Skip to comments.Gingrich: Limbaugh right to apologize for remarks (AP headline)
Posted on 03/04/2012 6:25:04 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON (AP) Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says Rush Limbaugh was wrong to call a college student a "slut" and "prostitute" in the debate over contraception coverage, and was right to apologize for the comments.
Gingrich tells CNN's "State of the Union" that he's glad the conservative commentator issued the apology on Saturday and that it's time to move beyond the controversy.
Gingrich says it's "silly" to suggest that Limbaugh speaks for the GOP. Gingrich contends the media are "trying desperately to protect" President Barack Obama.
To all the Newt fans who bashed Santorum for implying that Rush should apologize, how does this feel? Is Newt not ready for prime time either?
You are absolutely right! I just watched MTP, and Newt was excellent. Totally respectful of Rush, saying merely he was “right to apologize.” Which he was! Like other posters, I must admit I’ve been cringing the past few days listening to Rush, shouting at the radio to “Stop it, already! You’ve made your point!”
One other thing. Rick’s statement throwing Rush under the bus, saying he was an entertainer is light years worse than Newt merely saying what he did because I firmly believe that Rush is the main reason Santorum has maintained his candidacy as long as he has. Without Rush spending huge amounts of precious broadcast time EVERY DAY explaining what Rick meant to say, or helping Rick pull his feet out of his mouth, Rick would have imploded long before this. And how does Rick thank him? By calling him an entertainer.
I have the feeling that because of Rush’s “apology” posted Saturday and the firestorm of controversy it has created, Rush is going to have 40 million people listening to him when he opens his show on Monday morning instead of his usual 20 million. I also get the feeling that Rush is not going to waste that opportunity, he will use this to advance conservatism and expose the reality of liberalism to even more people than he otherwise would have. I think Rush is accomplishing what other talk show hosts can only accomplish in their dreams. I think Rush knows what he is doing, he did not get where he is by being stupid.
Over your head obviously thus explaining our lack of communication—you are just too darn dumb to waste my time on you;)
A winky smiley face? I’m a grown man.
This is two posts and two personal attacks and name calling.
Romney was the wrong man for you to be supporting in 2008, and he is the wrong guy today, so there is no reason to be pumping him up as having been the best of the three finalists last time, while he is in the lead this time, Romney does not even belong in GOP politics.
I don't like Romney either because of Romneycare and that the best debate would be between himself in 1994 and himself in 2012. The only thing going for him is that he has executive political and business experience.
The two horses I was wanting to win- one was attacked for being a strong woman.
While the other's political run was lynched by anti-black Leftist Democrats
What Tea Partiers and other Conservatives need to do is get a Filibuster-proof Senate and a Veto-resistant House. This can be done by electing Tea Party Conservatives in the GOP primaries, and ride the anti-Obama wave to victory in November.
buh bye again--you haven't changed--you still wear your butt for a hat;););););)
Romney is not the man.
I saw this on TV. The way the MSM always writes it - they make it sound like Gingrich is the one who had something to say about Rush. But the truth is Candy put the question to him and hardly let Newt make his answer with talking over him.
People will never know this, they get led by the nose from the MSM.
Flip Flop. Man yesterday people were praising Newt for saying it was wonderful that Rush said that. People of course were bashing Santorum for saying it was horrible. Well today Newt has joined Santorum.
Santorum wins again!
Torpedoed his impeachment? He was impeached. What witnesses do you need. He was screwing Monica. He lied about it. Witnesses were not needed. He was on tape. If this was a true situation than Newt himself would be bringing it up and using it against Santorum since he is using everything else to try and knock him out.
I noticed that he only apologised for his choice of words. I hope is only apologising for “prostitute” and not “slut.”
Monday 12-3PM est should be fun.
I can't argue with that logic. I just feel Newt and that combination would be historic.
Well being principled doesn’t make us the most popular on the playground. You guys are just in it as a fan club.
I haven’t listened to Rush in awhile and have not heard the exact quote. I will say it is a bit surprising to read of an apology which was announced on a Saturday night.
My gut is telling me to hold off before saying he folded too fast. I am 1/2 thinking there may be an apology ‘Part 2.’. If so it will be rather entertaining. The other option is this was a lawyer driven apology. His lawyers made him an offer he could not refuse.
No doubt. He owes the candidates air time to make their case for their candidacy, time they lost answering questions about him the last few days.
Hard to be hypocritical when you are always right.
Newt answered the question posed by Gregory correctly. AP, as the lib media will do, took that as the primary comment to highlight. If you read the Newsbusters' transcript you will see that:
Gotta agree with your ending comment:
The GOP has difficulty finding its posterior with both hands.
Newt always says too much, he makes great points then wonks them silly. Newt is the most intelligent guy in the public service arena, only a fool doubts that, but I often find myself screaming at the TV, stop Newt, you have said enough.
