Michelle Malkin and S.E. Cupp to Keith Olbermann: We don’t buy your belated, fake apology

posted at 4:15 pm on March 8, 2012 by Tina Korbe

After conservatives decried the left’s obvious double standard when it comes to incivility toward women (where was the president’s phone call to the conservative women who’ve been on the receiving end of far worse taunts and insults than those suffered by Sandra Fluke?), repeat rhetorical offender Keith Olbermann sought on last night’s Countdown to justify liberal hypocrisy. The thrust of his argument: It’s not misogyny when liberal men make cracks against conservative women!

For those who he knew wouldn’t buy that argument, though, he also offered something else — an apology to two women he’s insulted in the past. The attacks in question? In October 2009, Olbermann called Hot Air founder Michelle Malkin, “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Then, in April of last year, Olbermann tweeted about conservative commentator S.E. Cupp, “On so many levels she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does.”

While Olbermann continued to insist that his now-notorious comments contained not the slightest hint of misogyny, he did admit they were “mean” and said he was sorry for saying them.

Cupp and Malkin didn’t accept.

“I could hardly hear the “apology” through the din of insults,” Cupp tweeted. She followed that up with: “It’s my parents who deserve the apology. They dared to have me w/o consulting PP first.”

Malkin pointed out the superficial circumstances under which Olbermann uttered his apology: ”No @mediaite, @KeithOlbermann never apologized to ME. He apologized to a CAMERA to make his crap go away.”

I suppose the same could be said of Rush Limbaugh: He never apologized directly to Sandra Fluke (she says she wouldn’t have wanted him to, though) and liberals argue that he, too, made the apology to “make his crap go away” (namely, to stop his supposed “exodus” of advertisers, which didn’t actually occur in the manner in which the MSM touts it).

But Cupp and Malkin still haven’t received a phone call from the president — and that’s no small difference between them and Sandra Fluke. Olbermann, Limbaugh and show hosts like them will continue to make as many provocative comments as they can get away with (good for ratings!) — and apologize for whatever they can’t. But the president’s politicization of a spat that didn’t concern him was what was so new and obnoxious about the entire Limbaugh/Fluke affair. If his excuse is that Fluke is a private citizen, that’s pretty lame: She’s a seasoned activist who, by testifying before Congress, consented to be made the center of any controversy her testimony might spark. Besides, as Jonah Goldberg first pointed out, he never showed such concern for the besmirching of Joe the Plumber.

Furthermore, the president said his interest in reassuring and encouraging Fluke was to encourage young women to speak out. As a woman much younger than Fluke, I can’t say I find it the least bit reassuring or encouraging to speak out when I observe the insults routinely hurled at women who share my ideology and/or receive such insults myself. Either the president wants everyone to feel free to speak their minds — in which case he would call Cupp, Malkin or at least one such conservative woman whom liberals have attempted to silence to make that point — or he just wants liberal women to feel free to speak their minds. I think we all know which it is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

Regarding this “they-did-it-too” argument the right is making, the most bogus aspect is trying to equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, S. E. Cupp and Laura Ingraham are political actors with long records of insulting disparagements of their political enemies. It’s a vital part of what they do every day. They throw punches of their own all the time, and should be able to take what they dish out.

But until this started, Sandra Fluke was an unknown private citizen, a student with a story to tell about the health benefits of contraceptive medication. She had no political statements on record, no history of commentary, no public profile of any kind.

Granted, the comments cited by Maher, Schultz and Olberman were low blows that deserved to evoke the apologies they produced — but they were delivered to women in the arena with them. Everyone in that arena fights with words; hell, they do it for a living.

Limbaugh’s victim was not in the arena. Limbaugh, in a classic cowardly bully’s move, ran outside the arena and punched a bystander. To his eternal regret, she turned out not to be a pushover after all, and she has a LOT of new friends now and he has a lot of new enemies.

There are plenty of other false equivalencies the right is trying to make up (Limbaugh’s 53 insults spread over three days vs. the other guys’ isolated intemperate remarks; Schultz’s on-air apology and week-long suspension vs. Limbaugh’s weak online half-apology and uninterrupted broadcasting,etc.) but the worst is pretending the victims of these remarks were equally undeserving.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

sense either sarcasm or animosity, but I’m reading challenged :)

I only meant Sandra is flukeing ugly, and superficial people aren’t the ones knocking her up seven times daily.

bad joke perhaps, but bad jokes are my thang

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Thanks again. A real peasure doing business with you.

(you may read that as sarcasm)

disa on March 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Michelle Malkin and S.E. Cupp to Keith Olbermann: We don’t buy your belated, fake apology

Maybe they’re being a little hard on Olbermann. It may have taken this long for the small particle of brain lodged in his skull to come up with the idea. Olbermann isn’t very bright.

Kingfisher on March 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM

of course I meant pleasure.

disa on March 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Regarding this “they-did-it-too” argument the right is making, the most bogus aspect is trying to equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

I didn’t realize you could talk out of that orifice – yet you have found a way.

CycloneCDB on March 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Maybe they’re being a little hard on Olbermann. It may have taken this long for the small particle of brain lodged in his skull to come up with the idea. Olbermann isn’t very bright.

Kingfisher on March 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Meh – Olbermann probably heard that Steny Hoyer recommended that Miz Fluke sue, and decided to play it safe.

disa on March 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Regarding this “they-did-it-too” argument the right is making, the most bogus aspect is trying to equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I didn’t realize you could talk out of that orifice – yet you have found a way. (Sorry – full credit where credit is due.)

CycloneCDB on March 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Thanks again. A real peasure doing business with you.

(you may read that as sarcasm)

disa on March 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I read that as a compliment actually, but that’s how I roll

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 5:50 PM

…but the worst is pretending the victims of these remarks were equally undeserving.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Drew, as I mentioned just previously, Rush’s insult was to a 23 year old law student named Sandra Fluke. She’s not real. 30 year old political activist Sandra Fluke is real though.

And sorry, I don’t think any of the ladies you mentioned are dishing out misogyny. They are dishing out political punches and any of those ladies would absolutely take whatever political/philosophical punches were thrown their way.

Care to come up with a theory about Sarah Palin? I don’t recall her calling anyone names. What about her kids? You know, like the girl David Letterman said should be raped on the pitcher’s mound by ARod? I guess she was asking for it somehow, in your twisted mind?

mojowt on March 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Bringing Olbermann’s remarks into the Fluke discussion has provided him with attention he hasn’t had in a very long time. I didn’t know that he was on a network, even if it’s just the Al Gore network. I would have thought he was just throwing his poop at a webcam somewhere. Anyway, his “apologies” are just to help keep the light on him a little bit longer. When I think of the “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick” remark, I wonder what it’s like for him to live a life that is filled with pure, ugly hate. He must not even know that it’s possible to think and live differently.

86 on March 8, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I think we should stop calling this an apology. It was defense of his previous statements – that is all.

Keith probably thinks North Korea is Best Korea

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Best Blog Article I’ve read on the whole War on Women crap so far…

There is more than one feminism, to be sure. Not every feminist is a Fluke. But Fluke isn’t a fluke, unfortunately. Certain strands of that movement–I might even say, predominant strands–want to be proud, independent, and assertive, but without real achievement, real independence, or real opposition. Their ideal is the naked Empress whom everybody agrees is clothed. They make the “liberating” proclamation that they’re sluts, but get angry when someone agrees with them. They feel faint when a woman’s public comments aren’t handled gently. They cry up women’s achievement but try to avoid the hard victory of childbirth and the endurance crown of childrearing. They seek independence . . . through federal laws and federal subsidies. They are Sugar Daddy Suffragettes.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 8, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I can readily understand why you Socialists of the Democratic National Committee would want to distract from the awful economic news of the day and our dear El Presidente’s Downgrading of the nation.

But why are you and the rest of your comrade’s waging a War on liberty?

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

there’s a war on woman folks!

conservative ones

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

the Fluker is a self described activist, more than happy to milk this for her fifteen minutes. There’s ample evidence she coordinated with MMfA and the White House.

