Skip to comments.Hypocritical Criticism Of Rush Limbaugh Is No Fluke
Posted on 03/05/2012 5:53:53 PM PST by raptor22
When the left savages the right, it's OK. When America's top conservative questions why taxpayers must subsidize the sex life of a coed, the sky falls in. Bill Maher, call your office.
When the late, great Andrew Breitbart was asked in a Twitter conversation whether he'd apologize for his website's posting of a video of a speech by Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod that led to her forced resignation, Breitbart replied, "Apologize for what?"
Breitbart knew the sensitivities and the hypocrisy of the left when their sacred cows and double standards were under attack.
Hell hath no fury, he knew, like a liberal whose dogma stands exposed. He wondered why those on the right always had to apologize for saying liberal emperors had no clothes, when the left never had to apologize for anything no matter how outrageous or offensive.
Rush Limbaugh, the usually unapologetic conservative pundit, has apologized for using language to describe Sandra Fluke, a 23-year-old Georgetown University law student whose resume reads more like that of a political activist than a victimized student. He labeled his description "insulting."
On the other hand, one wonders what words would apply to a law student in need of $3,000 worth of taxpayer-paid contraceptives as she learns how to handle briefs, no pun intended.
Limbaugh's apology came after advertisers began withdrawing their sponsorship. It is their right to do so, and one appreciates that conservatives have often organized boycotts of sponsors of programs whose content they find questionable.
Classier Than The Critics
Even Rush felt it was the right thing to do, showing more class than the critics of him or other conservative leaders. Yet criticizing the mindset that says it's perfectly normal and acceptable for a coed to demand $3,000 of taxpayer-paid contraceptives at the same time the government...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
On a completely separate topic, isn't it odd how lesbians seem to be the most concerned with issues related to heterosexual sex?
I don’t recall Breitbart apologising.
I think this issue now gives us a great opportunity. The left is saying they have a value: One cannot call a woman a slut or prostitute, one cannot 'demean' women, etc.
They have declared this value - and they violate it throughout the pop culture. This makes them wide-open for the old "hold them to their own values" Alinsky treatment.
Every media person, entertainer, rapper, etc. who violates this leftist value should be called out. We need a Breitbart on this. Flood the left with their guys demeaning women and demand they be boycotted.
Good question, I don’t understand the large number of non political women that sided with her.
The conservatives need to stop playing nice. We’ve been playing by Roberts Rules of Order, and the Lefties shout us down with rant chants. It’s time we go Alinsky on them. Play gotcha. Take their flubs and shove it back in their faces. Mock them and humilate them, and if they get violent, beat the crap out of them (we already have some judges ruling that assaults by Lefties as being “political free speech”). We are in a war with them, and since they are expecting one sided “rules of engagement” (only for the conservatives, not for the Left), the goal must be crushing the Left.
Potestas Democratorum delenda est!
Too late. That ship has sailed.
The piece did not say Breitbart ever apologized. Quite the opposite. Breirbart is quaoted as once saying “Apologize for WHAT?” It is an attitude all conservatives should take when speaking the truth. Sandra Fluke wants others to pay for her to have sex. Just what word describes that?
Oh, but didn’t you listen to Rush?
We shouldn’t sink to their level.
< /bitter sarcasm>
One excuse is as good as another.
Seems like the sponsors of Rush’s program are simply using this as a reason to bail out.
Maybe there are other reasons why.
Particularly when yo consider "contraceptives" don't cost a thousand dollars a year.
Prophylaxis could cost that much if you are having sex half a dozen times a day, but then the goal wouldn't be contraception, would it?
That was my point, I hate people who tell the truth and then suffer from shrinkage of the Gnads.
I thought this “woman” is 30 years old and no longer at Georgetown.
Or hell, an abortion?? Don't they care about [sob] Wimmmmyn's health????? [sob]
He didn't tell the truth, that's the problem. Fluke never mentioned her own contraceptive needs a single time. Not a single time. She never mentioned the cost of her own contraception. Not a single time. She never mentioned that she had taken, was taking, or was going to take contraceptives. Not a single time. She never mentioned her own sex life. Not a single time.
Fluke was sent out by the Democrats as an "expert" on women's contraception, and she was primarily going to
make up things talk about women who needed oral contraception for medical reasons, but had it denied for because it was contraception. She wasn't an expert and wasn't allowed to testify before Congress. So the Democrats allowed her to speak (not under oath) to them, and the media covered it. Rush reported that Fluke talked about her own sex life and sex and contraceptive needs. She didn't.
