He has apologized to the young woman for the nasty personal insults. It was the right thing to do. Unlike some of the commenters at the website I am linking to, I will not question his motives for doing so — not because I am a great admirer of Limbaugh’s, and seeking to defend him, but for exactly the opposite reason. At some point, you have to break the vicious cycle.
Part of what’s so poisonous about our culture is that we reward people more, the more vicious and cruel and thuggish they get (then, of course, we turn around and complain about the coarseness and ugliness of our politics and media). I disapprove vehemently of Limbaugh’s personal slurs against that young woman, because I thought they were nasty and misogynistic. What he said was wrong. What he said in his apology — “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices” — was right.
So in this case, I want to reward him for doing what’s right. After condemning what he said that was wrong, and endorsing what he said that he was right, I think we should — to coin a phrase — “move on.” To continue the controversy at this point would be merely to pursue the vendetta against Limbaugh in exactly the way that has landed us in the mess our culture’s in. In short: If people don’t let this go at this point, they shouldn’t complain the next time somebody engages in insults, refuses to apologize, and makes our culture even coarser. If you reward something, you tend to get more of it. Let’s try rewarding decency for a change, and see what happens.
How many chances does he get?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How many chances does he get?" I'd say that 1/100 of the chances afforded to Bill Maher or Matt Taibbi should be sufficient, since Limbaugh is a much better man than either of them and rarely lapses into their sort of personal invective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSucker!
What happens when we reward decency ( on our side) for a change is what happens every time: the Left becomes even more thuggish.
What happens when you make concessions to Islamists for a change is what happens every time: their demands increase. They become more thuggish.
The dynamic is precisely the same. The authoritarian collectivist culture is what is is, is what it has been and will always be.
Limbaugh's comments about Fluke were mild, accurate and far less insulting to her than her testimony before Congress was to us. She called us imbeciles. Limbaugh called her the least harsh term for a woman whose sexual activity is expedited by somebody else's cash payment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut we're still left with the question: What do you call someone who insists that someone else pay for their recreational sex?
I know what to call them when they're demanding that Jesuits do it: Intolerant looter. But in general, what's the proper term?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpineless Rush Limbaugh,
Shame. This unmarried woman was accurately described by you to be a s***. A smug, sexless s***. (S*** is a dictionary word. How could that be "objectionable?"
I will use my free moments to encourage people with spine to listen to you no more.
I ache at your cave. For what? Some advertisers pulling out? You are a coward. I never thought this could possibly happen.
How could you? Well, I'm not going to cave in to things I say. That's what I thought you taught me.
Shame.
d.j. bradley
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really don't see why RL needed to apologize. Look, if the chick happens to be in Wymyns Studies or Sociology, she can put "I was insulted by RL" on her resume and go to the head of the pack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, he apologized for the name calling. But has he retracted his demand for internet videos?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you read the lines before the ones you quoted, you will see that his statement was 90% condescending derision toward women. I agree with the idea of rewarding decency. However, there isn't any on display here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, that's great -- so now we can expect the DNC to apologize for all the false and vicious things they've been saying about us? Right...?
[crickets]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's a great line of reasoning for six year olds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, I agree with. It is a great line of reasoning even for six-year olds.
We have a Golden Rule that only one side is forced to play by. I don't like what Limbaugh said, but I also don't like the filth that comes out of Bill Maher's mouth - you know, the guy who just wrote a $1M check to Obama's SuperPac, which was GLADLY accepted Obama's minions. Barack Obama, the same guy who calls to apologize to a women who he's never met (allegedly) for an insult he didn't hear, will also accept 7-figures from a guy who called your namesake a "see you next Tuesday".
Did Barack Obama call Eric Cantor to apologize for Maxine Waters? Did Barack Obama call Laura Ingrahm to apologize for Ed Schulz? Did Barack Obama call Andew Breitbart's widow when Matt Taibi wrote in Rolling Stone, "“Good! F**k Him. I Couldn’t Be Happier That He’s Dead”… Did Barack Obama call Joe the Plumber when his supporters violated Ohio law by disclosing his personal information from government computers?
The answer to all these questions is of course, "No". So, until the left starts behaving in the same manner that they demand everyone on the right behave, you'll excuse if I don't get too emotional over their crocodile tears.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a fundamental difference between the people you mentioned having bad things said about them and the woman that Rush insulted, all of those other people are (and were) professional political talkers. They have all said nasty things about people they disagree with and they have all received fire in return. That doesn't make the bad things people say about them okay necessarily, but it does put them in a different context. Fluke, on the other hand, is a private citizen testifying on behalf of a policy position that she supports, its not the same thing.