She’s not a private citizen minding her own business

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Care to come up with a theory about Sarah Palin? I don’t recall her calling anyone names. What about her kids? You know, like the girl David Letterman said should be raped on the pitcher’s mound by ARod? I guess she was asking for it somehow, in your twisted mind?

mojowt on March 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

You bring up an excellent point. The left went nuts when Bristol Palin announced she was pregnant. The word “slut” was used against Bristol by the left many times.

Kingfisher on March 8, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

by the by – this isn’t about access to contraception!

it’s about violation of the first amendment and religious liberty

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:08 PM

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Let’s be blunt about it.

We need to call what the National Democratic Party of Socialists are really doing:

It’s all just a War on Liberty.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM

As a woman much younger than Fluke…

But, Flukey is just a blushing young co-ed!! An innocent college student!!11! /sarc

KS Rex on March 8, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Obama Super PAC chief: C’mon, you can’t compare Bill Maher to Rush

Regarding this “they-did-it-too” argument the right is making, the most bogus aspect is trying to equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Cheap Democratic talking points.

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

It’s all just a War on Liberty.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM

agreed…it’s like they’re channeling Santz.

Rick (paraphrased) – libertarians suck

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Cheap Democratic talking points.

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Is there any other kind?

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:25 PM

As a woman much younger than Fluke,

Heh.

Courtesybears on March 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Is there any other kind?

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:25 PM

No, no there isn’t, but its always wise to point it out. Some saps continue to believe they are honest in their dealings.

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Sandra is a flukeing 23 year old private citizen like I’m the most interesting man in the world.

I don’t drink beer, but when I do I drink Dos Equis

sharrukin on March 8, 2012 at 6:29 PM

I don’t know about you but I believe everything Deb Wasserman says

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Philisophical question along the lines of the tree in the forest: if you apologize on Current TV, does anybody hear it?

jjverdi on March 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM

jjverdi on March 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM

who knows? We’ll have to wait for an actual apology first

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Lumping Limbaugh with Olbermann just turned me off to YOU, Tina Korbe, and I won’t be reading your threads anymore.

disa on March 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM

you must be a woman…it’s not possible to be turned off by Tina Korbe

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Now now now. She’s entitled to her opinion. Sometimes Tina does write “odd” posts.

Disa, I’m a big Rush fan and I agree that he somewhat stepped in it, but it will shake out in our favor in the long run. Now we see the more “vocal” libs looking over their shoulders. Anytime we can get the libs on the defense is a good day.

Rush took a hit for us and I appreciate it.

kim roy on March 8, 2012 at 6:40 PM

kim roy on March 8, 2012 at 6:40 PM

hehe…I wasn’t really talking about her odd posts :) I’m a misogynist like that.

I’m a big Rush h8tah – I think he took a hit cause he’s an unfunny blowhard for realz :)

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I see Keith Olbermann, I think of Harold Lauder from the Stand.

B Man on March 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Rush said something horrible! Quick, lets see how we can justify this!

Honestly? I don’t care about the slut remark anymore.

How can anyone here justify Limbaugh’s defense of the LRA and Kony because they were supposedly christian?

triple on March 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM

According to liberals its not sexist if the recipient is a public figure, i.e. contrasting Mrs. Malkin vs. Miss Fluke. It doesn’t matter how debasing or dehumanizing the comment based on nothing more than gender if the target is well-known.

OK, let’s test this hypothesis:

Bill Clinton never would have gotten into trouble if Hillary had been a good enough woman to keep her man home at night.

A-a-a-a-and…

GO!

Mr Snuggle Bunny on March 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM

And this is the last I’ll say on the matter but, lets remember Rush’s logic was completely absurd. His whole argument for the slut remark was that she must be having tons of sex based on how much she had to spend on birth control.

Does rush know how the pill works? It’s the same price if you have sex once a year or every fifteen minutes. His argument wasn’t even based in reality, he just wanted to call her a name.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Rush said something horrible! Quick, lets see how we can justify this!

triple on March 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I’ll justify it :)

Sandra Flukes favorite transformer

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Looks mean nothing to me.

disa on March 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I can tell, by your personality!

KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2012 at 7:00 PM

agreed…it’s like they’re channeling Santz Lenin and Stalin.

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

FIFY

Myron Falwell on March 8, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I’m a big Rush h8tah – I think he took a hit cause he’s an unfunny blowhard for realz :)

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:52 PM

So you have no problem with the unjust squashing of free speech. Brilliant.

Myron Falwell on March 8, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Graciousness.

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

-
So when the Mrs. Obama jokes and really nasty comments start, you’ll be okay with those… right?
-

RalphyBoy on March 8, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Thank you for admitting that right wing women deserve to be insulted, in a derogatory, misogynistic manner.

I’d really appreciate it if you wouldn’t spend so many words trying to mask your actual point next time, though. Thanks in advance!

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Bringing Olbermann’s remarks into the Fluke discussion has provided him with attention he hasn’t had in a very long time.

86 on March 8, 2012 at 5:56 PM

His ratings have skyrocketed from 7 viewers to 10!

VinceOfDoom on March 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, S. E. Cupp and Laura Ingraham are political actors with long records of insulting disparagements of their political enemies. It’s a vital part of what they do every day. They throw punches of their own all the time, and should be able to take what they dish out.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

While I disagree with you about one side being worse than the other, I definitely agree with you about Malkin’s embarrassing habit of vicious name-calling. Though I agree with her about the double standard here, Malkin is far from an angel. Most of her writing takes on an angry, extremely mean-spirited tone.

I used to be a fan of Malkin, but now I don’t enjoy reading any of her stuff. The only thing her blog is good for are the “round-ups” where she provides a summary of links about a particular topic (e.g., her “primer on hate”). Other than that, she seems like a sour person who alternates between extreme bitterness and vitriol (when she’s writing about her opponents) and annoying, sickly sweetness and pious baloney (as when she’s writing about a Christmas holiday or something). Her tone rarely falls somewhere in the middle.

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Graciousness.
KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Thanks for the predictable, reflex dry heave from Demento Bizarro World.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM:

the Fluker is a self described activist, more than happy to milk this for her fifteen minutes.

“The Fluker.” Nice. Could be worse; you could have called her what Rush called her. And are you seriously suggesting that she testified before Congress just to get famous?

[aside to another poster to has claimed more than once that Fluke's statements were from a "press conference, not before Congress:" No. You are wrong. She testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. In Congress. That counts.]

Back to DHChron:

There’s ample evidence she coordinated with MMfA and the White House.

Care to cite any?

She’s not a private citizen minding her own business.

No, she’s a private citizen with concerns about contraceptive coverage as a health matter, who gave testimony on the topic before a congressional committee. She’s becoming a public figure now, Lord knows –with special thanks to Rush for that– but she is not a notoriously-pugilistic pundit like Malkin, Ingrahm, Palin and Cupp, which was the point of my original post.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Rush would have to be on the radio 24/7 to equal the record of insults by the Dums over the last 10 years.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

itsspideyman on March 8, 2012 at 7:20 PM

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM:

Thank you for admitting that right wing women deserve to be insulted, in a derogatory, misogynistic manner.

Said that not.

I’d really appreciate it if you wouldn’t spend so many words trying to mask your actual point next time, though. Thanks in advance!

Welcome.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Guess TK is dismissive of Rush. But she hasn’t earned those wings yet. Not by a long shot!!
Please earn your wings before you go putting Rush in a sentence with Keith!

Sherman1864 on March 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

In other words Keith, pound sand.

chewmeister on March 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

No, she’s a private citizen with concerns about contraceptive coverage as a health matter, who gave testimony on the topic before a congressional committee. Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Yeah, she’s a “private citizen” who just happens to be involved with this organization of activists:

Law Students for Reproductive Justice is a national organization represented on 80 college campuses. Its central mission is to guarantee “access to the information, resources, and support [women] need to attain sexual and reproductive self-determination.”