Other specific women and women and general were the entire premise of her testimony; most of it were other specific women. Right after the introduction, Fluke said:
"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. [I]n the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.
And so, Im here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them not me to be heard.
Fluke talked about other women (who may or may not exist). When Fluke talked about the Georgetown policy later, she didn't say what she thought about it, she said what another woman thought about it:
As one other student put it: This policy communicates to female students that our school doesnt understand our needs.
Rush blew it. People who said Fluke talked about her sex life aren't sticking to the facts. Fluke never mentioned her own contraception; Fluke never mentioned her sex life, the cost of her contraceptives, whether she was on contraceptives, whether she's straight, or anything.
Here's what Fluke said. I ask: Where's the "Fluke is a slut" part? Fluke said:
(1) one woman (not Fluke) felt embarrassed and powerless when she 'learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldnt afford that prescription';
(2) a married female student told Fluke that she had to stop using contraception because "she and her husband just couldnt fit it into their budget anymore;"
(3) 'women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage can't fit contraception into their budgets;'
(4) a friend has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and her birth control prescription is 'technically covered by Georgetowns insurance because its not intended to prevent pregnancy', but the *gay* friend was denied coverage because the insurance company decided that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy;
(5) a woman said doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that cant be proven without surgery, so the insurance won't cover birth control pills for endometriosis;
(6) another woman told Fluke that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and Georgetown quit paying for it last August;
and (7) one woman (a really bright woman, apparently) allegedly knew about Georgetown's unwillingness to cover birth control, so when she was raped she didn't seek medical attention because she thought Georgetown didn't cover women's health issues.
Then she said that when 'we' women came to Georgetown we expected women to be treated fairly and to care for all of 'our' medical needs.
So . . . where is the "I'm a slut" part of the testimony? And Rush went into great detail about Fluke - how, based on her statement, she was having sex with three guys a day, and how she was a prostitute, and how she said she was having sex with so many guys she couldn't walk . . . and on and on for four days. But Fluke never said any of those things. Rush made them up. And he presented them as factual statements that she made. And people believed them. And based on those statements (which she didn't make), Rush said she was a slut and a prostitute.
As part of his apology today, Rush came out and noted that Fluke's presentation was about the medical issues of women at Georgetown, and contraception. Which it was (whether or not it was factual). It was never about the amount of sex, and it was never about Fluke's own sex life. Rush made every single word of that up.
At the same time you have to look at the ten second passage of Rush commentary that aroused all the furore. Rush hypothesizes that Fluke was a slut — and then backs off the hypothesis, calling her by some lesser term. Round heeled, if I read it correctly. This was not a piece of studied discourse over many minutes. A clarification might have been called for, but not the “apology” or letting the matter hog his entire subsequent show.
I'd have to disagree with you on this. Rush called her a slut many times, if you're worried about "slut." And he called her a prostitute.
But Rush talked about her for a significant part of his program for four days. During those four days, he attributed to her specific comments about her sex life that she didn't make (and that people on this forum believe), such as whether she was having sex with three guys in a day. If you say she's "immoral, baseless," based on the amount of sex she's having, and she never mentioned having sex, then that sounds like something out of a liberal playbook. He said she was buying condoms (and I suppose, having sex) in the sixth grade. Imagine four days of complete Rush Limbaugh transcripts, and all of them made-up things she was supposed to have said about her sex life. And Limbaugh fed on himself and just got more outrageous. None of it was true. It was as if Limbaugh started to believe himself, and certainly - read posts on FR - people who listened believed him.
How can they not afford a $9 pack of pills, but can afford to go to school at Georgetown? Fluke is full of it! They could get the pills for free at the County Health Dept. if they are considered impoverished.
Exactly. And in this case it means holding them to their own standards on women, not degrading them. I think this is a no-brainer, and a golden opportunity given our popular culture.
Special Ed Schultz=hate
Fluke came close to this if not technically proven to fit the role of sl-t. She advocated for things on behalf of others if not herself that were quite scandalous. She is without doubt a political whore. True, nobody has documented Fluke’s own literal love life. However, surely somewhere the admonition of the bible that one can participate in a sin by affirming it must have a place? That Fluke is at least a vicarious sl-t?
If he had talked about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s - which he won’t or allowed - press conference last Thursday, he would have been met with the same critisism
If he had talked about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s - which he won’t or allowed - press conference last Thursday, he would have been met with the same critisism!!!
