Sandra Fluke on “The View”: Rush’s apology “changes nothing”
posted at 2:37 pm on March 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe
While Laura Ingraham waits for an encouraging call from the president to compensate for MSNBC’s Ed Schultz calling her a “slut,” “reproductive justice” activist Sandra Fluke rejects Rush Limbaugh’s sincere expression of regret for calling her the same:
The Georgetown law student who drew an apology from Rush Limbaugh this weekend after the conservative radio host called her a “slut” on his show said that his public apology wasn’t sufficient during an appearance on ABC’s “The View” today.
“I don’t think that a statement like this issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he’s under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support,” said the 30-year-old student, Sandra Fluke. …
Fluke said she has not heard from Limbaugh personally but added that she’s not hoping to speak with him.
“The statements he’s made about me over the air are personal enough, so I’d rather not have a personal phone call with him,” Fluke said.
Fluke has the luxury to reject his apology in large part because she has the support not only of the president himself, but of big-name advertisers who have exerted bully-like pressure on Limbaugh. (Even The View’s Whoopi Goldberg said she found the speed with which they were willing to abandon the radio host to be disturbing!)
At this point, while it’s plausible that Rush apologized solely because he’s losing sponsors (as Fluke suggested), it’s also plausible that he has genuinely repented of his word choice. Limbaugh not only said he was sorry with a statement online, but he also opened his show today — his first on-air appearance since advertisers began to pull their support for his program — with a repeat apology, in which he made it clear that he violated his own personal broadcasting standards. In fact, he took a full 30 minutes to explain the entire episode to his listeners, including an explanation for why his advertisers left him (h/t The Right Scoop):
Ed said this weekend he thinks Rush was right to apologize, but I’m not so sure. He was wrong to use the word “slut” in the first place — it’s just a disgusting word that’s better left unsaid and Rush’s use of it conveniently played into the leftist narrative that conservative men are misogynistic (i.e. it was both tasteless and strategically stupid of Rush to say it) — but his apology makes it seem as though he did something wrong by expressing his opinion about a legitimate subject of national commentary.
Folks have made the argument that Rush’s “personal attack” was somehow different than similar name-calling directed to the likes of Laura Ingraham, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. The argument typically goes something like this: Sarah Palin et. al. are public figures, while Sandra Fluke is a private citizen. But, in this instance, Fluke isn’t exactly a “private citizen.” She’s a seasoned activist who introduced the subject of Georgetown law students’ sex lives to the national debate about the Obama administration’s religious-liberty-violating contraception mandate.
Indeed, her unwillingness to accept Rush’s apology underscores that she’s far from a naive private individual who unexpectedly found herself at the center of a national controversy; she made it clear by her remarks on The View that she’s prepared to stoke this controversy as long as she derives a benefit from it. As long as advertisers continue to withdraw support for Limbaugh and the left continues to rally around Ms. Fluke, she’ll milk his remarks for all they’re worth.
The answer: Let’s stop giving Fluke the benefit of this controversy. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs and patiently continue to correct the misimpression (a.k.a. lie) that conservatives want to ban contraception. Nobody wants to ban contraception, but the Obama administration does want to force religious employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to pay for employee health insurance that includes coverage for contraception. It’s to that mandate that conservatives are politically opposed. Some conservatives are also personally opposed to contraception and to sexual promiscuity — but they’re not seeking to change the culture through the government. It’s progressives who prescribe government solutions to cultural ills and, in the process, jeopardize important freedoms.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Hume, Robinson, Powers agree: DoJ investigation of Rosen crosses a big line

Video: Ft. Hood shooter still drawing salary – $278,000 and counting






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Yep. Unfortunately, many Repubs are praying for a messiah (e.g. Obama), instead of lifting their eys to the truth.
TitularHead on April 18, 2013 at 9:43 PM
Wow pappy. A comment that long I just skipped thinking it was ResistMuchWeeWee.
oldroy on April 18, 2013 at 9:44 PM
A merica is a terrible thing to waste.
That joke is from my former boss who fought in the South Pacific. He went to a college to tutor as a volunteer and was surprised that the kids never heard of Iwo Jima. But he was more upset by their denial of American exceptionalism and and lack of commitment.
He had stories to tell them — and me.
Don’t give up. Work with your state or local party. If it feels useless, just try to organize something.
Too few centrist and right people make friends and get involved.
Pray and ask God to lead you.
Great men suffered and died for the fragile thing we have left.
IlikedAUH2O on April 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM
Never have missed a vote. Never will vote again. Let it burn.
oldroy on April 18, 2013 at 9:48 PM
You’ll have to cut TerryE some slack. She’s a party-first kind of gal. Destroying the country is fine with her, as long as a republican wins as a result.
xblade on April 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM
“Because we are sooooo stupid” — The Rs in DC
Schadenfreude on April 18, 2013 at 9:56 PM
To hell with the Republicans.
Sarah Palin, we need you.
Zorro on April 18, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Rubio is a joke and he’s making the Tea Party look incompetent for dragging his phony azz out. He’s thinking he’ll get the Hispanic vote with this move and he’s trying to shore that base up…Mark my words he’ll leave the Republican Party and run as a demorat as soon as he gets this through, well, if he does.
Tbone McGraw on April 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM
So why cant the pubs simply agree that amnesty does not occur u til all litigation regarding border security is resolved? As long as the ACLU and the hundreds of other civil rights groups challange the agreed to framework…no amnesty will occur? If the lotigation is finally resolved against tighter border security, then the deal is dead.
rickyricardo on April 18, 2013 at 11:02 PM
We have seen in the middle-East the negative effect of tribalism and loyalty to the tribe rather than to the country so perhaps Rubio’s support of what appears to be a Chuck Schumer orchestrated amnesty bill is just expressing his loyalty to the Hispanic tribe over loyalty to the USA.
Nomas on April 19, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Illegal immigration could be enforced, we just don’t have many like sheriff Joe who will stand up and try to do what is right. You see NY can put out a bounty on American citizens who own a firearm, but you cannot question the customer or cashier in Wall-mart that doesn’t know a single word of English. If we made employers criminally liable for those they hired and made it ever Americans responsibility to report those that are clearly not American, this problem would be nipped in the bud. But in this day and age, doing what is right will brand you as being a xenophobe or a racist.
SGinNC on April 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Question for Rubio: will there be any quota on Chechnyan Islamist immigration?
Do we have enough of their “diversity” yet?
virgo on April 20, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2