Epic fail, Mr. Lowell.

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Only in Obama’s America will someone spend so much energy on white washing propaganda in order to obfuscate the transparent agenda of a rogue government.

Fluke, who lacks morals and shame, was invited to speak before some congress critters, makes outrageously stupid claims that are falsehoods(that’s lies to you in Rio Linda), and demands that other people pay for her stuff.

And people in America are defending this reprobate?

tom daschle concerned on March 8, 2012 at 7:27 PM

So you have no problem with the unjust squashing of free speech. Brilliant.

Myron Falwell on March 8, 2012 at 7:03 PM

free speech is the bees knees!

doesn’t change the fact that Rush isn’t funny or brilliant or a “conservative thought leader”

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

You miss the point.

The point isn’t that Malkin, et. al “can’t take it”. The point is the double standard when it comes to condemning sexist attacks. Whether or not the target of the insult is a partisan pundit or not is not what matters. What matters is the political ideology of the target.

Conservative women are seen as deserving targets because of their political views.

If you are honest, you would have to admit the double standard is wrong.

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM

No, she’s a private citizen with concerns about contraceptive coverage as a health matter, who gave testimony on the topic before a congressional committee.
Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Please stop it, you’re making a fool of yourself. Ms. Fluk came to this school with an agenda. She could have enrolled in pretty much any secular school in the country and got her recreational needs paid for. She chose Georgetown to start a controversy, and nothing more.

chewmeister on March 8, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Care to cite any?

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

The Daily Caller’s recent expose on MMfA coordination with the white house for one.

Here’s a link I’m sure you’ll discount cause it’s the mythical right wing bubble – libs are nothing if not predictable.

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM

No, she’s a private citizen with concerns about contraceptive coverage as a health matter, who gave testimony on the topic before a congressional committee.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

She did no such thing.

The Democrats tried to smuggle her into the Committee Hearing at the last minute, but she was not allowed to testify because she had not been Vetted.

What you saw, and were Brainwashed by, was the dog and pony show the Democrats then put on to make it appear as if she was testifying in front of Issa’s Committee. She was “testifying” at a Press Conference made to look like a Committee Hearing.

Mission Accomplished!

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I didn’t say you “said it,” I said it was the actual point of your post, because it was. Thanks for playing!

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 7:36 PM

It’s all just a War on Liberty.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM

agreed…it’s like they’re channeling Santz.

Rick (paraphrased) – libertarians suck

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Yup.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Exactly! All a show.

chewmeister on March 8, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Care to cite any?

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

self described womens health (abortion) activist = not a private citizen

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM

What you saw, and were Brainwashed by, was the dog and pony show the Democrats then put on to make it appear as if she was testifying in front of Issa’s Committee. She was “testifying” at a Press Conference made to look like a Committee Hearing.

Glad to hear you bought into the prior Congressional testimony on women’s reproduction that included ZERO women. Talk about the very meaning of inane.

F–

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Have you been able to come up with an answer to the question:

Why is the DNC waging a War on liberty?

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Glad to hear you bought into the prior Congressional testimony on women’s reproduction that included ZERO women. Talk about the very meaning of inane.

F–

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM

It would be just like the Party™ holding committees on energy or business and not haveing energy producers or businessmen there.

Remember Mr. Alford?

I know you do comrade.

Now get out on the sales floor and move some Volts~!

tom daschle concerned on March 8, 2012 at 7:44 PM

She’s not a private citizen minding her own business.

No, she’s a private citizen with concerns about contraceptive coverage as a health matter, who gave testimony on the topic before a congressional committee. She’s becoming a public figure now, Lord knows –with special thanks to Rush for that

It’s hard to believe how you can compare a very broad insult, stolen from a movie and directed at one person with the long running, viscous assault from Rush.

A woman who expects her insurance to cover birth control pills is a slut, a prostitute, an embarrassment to her family, and is expected to provide the public with x-rated tapes of her sexual relationships.

To many, many women, it was an affront directed to all and any woman who dares to speak up for women’s rights to reproductive healthcare, or expect their private insurance to cover birth control pills.

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM

RalphyBoy on March 8, 2012 at 7:13 PM:

So when the Mrs. Obama jokes and really nasty comments start, you’ll be okay with those… right?

When they “start?” You must be newer around here than I am. Compared to what the First Lady usually gets called in these comments, you show her a lot of respect by referring to her as “Mrs. Obama.”

But to address your actual point, I… uh… can’t quite determine what it is. Are you suggesting that because I think that Sandra Fluke is less “fair game” for unjust insult than veteran mudslinging pundits, that I’ll “be okay” with “really nasty comments” about Michelle Obama because she’s a public figure?

If so, you’re doing what my original post was arguing against in the first place: making a false equivalency. Just as Bill Maher insulting Michelle Malkin is nowhere near the same thing as Rush Limbaugh insulting Sandra Fluke, the fact that I point that out does not mean that I believe Maher and my other potty-mouthed compatriots deserve a pass for what they said.

You guys are keeping me hopping around here today…

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Graciousness.

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Gracious? Did you get free tickets for a gay cruise?

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Glad to hear you bought into the prior Congressional testimony on women’s reproduction that included ZERO women. Talk about the very meaning of inane.

F–

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Another lie your side keeps repeating. There were no women on the first panel, but there were two on the second one.

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Bringing Olbermann’s remarks into the Fluke discussion has provided him with attention he hasn’t had in a very long time.

86 on March 8, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Good point. That’s the reason why loser Pelosi called the meeting of that insignificant Democratic Steering Committee in the first place for Fluke to read that speech–it wasn’t “testimony” as the media keeps saying. Old Nan’s feeling irrelevant these days and needed to make a splash. The losers on the left are all trying to make themselves relevant again and steal another 15 minutes.

stukinIL4now on March 8, 2012 at 7:52 PM

To many, many women, it was an affront directed to all and any woman who dares to speak up for women’s rights to reproductive healthcare, or expect their private insurance to cover birth control pills.

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM

You’re wrong this mess is an affront to religious liberty and to general liberty. You’re so bought. One day you will learn to think for yourself.

Read the Constitution as it was written …not they way you wish it would be.

CW on March 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Funny seeing the tards getting all outrageously outraged….about the wrong thing.

CW on March 8, 2012 at 7:56 PM

You guys are keeping me hopping around here today…

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:47 PM

you’re a hamster in the logic wheel – not our fault :)

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Dear Keith,

You’re not.

Sincerely,
HotAirHeads

Limerick on March 8, 2012 at 8:00 PM

A woman who expects her insurance to cover birth control pills is a slut, a prostitute, an embarrassment to her family, and is expected to provide the public with x-rated tapes of her sexual relationships.

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM

You do realize dimwit that he really did not want the tapes and he was making his point about getting paid for sex right? Are you really this thick? I think you are just being obtuse .

CW on March 8, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Glad to hear you bought into the prior Congressional testimony on women’s reproduction that included ZERO women. Talk about the very meaning of inane.

F–

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM

The GOP had two, Dr. Laura Champion and Dr. Allison Garrett. The Democrats were going to have Rev. Barry Lynn. Democrats then changed their witness less than 24 hours before the hearing. They tried to add Fluke w/o being vetted. Committee rules be damn. They then pretended to be outraged before Dr. Laura Champion and Dr. Allison Garrett testified.

You need to be better informed because KOS is lying to you.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:02 PM

equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

So – some victims are more equal than others..?

affenhauer on March 8, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Have you been able to come up with an answer to the question:

Why is the DNC waging a War on liberty?

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Probably would have been gracious to accept the apology. Seventy times seven and all that. But “judge not lest ye be judged” is another set of words to live by. Final set for today: Who has time for all this nonsense?

J.E. Dyer on March 8, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Why is the DNC waging a War on liberty?

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I know, I know! Liberty don’t jive with communism

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:06 PM

OT: Per Fox News, Sandra Fluke is being represented by Anita Dunn’s firm…shocking!

d1carter on March 8, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Why is the DNC waging a War on liberty?

