Rush Limbaugh’s inappropriate language was anything but a fluke

Not since Anita Hill at the Clarence Thomas hearings has a young woman who sought only to offer testimony she believed to be in the public interest been so vilified by the Republican right as Sandra Fluke.

Fluke is the Georgetown University law student who spoke in favor of requiring all employers —  including religious institutions like hospitals, educational institutions and charitable agencies that refuse to provide these services for theological reasons — to make free birth control a benefit for their women employees.

President Barack Obama has proposed a compromise that requires the free birth control coverage, but puts the cost on the insurance companies rather than religious entities.

Offended by Fluke’s testimony, Limbaugh unleashed an outrageous attack on this brave young woman. Calling Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” because she wanted free birth control pills.

While other conservatives tried to frame the free access to contraception as a “freedom of religion” issue, Rush Limbaugh made it all about sex. In Rush’s twisted logic, the monetary value of free birth control pills is the equivalent of paying women to have sex.

In a spectacular display of ignorance of the female reproductive cycle, Limbaugh made the assumption that the number of birth control pills taken monthly reflects the frequency of sexual contact.

“If you’re her parents, how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he asked. “Your daughter ... testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the pope.”

Doubling down again in the face of criticism, Limbaugh demanded, “Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

After three days of bluster, Limbaugh’s nerve failed as his advertisers started to leave him — nine of them, according to the latest count on Tuesday — and two stations canceled his program.

His first effort at an apology to Fluke consisted only of a grudging admission that “slut” and “prostitute” were poor word choices to describe her.

Fluke, who has handled the entire controversy with courage, intelligence and class, rejected out of hand Rush’s offer. “He insulted me more than 50 times over three days,” she announced.

As the heat on Limbaugh continued, he acknowledged that Fluke was none of the things he had called her during days he was publicly berating her regarding her sex life. Limbaugh admitted that the “prostitute” and “slut” references were “inappropriate and uncalled for ... I didn’t think she was either of those things.”

When that entreaty failed to impress either Fluke or her growing group of supporters, Rush explained, “The mistake I made was that in fighting (the leftists), I became like them. Against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level.”

But as this weak man tries to shift blame for his rash behavior to “the leftists,” and to portray himself as the victim, rather than the young woman he attacked, Limbaugh exposed himself as the insecure tyrant he is.

To their disgrace, not one of the Republican primary candidates except for Rep. Ron Paul, raised a voice as Limbaugh publicly tried to destroy Fluke’s reputation and credibility. As they have been for years, Republicans from the level of primary candidates to sitting Congressmen fear to speak out against Limbaugh for fear of retaliation.

Calling the GOP candidates out for their cowardice in the face of Limbaugh’s bluster, conservative columnist George Will found the situation “depressing because ... it indicates ... that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

Will shared with George Stephanopoulos of ABC the irony that, the GOP candidates “want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

Realistically, are any of these candidates individuals we want making the decision to bomb Iran or not? Or would they defer that decision to their overlord, Rush Limbaugh.

Bill Grant lives in Grand Junction. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Rush Limbaugh is the official spokesman of the Republican Party. Republicans have gotten lazy. Why think for yourself if Rush will do the “thinking” for you? The problem is that Rush is driving women out of the GOP and away from GOP candidates. He is destroywing the brand with his continuing attack on women. He went even further and attacked “over educated” women. Translation: those silly women insist on thinking for themselves instead of blindly following Rush. We “silly women” are busy uniting against this absurd attack on equal rights to health care.

Yadayadayada. The Left’s flagrant double standard regarding moral sensitivities is so sickening, and so outdated that it almost gets taken for granted. One quick example in passing: leftist comedian Bill Maher routinely calls women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann names using exactly the same words Limbaugh used — and more. Maher is a so-called “comedian”, Limbaugh is a so-called “entertainer”. I don’t see much difference between the two. So where is all the Left’s faux outrage directed? Why at Rush Limbaugh, of course. The Left gives every appearance of thinking that Maher’s use of the very same words is to be commended as appropriate and on point. Reason? They don’t like good-looking conservative women. Rappers “diss” the fairer gender for a living, selling millions of records in the process. Leftist outrage? Nowhere to be seen. No courteous discussion is possible with that level of intellectual dishonesty and manipulativeness.
Totally lost in the Left’s sickening — and so disgustingly manipulative as to be actually evil — double standard is the Economics-101-based point that the “innocent” young woman (a law student no less) in question thinks she has a moral right to persuade government to steal everyone’s else’s labor in the form of taxation and force everybody else to pay for her health care needs, including, of course, contraception — for her choice to engage in ostensibly premarital sex. As for all those “hater”, “misogynistic”, “racist”, “bigot”, “homophobic”, knuck-dragging Neanderthals whose primitive unsophisticated moral values just happen not to include sex outside marriage — well, to hell with them, they’re subhuman anyway.
Surely, if he looked hard enough, an ingenious fellow like Grant could find a place to put his faux double-standard outrage where the “sun don’t shine”.
As an aside, it is quite interesting to notice how radically fewer comments appear in the Sentinel now that the “show your real name” policy has been implemented. Seems to me the new policy has proven to be counter productive. I kind of liked the old freedom better than the currant paternalistic nanny-state policy of protecting me from incivility “for my own good”. I thought some of the pseudonyms were kind of amusing. I, for one, would welcome them back.

John; I agree totally with your sentiments regarding the return of anonymous commenting. As for the rest of your tome - Rush’s “ideal” woman seems to be a subservient, sperm-activated breeding machine circa 1955. The man is pathetic, and obviously knows little about women - he’s been married 4 times.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy