In a rare moment in our lifetimes, Rush Limbaugh caved to the media’s pressure and apologized to Sandra Fluke.
As most of you know, Sandra Fluke proclaims that it costs many women $3,000 to pay for contraception throughout their college years. Therefore; the hardworking taxpayers across the land who (as Governor Palin would say) “grow our food, teach our children, and fight our wars” should have to pay for it by having our religious freedoms put on the line while we watch the United States Government dictate to religious organizations and universities what they must do.
Regardless of the case Ms. Fluke believes she can make by cherry-picking numbers and statistics as well as telling us one story about a cyst which had grown on someone’s ovary due to the lack of a particular birth control pill which was prescribed to her, she fails to explain why this woman chose a religious based school which contains principles which are constitutionally protected and fails to explain why in one breath she can talk about choices and freedom for one woman’s body, yet cannot explain why sacrificing other folks’ liberties is the answer to her dilemma.
I remember in a speech long ago given by Governor Palin, she told us that true freedom never comes at the cost of someone else’s liberty. As a result, I am comfortable saying that most of the mainstream media, Barack Obama, Sandra Fluke, and others are indeed living in the wrong country to suit their world views.
I believe this is what Rush Limbaugh was trying to articulate. And in one of his moments of sarcasm used a certain word to describe a woman who is paid to be given the opportunity to have sex. He was trying to make a point, I got the joke, and I definitely got the point he was making.
Whether or not he went too far by using the word he used is arguable. Some of us might have chosen to articulate it differently. But when you talk for a living and you say literally hundreds of thousands of words within the span of a month or two, these things can happen.
Normal Americans would accept the apology and move on. But not ones who need to clutch onto it to create basis for an argument they lose intellectually. They don’t want to have the argument on the points. They want one narrative to be attached to one slogan. The slogan: The GOP is Waging a War on Women.
Of course for the Democrats, to win that argument or proclamation on the basis of intellectual honesty, we’d have to completely erase everything said about Sarah Palin by people like Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, and Ed Schultz.
But when confronted on it, someone like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will say something along the lines of: I cannot be responsible for things said by a comedian — or a pundit.
Or how many times did we hear Candidate Obama tell us that the words and actions of Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright had nothing to do with him?
Suddenly now, Rush Limbaugh issues one measly apology and every Republican candidate for President has to respond? Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. But if there was anytime I wished Sarah Palin was Candidate Palin, it is right now precisely to hear her response to that question.
We know Republicans are treated differently in these moments. So, let’s observe the candidates and their responses thus far. For example, are they using the opportunity to discuss the core issue of this debate? Or are they jumping on the “Rush is bad!” bandwagon?
“I’ll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used,” Romney said. “I’m focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”
This was a clever response in part. Jobs and the economy are the driving force behind the anger the voters hold toward the president. However; Romney could have used this opportunity to talk more in-depth about the issue at hand. This includes our liberties, the rights of religious organizations, and the real argument surrounding Sandra Fluke’s comments and why she’s wrong and the majority of Americans are right.
Regarding Rush Limbaugh, Santorum said:
He’s being absurd, but that’s you know, an entertainer can be absurd.
I’m concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on people, people of faith who morally object to the government telling them they have to do something, which they believe is a grave moral wrong.
I admire Santorum’s candidness on discussing the real issue of having the government tell people and organizations to do something which compromises liberties despite their personal or moral beliefs. I do feel he was a little chicken-bound by saying Rush was absurd; however, and if he really believed that this was simply a deflection by the media, he should have called Blitzer out on it and schooled him on what this issue was really about.
“I think he was right to apologize.”
“But let’s talk about apologies for a second,” Gingrich said. “I think the president was totally wrong as commander-in-chief to apologize to religious fanatics while our young men are being killed in Afghanistan, and I think it was a disaster of an apology. .?.?.You have the U.N. commissioner to Afghanistan in essence saying, since the president has admitted the United States is guilty, these people should be tried.”
“Now, I think that is a disastrous position for us,” he added.
Gingrich then went on to deliver an impressive debate-style response to David Gregory this morning:
Brilliantly, Newt Gingrich turned this around back to the real issues. He turned it around to display how radical Barack Obama is on the issues of life and far leftist positions. He called Gregory out on only wanting to have a cherry-picked dialogue as opposed to a full and informative one — since we know full context is never good news for Democrats. He also talked about the apologies of the President and the ones he perhaps should have issued as opposed to the ones he has.
Now, this seems to be what gets the entire Republican establishment and others to call Newt “bombastic” and “risky!” Solely for speaking like any of us would have and forcing the argument back to where it needs to be, this is what they want us to believe is going to scare away the independents and disenchanted Democrats from joining our side of this debate?
If that’s the case, I find it a little iffy to suggest that perhaps someday the establishment will allow us to let anyone who tells it like it is — even Governor Palin — close to the nomination.
Our candidate must be able to stand on principle or they will not stand at all. They must be able to articulate it so it excites the voters. They have to be able to transcend that message into the homes of millions of Americans who feel sluggish due to the years of Obama.
If our candidate must be Romney or Santorum, I truly hope they look to the guy who’s currently third in line if they expect to have any shot at winning a general election.