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I know, I know! Liberty don’t jive with communism

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:06 PM

They can’t answer that question because they know it’s so in their soul.

All they can do is dodge the question.

I often wonder if it bothers them that their party is so anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 8:09 PM

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM

This debate isn’t about access, it is about the Federal government forcing a religious organization to change their beliefs to satisfy a 30 year old activist pretending to be a law student to get free birth control.

Don’t confuse the other issue about her friend. Because the Georgetown student insurance provider would have covered her under the scenario Fluke stated.

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM

If I had 3,000 dollars I’d spend 2,500 on weed, 200 on Cheetos, and 300 on the actual cost of contraception/year (the last part if I were a woman :-)

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM

equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Ahhh the spin. Do you at least get paid? If you are willing to whor* yourself out you might as well get paid.

CW on March 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM

That argument cannot be broken by the trolls…they ignore it.

CW on March 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM

If so, you’re doing what my original post was arguing against in the first place: making a false equivalency. Just as Bill Maher insulting Michelle Malkin is nowhere near the same thing as Rush Limbaugh insulting Sandra Fluke, the fact that I point that out does not mean that I believe Maher and my other potty-mouthed compatriots deserve a pass for what they said.

You guys are keeping me hopping around here today…

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:47 PM

So what you are saying is, what Rush said was worse than what Maher said?

If so, you are intellectually dishonest.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I often wonder if it bothers them that their party is so anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

Chip on March 8, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I don’t think they’ve come to terms with liberalism morphing into nanny state fascism.

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM

That argument cannot be broken by the trolls…they ignore it.

CW on March 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Sadly I know this but keep trying to hammer this point home. It seems foolish on my part to keep trying to inform.

If I wasn’t retired I wouldn’t be wasting my time on these people.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Regarding this “they-did-it-too” argument the right is making, the most bogus aspect is trying to equalize Limbaugh’s victim with the victims of Olbermann, Schultz and Maher.

Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, S. E. Cupp and Laura Ingraham are political actors with long records of insulting disparagements of their political enemies. It’s a vital part of what they do every day. They throw punches of their own all the time, and should be able to take what they dish out.

But until this started, Sandra Fluke was an unknown private citizen, a student with a story to tell about the health benefits of contraceptive medication. She had no political statements on record, no history of commentary, no public profile of any kind.

Granted, the comments cited by Maher, Schultz and Olberman were low blows that deserved to evoke the apologies they produced — but they were delivered to women in the arena with them. Everyone in that arena fights with words; hell, they do it for a living.

Limbaugh’s victim was not in the arena.
Limbaugh, in a classic cowardly bully’s move, ran outside the arena and punched a bystander. To his eternal regret, she turned out not to be a pushover after all, and she has a LOT of new friends now and he has a lot of new enemies.

There are plenty of other false equivalencies the right is trying to make up (Limbaugh’s 53 insults spread over three days vs. the other guys’ isolated intemperate remarks; Schultz’s on-air apology and week-long suspension vs. Limbaugh’s weak online half-apology and uninterrupted broadcasting,etc.) but the worst is pretending the victims of these remarks were equally undeserving.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Lots of words and lots of spin to make a point that is substantially false in an effort to manufacture some contrived double standard. Fluke entered the arena of her own volition, and she is an adult. Rush is a cad, and so is any number of liberal hypocritescommentators.

BTW, slick, did Palin’s kids”enter the arena”? What about Trig? What’s the justification for those attacks?

ghostwriter on March 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I’m still waiting for Geraldo to apologize to MM. She was a regular on O’Reilly until that incident a few years ago…

RMCS_USN on March 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Okay, there should be just enough time for this before my wife calls for me to meet her at Chipotle…

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM:
There’s ample evidence she [Fluke] coordinated with MMfA and the White House.

me:

Care to cite any?

then:

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM:
The Daily Caller’s recent expose on MMfA coordination with the white house for one.
Here’s a link I’m sure you’ll discount cause it’s the mythical right wing bubble – libs are nothing if not predictable.