Rush was illustrating the absurdity of her claim birth control pills cost $3000 by being absurd himself. He apologized for taking it too far.
She never said birth control pills cost $3,000 a year, though, did she? Rush may be the one who said $3,000 a year. The activist Fluke said that a woman could spent over $3,000 on contraceptives during law school if the contraceptives were prescription and they weren't covered by health insurance. Law school is three years. That means Fluke said a woman could spend over $1,000 a year. And that's true, particularly in the cases Fluke talked about - which sounded like a specific contraceptive prescribed for a woman who had a specific medical problem.
Another shoe may be dropping...several sources reporting that she’s (surprise! not) a lesbian. Here’s a couple. The truth, like her age being 30/31 rather than 23, will come out soon; too many people attempting to vet her.
Sandra Fluke(or is it Fluck) Is Not A Slut She Is A Lesbian In No Need Of Contraceptive Devices
OK her lesbian lover had a cyst that needed a birth control pill according to Congressional testimony demanded by Nancy Pelosi (a waste of taxpayer money). A thirty year old admitted activist who majored in “Feminist, Gender, And Sexuality Studies” at Cornell then spent the next five years in NYC on Federal Gov grant money promoting legal suits brought by the LGBT community. She is not a slut but she is a dyke with a special affinity for Rachael Maddow. There are now e-mails coming in from Georgetown Law female students revealing that they have been intimate with her...
I went to gu law. Sandra is a lesbian.
I burst out laughing when I saw her appearance....
......thought since when is Sandra having to use contraceptives with her girlfriend....??
sex change thing is interesting as maybe Sandra has been feeling like a man all along
Don’t you understand this is a continued attack on the 1st amendment? This is a pick-up of the attack on Religious FReedom. Get Real
From “The Other McCain”:
“Rather belatedly, we are becoming aware that this supposedly typical Georgetown coed is not very typical at all:
[B]irth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if gender reassignment surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article . . . is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journals 2011 Annual Review.
Remember, as Byron York previously reported, Fluke was rejected as a last-minute substitute witness at a Feb. 16 committee hearing because staffers for Chairman Issa were unable to discover Flukes claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Flukes background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Heres one brief quote from the article:
Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.
Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about heterosexist policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for gender reassignment.
Congratulations, America: Youve been scammed!”
>>>The conservatives need to stop playing nice. Weve been playing by Roberts Rules of Order, and the Lefties shout us down with rant chants. Its time we go Alinsky on them. Play gotcha. Take their flubs and shove it back in their faces. Mock them and humilate them, and if they get violent, beat the crap out of them (we already have some judges ruling that assaults by Lefties as being political free speech). We are in a war with them, and since they are expecting one sided rules of engagement (only for the conservatives, not for the Left), the goal must be crushing the Left.
Potestas Democratorum delenda est!<<<
Absolutely correct. It’s either that or the eventual establishment of the Committee for Public Safety.
Do you have a link to any early stories that listed her as a 23 y.o.? I can’t find any now.
You and I both know they could afford a $9 pack of pills. Fluke told the stories of six women. Some of those stories made no sense in light of pills that cost $9 or $15/month. Woman #2 was a married female student who allegedly told Fluke that she had to stop using contraception because "she and her husband just couldnt fit it into their budget anymore."
Woman #1 was a woman who felt embarrassed and powerless when she 'learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldnt afford that prescription.
But one women allegedly had a polycystic ovarian syndrome, and her birth control prescription was 'technically covered by Georgetowns insurance because its not intended to prevent pregnancy', but the *gay* friend was denied coverage because the insurance company decided that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. I don't know whether a brand-specific birth control pill - i.e., not a $9/month pill - would be required.
And the woman Fluke claimed said doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that cant be proven without surgery, so the insurance won't cover birth control pills for endometriosis - same thing. Don't know that it would be addressed by generic birth control pills.
So your point is well-taken as to some of the examples Fluke raised.
But did you notice that none of those examples had anything to do with Fluke having sex or needing contraception? And that's what Rush Limbaugh kept saying Fluke 'testified" to.
“the activist Fluke said that a woman could spent over $3,000”
BC pills are available at Target for $4-$9 a month. Condoms are $.20 each at Amazon.com. Her comments on the affordability of birth control are totally disingenuous. If her lesbian friend was prescribed a medication that her insurance company denied coverage on, then that is a different story. I am all for making insurance companies pay legitimate claims for medical, auto, homeowners, or whatever. Instead of tackling that problem, she wants to use it as an excuse to ram birth control down Catholics throats.