Remember how he ranted on the grandmothers and deportation, he didn't need to say anything on that issue but kept on going until his foot was firmly in his mouth.
As far as the impeachment goes, maybe you should hold the Chief Justice accountable, since he had no clue as to his responsibility.
Yes! The hosts were drooling with delight.
You misdirected your reply re that quote.
That was C. Edmund Wright who wrote it.
It wasnt even a congressional committee, just a press conference rigged to sound like a congressional hearing, people lapped it up.
The Dems may be stupid, but they are much better politicians than the conservatives. You know the ones that will never be loved, but they keep on kissing up in the hopes that they will be.
If that was all he said it would be great, but then he went on and on and on, which is a fault Newt has, he has so many words bottled up he has to use them.
That is just not true.
There has been a circular firing squad blasting away for some time, and to what end? It only helps Romney and by Proxy Obama, because Romney will not win, if it takes my vote.
I can support either Newt or Santorum, but if they are both all beat up who does that help. Like it or not some of the critics trash here showed up in the last debate. The stuff may have come up from another source, but this forum makes it easier.
That aside there are many Freepers that would make a better case in a debate based on facts, that seem to be unknown to any of the candidates.
Oh psyco you are too funny.
And he used them to attack the MSM and Obama. Newt skillfully redirected the interview back on THEM!
Could you explain a little more what you mean by this? I "think" I understand, but that's a good sign I probably don't.
Something like using the <blockquote> formatting tag, and various highlights or alternate fonts like <tt>, <b>, and setting fonts using the <font face="centaur"> command (Centaur, Book Antiqua, Bookman Old Style, Arial, Arial Narrow, Lydian, are all good quoting fonts to use. The off switch for all the above is simply </font>.)
Thanks in advance.
Post 129 and 141 sum it up....
"Conservatives = woman-haters" and "Republican War on Women" are a major new meme-lie/theme-lie/LIElie that the 'Rats rolled out last week with the phony "hearing", coupled with the attack on talk-radio advertisers.
You know it's a major Obama theme when Axelrod comes on Clintonopoulos's weekend show to trumpet it, even bending the conversation they were having, to get to that theme and launch a double-fortissimo bassoon blast, "War Against Women".
I'm hoping Rush does dedicate Monday to pointing out the hypocrisay of the Left andgives them a chance to howl all the louder to illustrate the truth of his words. If he does, the "apology" will resonate all the more because it's something the Left never offers no matter how wrong.
Rush’s comments were not “absurd,” they were simply improper, although truthful.
Santorum is absurd by the minute.
You, an experienced freeper, accept an AP/CNN story at face value?
Newt was immediately hit with Rush questions, including today's yik-yak shows. He handled them very well. In characteristic style he turned them back on the lib questioner and Obama. Sheesh.
In the 90's, Rush was middle-aged and obese. I don't think that's a distinction you can hold against Rush -- that he's older and not as .... fresh-looking? less aged-looking? whatever ..... I don't get your distinction there.
And if the majority of American voters are brain-damaged by following the MSM, whose fault is that? Rush's? He should go off-air, retire, go away, and just quit the field and hand victory to a class of professional liars and spinners and witch-doctors of political "truth"?
I think you're taking pragmatism over the edge.
Drop the emotion.
You were right, but you’re beating a dead horse now.
thought you were gonna call..
>> “Well today Newt has joined Santorum.” <<
No, Santorum was completely wrong; What Limbaugh said was correct, but he shouldn’t have said it, and Newt spoke way too soon, although reasonably.
The only one on a high horse is you, because you completely miss the double standard around here. Both publically disagreed with the comments, but it’s ok when your guy does it because he worded his disagreement differently. The outrage directed at Santorum on here wasn’t so much that he used the word “absurd” but that he spoke out agsint the comments at all. Additionally, “absurd” was an interesting term. Look at the text of Rush’s apology: “For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.”
So how should he answer the question when posed to him? No comment? Yea, that will really work..........
He answered it perfectly........
1. Heard Rush's original comments on my way out the door on Friday.
2. The sponsors' Saturday moves were news to me -- it sounds like a coordinated 'RatRoots strike by Axelrod, Emanuel et al. on Obozo's behalf, an Astroturf campaign.
3. I didn't know Rush had apologized until I heard Newt on ABC's This Week when Clintonopoulos brought the subject up. (Didn't see MTP or Mace the Nation.)
4. It sure sounded to me -- not having all the background going in, not having heard about Rush's apology and sponsor moves until that moment -- like Newt putting Rush under the bus. I gathered from the questions that Santorum had already abandoned Rush, and now Newt was taking a turn at the invitation of the Pres_ent's henchman, Clintonopoulos.