No discounting is called for. Your link is to a Breitbart.com piece that –very Fox News-like– asks but does not answer the question: “Is Sandra Fluke Coordinating With The White House?”

In the piece, it points out that in the course of her interview on “The View,” Fluke recommended that the viewers check out MediaMatters.org. And the Breitbart piece also mentions Tucker Carlson’s recent charges about MMfA and the White House coordinating… something.

If that’s your “ample evidence,” then you need to research the meaning of the word “evidence.” And “ample.” Fluke recommends that people go to the Media Matters site, so therefore her testimony was coordinated by the White House? Bit of a leap, to say the least.

Finally, I myself will quote Media Matters, specifically their lead today on the Breitbart Derrick Bell video dud:

Yesterday, the Breitbart empire stepped up to the plate, called their shot, swung, missed, hit themselves in the face with the bat, then took a triumphant trot around the bases as spectators looked on with piteous and mocking wonder.

Perfect!

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Michelle Malkin and S.E. Cupp to Keith Olbermann: We don’t buy your belated, fake apology

Good. Olbermann’s apology was less than worthless.

rukiddingme on March 8, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Finally, I myself will quote Media Matters, specifically their lead today on the Breitbart Derrick Bell video dud:

Yesterday, the Breitbart empire stepped up to the plate, called their shot, swung, missed, hit themselves in the face with the bat, then took a triumphant trot around the bases as spectators looked on with piteous and mocking wonder.

Perfect!

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM

“Perfect” liberal trick. Change the subject.

Enjoy your dinner lap dog.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Finally, I myself will quote Media Matters…

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Paints using turds

Roy Rogers on March 8, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Well, Michelle got the last laugh, naming her most recent web site after Olby.

Chickyraptor on March 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Perfect!

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM

geez…I said you were predictable and you walked right into it!

MMfA is groping at straws by the by…they’re so scared of the prelude they resort to ad hominem horsesh!t. Sorry Brock! Your site is an irrelevant enemy of free speech.

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:45 PM

“Perfect” liberal trick. Change the subject.

Enjoy your dinner lap dog.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Yep, that’s hat they do…

ghostwriter on March 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 7:47 PM

you’re a hamster in the logic wheel – not our fault :)

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 7:57 PM

..Good show! You and others have done an uncommonly good job at disambiguating Mr Lowell’s Bravo Sierra; appreciate your efforts; nice to agree with you once in a while.

Now we have to determine if he was merely a scout or a stray.

The War Planner on March 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM

This debate isn’t about access, it is about the Federal government forcing a religious organization to change their beliefs to satisfy a 30 year old activist pretending to be a law student to get free birth control.

Don’t confuse the other issue about her friend. Because the Georgetown student insurance provider would have covered her under the scenario Fluke stated.

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I agree that you’re making a respectable argument, although there’s no evidence that Fluke is a ‘fake’ law student.

Rush made a different argument- that her testimony was somehow related to taxpayer subsidies of birth control- and that her expectation of birth control coverage defined her as a terrible individual- as a slut, a prostitute, and an embarrassment to her family.

I can’t reconcile your argument with Rush’s statements, and I don’t see how it compares to a single slur made against a public figure such as Malkin.

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Perfect!

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I am so very proud of you for not saying Faux News though :) It means you’re a clueless liberal but not a cliché occupooper.

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:49 PM

nice to agree with you once in a while.

The War Planner on March 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM

hehe…I’m gonna have to do something about that. Someone blows and they’re all teeth :)

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Please explain why these were anything more than personal attacks on public figures- and while inappropriate, similar to a long-running, vicious attack on a woman based solely on her testimony regarding birth control? I don’t see the similarity.

These remarks could have been addressed at men a well (except the lipstick part). You’re taking an insult directed at a woman and conflating it with misogyny? Give me a break.

bayam on March 8, 2012 at 5:00 PM

That the women in question are in the public sphere does not excuse vile, reprehensible remarks.

Standards are inflexible; if you had any, you’d recognize their characteristics.

massrighty on March 8, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3