Also, it's frankly bizarre to see people act indignant about the things that have been said in the wake of Andrew Breitbart's death. Breitbart was a big boy and he could handle it, if the concern is for his family and the people he left behind, it should be noted that Breitbart did not let that stop him when Ted Kennedy died. Certainly Kennedy was a bad guy but he left behind a family and loved ones too, and when he died Brietbart tweeted a litany of bile that was every bit as bad as everything that has been said about him now. You can't get offended by people treating Brietbart exactly the same way that he treated people he didn't agree with, it's ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo. Despite being an expert in exactly nothing, Fluke was signed up by her political "leaders" to make public statements designed to stir emotional support for an extreme political agenda.
I have no doubt she and her handlers wanted her to get the kid-glove treatment one would normally extend to the babe-in-the-woods you describe. But that does not mean a 30-year-old committed political activist is in any way entitled to special treatment.
She put herself in the political fight. If you want to fault anyone, fault Pelosi for asking Fluke to beclown herself in front of the cameras. Or Obama, for showing us what happens when government power slips its moorings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll well and true. But whether Rush apologized on not, and it's right that he did, the damage is done. The whole contraceptive insurance mandate matter was one where conservatives had (and still have if they can articulate the case effectively) the moral high ground. The issue is very much about freedom of religion and conscience. Birth control, humbug! There's no shortage of contraceptives (condoms are routinely distributed freely in many jurisdictions) or the ability to acquire them. Then along comes Rush and validates the Left's narrative. One just truly hopes the Bishops are genuinely men of principal and courage because the conservative political establishment seems either incapable of making the moral case, or highly capable of foot in mouth disease.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoe the Plumber was literally a guy who was minding his business in his own yard when Barack Obama decided to make a campaign stop on his street. He wasn't an activist (as Fluke CLEARLY is, as it turns out) nor someone who voluntarily testified in front of a televised Senate committee. He was just a plumber who had the temerity to ask about Obama's tax plans, and within 48-hours, we found out more about a plumber from OH (from a variety of sources, both political and journalistic) than we did about Obama during the entire campaign - and even since that campaign.
How did the media react to Joe's public lynching? With deafening silence. Obama never called to apologize to that guy, even though people who were tangentially connected to his campaign or the OH Democrat party were indicted for crimes surrounding the leaking of Joe's personal information.
There are two sets of rules: One for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. And the media, as a collective, LIVES to enforce those rules as strictly and passionately as they can particularly when it comes at the expense of the Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSamuel Wurzelbach did receive a formal public apology from Ohio democrats for the file-snooping.
External Link
There was never an indictment. There was a civil suit, and it was dismissed.
External Link
He was a private citizen thrust into the spotlight in 2008. Today, he is running for congress in my district.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are correct in distinguishing between those public figures and Ms Fluke, even if she did thrust herself into the public arena with her voluntary comments.
However, what I will compare it to is the vile harassment and slurs tossed toward those who disagreed with the "Gay mafia" during the various marriage battles. Tactics such as forcing people to have to resign from their jobs, publishing the home addresses and phone numbers of those who made campaign donations, and the typical ridicule.
Whenever I see these coordinated attacks by the Left, I come back to a cartoon I saw when I was a child. On "The Real Ghostbusters", good and evil come to NY and continue their battle against each other that happens every 1000 years. If good wins, things stay the same. If evil wins, then a 1000 years of darkness.
So they choose to play baseball since that is the dominant game of the time (yes I know, this was the 80's). When evil starts cheating, one of the Ghostbusters (Ray I think), says 'hey, they are cheating! Maybe we should start cheating!'. But one of the good entities softly chides him with this:
"Yes evil is cheating because that is who they are. It is part of them. However, good can never cheat. For if good cheats, then they become evil."
This is just another instance where I feel like Ray sitting in the dugout watching "evil" cheat. I hope like the Ghostbusters and Good, we can prevail otherwise there will be another 4 years of darkness (and no that is not a racial slur, so get over it!).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGo take your Flintstones and get off your dad's computer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere are the applogies to Clarance Thomas? Sarah Palin and her family? George Bush?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen and only then should Rush appologize.
If you can get the people who pay them to widraw funding in sufficient numbers then they will. Rush bowed to the market, enough people found his comments disgusting that standing by them became economically untenable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse