Why I Apologized to Sandra Fluke

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.

Tell me what the mistake he made was. THe woman IS is a slut. Calling her what she is, is not a mistake. It’s accurate.

By any definition she is a slut. Now if that means women you know or women in your family could fall under that definition, ie a woman of loose virtues, sexually promiscuous, etc, then so be it. That is the definition of “slut” and it may be too bad that’s what they are, but if they act that way, they’re sluts. If that means labeling most modern women today sluts - hell, let’s just call them empowered sluts or liberated sluts because they’ve been brainwashed to think acting this way is awesome, then so be it. Let the label be slapped on.

Now if you’re upset we’re not labelling the guys who want them to act that way what they are, well, that’s a separate issue but I’d be fine discussing the terms I’d assign them to for their behavior.

...she was not admitting to sleeping around. She said not a single word about her own sexual activities.

If I said I needed $3,000 to cover the costs of my drinking habit, would it tell you anything about how much alcohol I use? Or probably use? Especially if I could buy 40 'drinks' for $11.46.

Does that old 'connecting the dots' thing kind of elude you...

Since Ms. Fluke is not a ‘public figure,’ I'm waiting for the Defamation of Character lawsuit to be filed against Rush on behalf of Ms. Fluke by the ACLU.

Once anyone has testified before a Congressional Committee with that session open to the public, doesn't that event make one a 'public figure' who should be ready for a response from all sides?

As much as we’d like it to be so, that’s not how this will be portrayed. As much as we would like him to, Rush does not control the national media and its decisions on news coverage.

To them, he’s now the man who was faced down by Fluke. He may have made his point to us (and even though I don’t like the way he chose to make it, I certainly understand it) but whether it has the larger impact so many people here are suggesting is debatable at best.

He did retreat. For whatever reason, he retreated.

Now we have our side criticizing Rush for being ‘chicken’ and recanting.

The fact is that his statements were stupid and unnecessary and he knew or should have known they would be inflamatory and non-productive. He has made the Democrats day (or week or month)on this issue by drawing attention away from the imposition of government controls on religious institutions.

I heard him say something a few weeks ago that was also a ‘no-no’ which he covered up quickly. Perhaps Rush is getting to the age where he speaks his mind and not his intelligence.

Are you sure you read MY post? If so, it might be wise to get your vision checked.

Since when does having a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh or having happened to join FR in May 2011 make someone a troll?

I think then Rush has a distorted set of ethics in this regard, then, if you cannot call a woman who is clearly a slut, a slut. And begging for money from others to keep being a slut.

Calling someone something they are, how can that be a violation of ethics? It’s like not calling a muslim terrorist a muslim terrorist. This is how we wind up having people call what Major Hasan, a muslim extremist terrorist in our own army, instead of calling it a terrorist act, “workplace violence”.

Don’t apologize or be afraid to call things what they are.

I would never, ever apply the word "slut" to Sandra Fluke nor to any of the women she represents.

HBO's “Real Time” host Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'twat'.

I doubt either of us would use that word. But there was no outcry - liberal women were not offended -they joined in the laughter.

On a political level, I find it hard being force to accept Maher's comments - while also being forced, by the Democrat-media complex to condemn Rush's comment.

Again, she was talking about hormonal birth control and lying about the costs. She said nothing about condoms. The cost of condoms is irrelevant - she was talking about how much hormonal birth control cost without insurance coverage, and (to my knowledge, at least).

Jumping from "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school" (her statement) to an assumption that 'hormonal contraceptives don't cost that much, so she must have been talking about condoms, which means that she must be using 60 condoms a day' is not "connecting the dots." It's making a gigantic leap.

Nancy Pelosi’s initiative to convince Sandra Fluke to testify to the principle of contraception as a health care necessity is simply wrong. Colleges and universities provide accidental injury/major medical and not traditional employee health insurance to students. Since students are generally young and not subject to the myriad diseases confronting older people or families with children, the coverage is limited. Not only contraceptives, but many medical procedures and drugs are not included. Since sexual intercourse is an optional, and not a required activity of law school students, contraceptives should not be among policy provisions.

Ms. Fluke testified that 40% of the women in law school considered sexual intercourse a compelling or preferred recreational activity. Therefore, the proper place to make her case is with the Georgetown University Student Association. The university encourages students to actively engage in more than 200 co-curricular clubs and activities. She testified to what would be more accurately described as a club sport or performing art, than as a health care necessity.

The analogy should not be considered facetious, but should awaken people to the limits of targeted, low cost insurance programs.

It is not a vulgar word we can’t say in mixed company. We are not provincial. It’s not a swear. It is an accurate term. Would you rather he say “harlot”? Or “a woman who gives it away for free”? Or a woman who needs to put an aspirin between her legs?

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.