country who never realized how prevalent their ideas were in America. Rush, by allowing these voices,not his, but their voices, to be heard resurrected a conservative movement that was dying of being totally ignored by the media. In the last ten or so years Rush has far fewer calls, many more bombastic “look at me”” soliloquies, and in general made it all about him. I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree with you. if that makes me a troll than Free Republic is not the site it was when i joined in Aug 2000.
See my post 111, especially the last line.
I did listen and he is right in that, it is a tactic of the left to name call the way he did and that he should not sink to the left’s level of personal attack.
He and you and others can spin it however you like, it was an apology brought on by outside forces and that is my uneasiness in regards to it.
No one is perfect and we are fortunate to have one such as Rush on our side, but we are in the fight of our lives and we need our warriors to be warriors and not apologists.
His mistake was in making it personal and I didn’t hear him say that was his mistake, but rather that he used words that were inappropriate. They were not inappropriate to the argument, they were inappropriate in that they were directed at her and not at the nameless faceless “friends” she claimed on whose behalf she claimed to be testifying.
I would like to have him explore the subject of why those words are offensive to the left who believe that sex with an unlimited number of partners of all ages and genders is good and to be encouraged.
I am disappointed, but still a supporter and listener and eager student of the Limbaugh institute of conservative study.
Neither do I and that is the only thing about the apology which I would say was refreshing.
LOL, I have indeed had to apologize for saying the wrong thing to someone. It does leave a bad taste in the mouth, not because I had to admit my mistake, but because I just hate to be wrong, and admitting that I am just kills me.
But, I have done it, more than once because much as I hate to admit it, I am not always right. LOL.
Good thing we have “Two if by Tea” to wash it down.
Nah, you win........now please honor my request to you in the post you responded to......
She has been a long-time left-wing activist on these issues and was probably a public figure for these purposes even apart from her "testimony" the other day.
If she sues Rush for calling her a slut, then she opens herself up to the factual question of whether she is in fact promiscuous.
If she tries to sue him for claiming that she herself was taking birth control and spending $3000 on it, as opposed to only saying that about other people, then it is not clear what the reputational damage is. It does not appear tenable for her to claim that the public falsing believing that she herself took birth control pills and paid for them is somehow damaging to her reputation, given her long-held public stance on these issues. There must be damage to reputation for a defamation suit to be viable (apart from the per se category).
Therefore, it is difficult to see how a defamation claim by her would be tenable as a practical matter. If she sues for being called a slut, then she is open to the question of whether she is in fact promiscuous as a defense by Rush. If she sues for having statements falsely attributed to her, then there does not appear to be any reputational damage associated with falsely attributing such statements to here, especially given her own public stance on the issue.