We need the montage of leftists commenting on Sarah Palin, her daughter, her son, and all the others who have been brutalized. If we let them beat up Limbaugh without calling them on their gleeful savagery, the we deserve what we get.
In a perfect world, there would be outrage. We've seen, or I hope we've seen, that conservatives try to hold themselves to higher moral standards.
Liberals kill fetuses; conservatives don't. Liberal politicians who get involved in sexual scandals are consistently re-elected by liberal voters; conservative politicians who get involved in sexual scandals are consistently voted out of office by conservative voters.
Conservatives are supposed to consider right and wrong to be concrete concepts. Liberals consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be tiresome labels - they are concerned with expediency and achieving goals.
Does it surprise you that the left would be hypocritical? It doesn't surprise me?
Does it bother you that the right would be hypocritical? ("Hey! Maher should lose his job for calling Palin a bad word once! But hey! Don't you say anything critical about Limbaugh calling Fluke a bad word many times! Two wrongs make a right! We don't want the standard applied to 'our' guy and we're not willing to do so.)
It's a massive attack on the 1st Amendment. We had the moral high ground on that issue. Why didn't Rush argue that for four days?
Instead, he made up things about Fluke's personal sex life for four days and took the spotlight away from the 1st Amendment - and he had the Bully Pulpit. Now we may never be able to reclaim the moral high ground, because when this issue is raised all anyone will remember is Fluke, Rush calling her a slut and making up things about her sex life, and Rush apologizing.
And Rush created a new liberal heroine on this issue. We'll see Sandra Fluke everywhere, on countless topics, now.
“But did you notice that none of those examples had anything to do with Fluke having sex or needing contraception? And that’s what Rush Limbaugh kept saying Fluke ‘testified” to.”
What evidence is there that Sarah Palin has a Chinese family living in her c**t? Such is show business.
you nailed it.
She doesn’t need the contraception, yet her life’s work is agitating for abortion and contraception “rights”.
This is about attacking the Church.
She deliberately enrolled at Georgetown for the purpose of attacking it.
She certainly tried to project the image that she was talking about every Jane or Jill, who could get the Pill at about a tenth of the quoted budget — SANS insurance.
You “oh, woe” too much, as though you were Fluke’s own lawyer. Rush’s indiscretions or lack thereof are not what prevent or cause the manuscript of the First Amendment to keep existing in its helium filled case in Washington, DC.
On another thread/board/discussion, it is asserted that she is not 23, either -- more like 30? Anyone have info on this?
I take this as that she had been 23 when she began to go to school. Not that she is 23 now.
It seems a certainly incautious and uncommon mistake for Rush to make.
Is there any possibility that there is a lot more here that Rush was reacting to, stuff that was kept out of sight, and that he fell into a deadfall-trap set for him and other conservative commentators?
Obama's done this before with the Man's Country stuff and the Birth Certificate/documents business, taunting Rush under the radar to attack him, so that Obama could play injured majesty and damage Rush's (or whosever) credibility by, to borrow from Wm. F. Buckley, "producing the dog alive."
Since this started, I've learned that this was quite precisely a political "information operation" -- a propaganda setpiece, Alinskyite "guerrilla theater" on a larger stage -- set in motion, if one poster is correct, by Nancy Pelosi. Did Pelosi ask Fluke to testify? And is Fluke 30 not 23, and is she a political provocateuse from the git?
That might explain Rush's going nuclear on her -- pulling a disingenuous Alinskyite black-propaganda operation to help the Regime jam up the Catholic Church over its stand on abortion, sterilization, and birth control.
Excuse me. Maher said nasty things about Governor Sarah Palin every time he opened his mouth. Maher's mouth seems to have been formed for the purpose of saying foul things.
I only remember one particularly nasty epithet. Which is why people here can source it.
I think Sarah Palin deserved respect because she's a human being. I don't understand your fascination with adding "Governor" and "candidate for the second highest office in the land." I think Sarah Palin deserved respect because she's a fine and decent person and a woman to boot.
I'm curious - do you think she deserved extra respect because she was "also a candidate for the second highest office in the land"?
I hope not. I made a lot of jokes about Joe Biden during the election, and I said a lot of rude things. I plan to do so if he's on the ticket in 2012.
She's 30. She got her B.S. from Cornell in 2003 and then went to work before returning to law school.
You'll love this. Her B.S. from Cornell is in Policy Analysis & Management and Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.