I agree with you and trappedincanuckistan that this is all a dark Democrat victory, in which precious time is chewed up before Super Tuesday,and with PSYCHO-FREEP that this is the beginning of a big, three-ring-circus, diversionary proxy war (using young female 'Rat-activist trollopes) against Rush Limbaugh, to damage, delegitimize, and (they hope) damage him financially, and divert attention from Afghanistan, from Obozo, from the economy, and from what Joe Arpaio is saying about Obozo's fundamental ineligibility for the office.
I was talking about Newt and not Rush. Being old fat and ugly doesn’t apply to radio anyway and I’m not saying Rush is old fat and ugly.
Now on TV—a visual medium—looks do matter. Remember,to the radio listeners of the JFK RMN presidential debate Nixon won and to the TV viewers Kennedy did.
That's helpful, thanks.
Good point. This was not the time to fall into media-laid traps by "reacting" to flaming curve balls.
Conceded. Remember, tho', Newt had grey hair back in the 90's, too, so he was never a movie star.
Remember the green- and red-gel uglified "portrait shot" TIME magazine did of Newt when they made him "Man of the Year" in 1994? Pure hatred in that photo. Shot him with loose tie, day-old five o'clock stubble, looking tired, then uglied up the shot in the lab as much as they were able. Pure "hate-photography" anticipating the OJ cover TIME (was it?) took so much criticism about ..... but not a peep of protest about the Newt cover.
You are poster 184. There are, oh, I dunno, maybe 15 posts from me before post 184 that fully flesh out what I mean. Try 129 and 141 and if you still have a problem, get back to me.
Join the Conservative Circular Firing Squad as you wish. I decline.
How deep do you want to dig yourself.
My whole point is that I fear Newt did that with his one statement about the apology. See, you and I agree. You just didn’t read long enough to figure it out.
I beg to differ. Rush blew this one big time. Sandra Fluke possibly (probably) invented women and their medical ailments. She may have made up the percentage of female Georgetown students who complain about the financial burden of contraception. She talked as if she were a medical and statistical expert.
But Sandra Fluke never said she, personally, took or paid for contraceptives. Sandra Fluke never said that she, personally, had sex with one partner or many. How can you be a slut or a prostitute if you aren't having sex?
I listened to the testimony. I read the transcript. I went back and read the transcript and watched a replay of the testimony.
Fluke talked exclusively about other women and about women in general; she didn't talk about herself.
Other specific women and (rarely) women and general were the entire premise of her testimony. 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 she went to the first person the one or two rare times, it wasn't even directly tied to having sex. The first time, it was to demonstrate how much $3,000 was to a law school student. Fluke said:
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary.
That's not a definitive statement that Fluke's on birth control, only that public interest interns make only $3,000 per summer (as opposed to summer clerks at large firms, who are making many multiples of that).
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 do we get 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?
Limbaugh said about Fluke: "she's having so much sex she can't pay for it, and we should."
Yet Fluke didn't say she was having any sex.
Limbaugh said: "So the woman comes forth with this frankly hilarious claim that she's having so much sex" that she can't afford it.
Fluke never said she had sex, much less 'so much sex she can't afford it.'
Limbaugh asked, "didn't anyone ever tell her: 'did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'"
Again, Limbaugh wasn't paying attention. He could have attacked Fluke on many grounds. He went after her sex life. Fluke never mentioned her sex life.
I could go on, because Limbaugh went on and on about Fluke personally; and none of it was based on anything that Fluke said about herself. When Limbaugh called Fluke a slut and a prostitute, he meant that she was having sex, and lots of it. And that she wanted to be paid for it.
And yet Fluke only talked other women and their need for contraception - and in almost every case, she talked about how birth control pills needed for medical reasons (a Democrat bait and switch), not for contraception.
In Fluke's testimony was there exaggeration, yes? Idiots who get raped and think that they won't get medical attention because birth control's not covered? Yes. Throwing out the $100 per month out-of-pocket figure (specifically for the pill, not condoms) for a birth control pill, and not mentioning $5/month birth control pills? Check. Claiming the ovarian cyst story was not rare? Check.
But telling stories about her own sex life that would merit branding her a slut? No. Not any. She didn't even mention whether she was on birth control or if she had sex.
Limbaugh blew this entire topic for conservatives. The attention was on the fact that Obama was forcing Roman Catholic health care plans to pay for contraceptives (and other plans with a religious objection to pay for care over religions objections).
We lost that argument now because of Rush. Now the issue is Rush's apology, and calling Sandra Fluke a slut because he wanted to be cute and didn't pay attention to what was said. He could have attacked her presentation on any one of a number of different (and factual) points.
But he didn't. He got cute by 100% too much and slandered a lefty plant about being a slut, claiming she testified about having too much sex . . . when she didn't say a word about having any sex.
And now he has to apologize and any moral high ground conservatives had on the entire 'Obamacare forcing Roman Catholic healthcare plans to pay for contraception' issue is lost due to his buffoonery.