Friday, March 02, 2012

Target Limbaugh

From the saintly New York Times..
Some of the same activists that persuaded advertisers to boycott Glenn Beck’s television show on Fox News in 2009 are now mobilizing against Rush Limbaugh in the wake of his verbal attacks on a Georgetown University law school student this week. Actually, they are remobilizing. A Twitter account, “Stop Rush,” which has been dormant since late 2010, woke up on Wednesday, when Mr. Limbaugh first called the student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut.”
Did el Rushbo cross the line? Yep. The woman is not a slut or a prostitute based on anything seen in the public reports.  He likes to use sarcasm but it went too far.

But clearly what sent him over the line and what's being lost in the kerfuffle is the fact she was taken seriously at all.  Yes, someone actually came in front of Congress--a law student to boot--and complained that their recreational sex life and that of other fellow law students was not being adequately underwritten by the Jesuit University they attend (and by extension via ties to Obamacare, the public at large one day).  Outrageous! 

That itself is insane of course and deserving of some wild rhetoric, but unfortunately Rush went too wild and has uncharacteristically allowed the left to focus all the insanity on him not the subject.  Advertisers are bailing.  Obama even feels safe enough to weigh in and score some cheap points (yes, the actual president).  We have to consider what the 2012 election cycle might look like without him on the mic (and Breitbart on the web).  Surely more than a few are salivating at the thought, some of them probably in high places and near levers of power.

MORE  3/3/12

As Romney said, "it's not the language I would have used".  Rather a duh moment, eh?  In other words, he agrees but doesn't agree with calling a woman a slut and ho just for wanting some free pills.  Doing otherwise would be instant political suicide.  But talk show hosts are different.  Obviously this was classic Rush schtick plus one, but as Brown suggests, would an apology be helpful?   On the one hand it seems reasonable to think that if he went on the air Monday and apologized TO HER for calling her names, then went on to explain the madness that drove hm over the line it might deflate the lefty outrage balloon.  Then again, it might just pump more hot air into it, proving he did go overboard and fueling the call for his demise.

Well, he's been doing this over 20 years and has been down this road many times and has a lot of loyal listeners and has lost sponsors before, so we'll see how he handles it.  The main lefty goal has always been to marginalize him (as it was with Breitbart and Palin) so the real winner-loser outcome is whether his influence is changed in the coming months when things get really hot.

EVEN MORE  3/3/12

He did the right thing.  And by issuing it on Saturday it doesn't create large workweek headlines, plus it's on the record ahead of the Sunday talk shows.  Hopefully now focus can be placed where it belongs-- on people who want others to pay for their recreational sex fun.

And note to liberals-- the preceding statement does not mean 1) Fore Left is at war with women, 2) Fore Left is run by a misogynist, 3) Fore Left is against birth control, 4) Fore Left is against sex, or 5) Fore Left is a religious nut.  It means Fore Left is against the government forcing entities or private citizens to pay for other peoples' recreational sex if they object on First Amendment grounds or even on general principle.  We are not talking about medical treatments to save lives and promote health here.  If you want to shag, do it, enjoy it!  Just don't ask me to pay for it.

And that's the crux of the entire issue and the danger of Obamacare in general, and why it's perfectly reasonable to be having this debate before the election. If Obama is reelected this kind of mandate will be a done deal. Remember--Obama doesn't bluff, he wasn't bluffing when he said he wanted 'change' and mandates are a big part of it.

No comments: