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 4

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

Chickyraptor on March 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM

..unless I am mistaken (and I usually am), I think you have conflated Michelle Malkin with The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson. She’s the one wearing the short skirts and high heels.

;-)

The War Planner on March 8, 2012 at 8:55 PM

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 8:51 PM

..whatevs; you did yourself proud, old son!

The War Planner on March 8, 2012 at 8:56 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

Some of us think her behavior was vile.

Don L on March 8, 2012 at 9:03 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

All your pleadings lack specifics; “many, many” is not a quantifiable number – similar to your little trick of throwing one recognized name into a discussion, and adding some weak-tea qualifier like “and a host of other experts;” as if you could list them, but couldn’t be bothered.

Do you not understand that this weakens your feeble arguments further?

In the quest for transparency, you’ve arrived. We see right through you.

massrighty on March 8, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Graciousness Datelessness.

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Bmore on March 8, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Some of us think her behavior was vile.

Don L on March 8, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Sorry, you may have missed my point. I was responding to a poster who was attempting to excuse the tasteless attacks on S.E. Cupp and Michelle Malkin by claiming they were in the public sphere, and therefore any comment was acceptable.

massrighty on March 8, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The War Planner on March 8, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I appreciate that Planner :) Compliments are my favorite, and from you they take on special meaning

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Bmore on March 8, 2012 at 9:06 PM

hahahahahaha

Graciousness Datelessness. varied creepiness (and books!)

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 9:13 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

1st of all she is an amitted activist and choose Georgetown not for their law school, it was due to the fact she wanted to change their contraceptive insurance policy as a 30 year old student activist.

Secondly she didn’t have a “testimony” Per se. She was doing a press conference with Nancy. The testimony never happened as planned, which I explained in an earlier post.

Fluke does want free contraception coverage. She has blogged about this extensively. She either wants the Federal government to force ALL insurers to pay for this, or have the American tax payer pay for it in ObamaCare. Either way she wants to eliminate her burden to pay for it and have someone else pick up the tab.

As for Rush’s comment towards her; I find it intellectually dishonest of people like you to ignore the vile things others have said about women but condemn Rush.

My stance is this, calling a woman any of these names is wrong. That means if they (women) are a public or private citizen. That also means if the person calling these names is a public or private person. What does it matter what station in life a person is to be called vile names? Even if the name called is true you still cross a morale road to state such a name to a woman.

What I find appalling is we don’t know if any of these names ring true of Fluke, Malkin, Palin, Ingraham, Cupp, ect….Yet these insults are hurled and people like you are making moral equivalence to hide behind. Can’t we all just agree that none of these women should be called these names and just move on from there? Can we just show the same outrage at any insult hurled no matter which side a woman falls politically?

Liberals are not being intellectually honest with there responses. This also means you.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

ghostwriter on March 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM:

Rush is a cad, and so is any number of liberal hypocritescommentators.

Agree completely. “Cad” is way too nice a word for what Rush is.

As for my side of the commentariat, I agree with 85% of Maher’s opinions on politics and religion but I wish he didn’t express them so dickishly. Olbermann, in his own way, is just as much a pompous blowhard as Sean Hannity. Ed Shultz is just too low-wattage to be effective as someone with a primetime gig should be; I hope MSNBC replaces him soon with someone smarter, like Chris Hayes or Melissa Harris-Perry.

BTW, slick,

Hey, how did you know I’m bald?!

did Palin’s kids”enter the arena”?

Well, at least one of them, yeah. But I certainly wouldn’t support anyone calling her a slut and a prostitute and I wouldn’t publicly urge her to post online videos of her sexual escapades.

What about Trig? What’s the justification for those attacks?

Someone’s attacking Trig now? News to me. Of course any attacks on a Downs Syndrome toddler would be unjustified, as are your implications that I would think otherwise.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Someone’s attacking Trig now? News to me. Of course any attacks on a Downs Syndrome toddler would be unjustified, as are your implications that I would think otherwise.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

1. Bing.com
2. “Wonkette” and “Trig Palin”

Took my about 3-1/2 seconds, to find one example.

Pay attention. What you’ll learn about your side of the commentariat will, if you have a shred of decency, sicken you.

massrighty on March 8, 2012 at 9:27 PM

ghostwriter on March 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM:

Rush is a cad, and so is any number of liberal hypocritescommentators.

Agree completely. “Cad” is way too nice a word for what Rush is.

As for my side of the commentariat, I agree with 85% of Maher’s opinions on politics and religion but I wish he didn’t express them so dickishly. Olbermann, in his own way, is just as much a pompous blowhard as Sean Hannity. Ed Shultz is just too low-wattage to be effective as someone with a primetime gig should be; I hope MSNBC replaces him soon with someone smarter, like Chris Hayes or Melissa Harris-Perry.

BTW, slick,

Hey, how did you know I’m bald?!

did Palin’s kids”enter the arena”?

Well, at least one of them, yeah. But I certainly wouldn’t support anyone calling her a slut and a prostitute and I wouldn’t publicly urge her to post online videos of her sexual escapades.

What about Trig? What’s the justification for those attacks?

Someone’s attacking Trig now? News to me. Of course any attacks on a Downs Syndrome toddler would be unjustified, as are your implications that I would think otherwise.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

You are either amazingly ignorant or lying.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Tina, or anyone,

Serious question…

Is it worse to call a woman a name; than it is a man? Is a “p***k” less objectionable than the “c” word?

Bonus question: Who makes these “rules”; and where can we get a copy?

TitularHead on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Tina, or anyone,

Serious question…

Is it worse to call a woman a name; than it is a man? Is a “p***k” less objectionable than the “c” word?

Bonus question: Who makes these “rules”; and where can we get a copy?

TitularHead on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 PM

You must be young and not married. All men I know, know you never, ever, ever call a woman a c**t. A rulebook isn’t needed here.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 PM

…Best part of Olbermann ran down his sister’s leg.

/Oh, I am sooooooo sorry, did that offend you, Keith?

john1schn on March 8, 2012 at 9:40 PM

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

Amazing how the left start off with this black and white “This language is degrading to women!” lecture and soon starts injecting all sorts of irrelevant red herrings conveniently designed to free them from the burden of their own past willingness to let degrading language from their own side slide.

“Well, Palin and Malkin are public figures in the arena!”- If the point is that the language is degrading to women in general, I don’t see how it’s relevant whether the original target was in the arena. OK, let’s fix it to “This language is degrading to women, but it’s not quite as bad when directed to commentators already in the arena!”

“But she’s just an unknown private citizen and simply wanted to give Congress her perspective!”- See, I would consider that stepping into the arena, not to mention the fact that she’s an activist. She might be new to the arena, but she was still in the arena. So I guess now the message is “This language is degrading to women, but it’s not quite as bad when directed at people who have been in the arena for a long time as opposed to those who just stepped into the arena!”

Of course, I could go on with the “well, Maher’s just a comedian!” stuff and whatnot, but I think I’ve made the point by now.

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.

Did Maher apologize? I remember him refusing to apologize. Did I miss something there?

NukeRidingCowboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Bonus question: Who makes these “rules”; and where can we get a copy?

TitularHead on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Men (those who were raised by real men) learned these rules as children/young men, and never forgot them.

We all get our imprints from somewhere; if you need a copy of these rules, it may be too late…

massrighty on March 8, 2012 at 9:50 PM

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

-
Sorry… I mistook you for someone of deeper understanding of equal rights and treatment for all American citizens. It seems that you are of an ilk that believes that some equals are more equal than others.
-

You are either amazingly ignorant or lying.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM

-
Thanks for saying it better than I could have.
-

RalphyBoy on March 8, 2012 at 9:52 PM

you never, ever, ever call a woman a c**t. A rulebook isn’t needed here.

Conservative4Ever on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 PM

But it is acceptable to call a man a “p*ick”? I don’t doubt you. I was just curious where we find these “rules,” and who makes them.

Is that same rationale that allows criticism of a white President, but not a black one?

Do you ever wonder why one is okay, and one isn’t? There must be an underlying reason.

Surely, it isn’t because a perceived inferiority/superiority thing.

TitularHead on March 8, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I thought Issa denied the request to have Mz. Fluke testify at a congressional hearing because she wasn’t an expert on religious liberty & San Fran Nan staged a Press Conference to look like a Congressional hearing. Can someone confirm that for me?

margategop517 on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 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

You are an idiot! Rush didn’t direct anything at me! Where were you when Sarah Palin was being run down? WHen she was/is called all sorts of disgusting names? I’m offended, as are many, many women by all of the attacks on such a standard bearer of feminism – Sarah Palin! A woman who not only has stayed married to the same man, but has run a business and won the highest office in her state all the while raising 5 children! The hypocrisy of you people is astounding, but always expected. Go donate to Obama/Maher’s misogynistic superpac and STFU!

JAM on March 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I pretty shocked… to learn that Countdown is on somewhere.

V7_Sport on March 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM

This was just Obly trying to make his show relevant. We all know his show isn’t and no one watches it. I’m amazed someone spotted his apology!! Did he send MM and SE a press release?

KenInIL on March 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Did Maher apologize? I remember him refusing to apologize. Did I miss something there?

NukeRidingCowboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Maher never apologized, to my knowledge, and Schultz was suspended from his show, which we can probably conclude helped coerce his apology out of him. The reason widely circulated for Rush’s apology, loss of money, due to advertisers pulling out of his show, turned out to be an incorrect assumption.

Mr. Lowell is spinning and puking his way to looking like a bigger hypocrite than Olbermann. I hope he keeps talking. I would give him a word of advice, though. When you start out with a false premise, no matter how much you embellish it, defend it, and otherwise pound it home, it’s still a false premise.

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Strangest thing…I totally had forgotten he existed.

magicbeans on March 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM

thought Issa denied the request to have Mz. Fluke testify at a congressional hearing because she wasn’t an expert on religious liberty & San Fran Nan staged a Press Conference to look like a Congressional hearing. Can someone confirm that for me?

margategop517 on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM

That’s a big 10/4. Issa did indeed block Ms. Fluke. Pelosi organized the sham hearing a week later.

“Last Thursday, the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee rejected Democrats’ request that Fluke testify on the Obama administration’s policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control. In fact, no women were included in the hearing’s first panel of witnesses.

Today, she testified at an unofficial Democratic-sponsored hearing (news cameras were allowed, but it was not covered by House-operated TV cameras”
http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/23/10488528-democrats-hear-from-woman-snubbed-by-gop-lawmakers

Please do not infer any endorsement of MSNBC because of the link. It only served to verify Fluke’s testimony was Democrat political theater.

ariel on March 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Keith who?

lol, like bathtub boy and his 10 viewers matter…. ok, ok ,,, maybe he has a couple of hundred… probably not much more than that…

loser… Keith your an irrelevant POS.

RockyJ. on March 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM

the people who stood behind a rapist for a president and aided in destroying all the women who dared make accusations against him and another manwhore who drove a woman off a bridge and left her to die can’t be said to have any sense of right or wrong. nor can they be said to care about women individually or as a class of citizens. they can’t be said to even have a passing acquaintance with the truth.

power not truth. it’s all about power not truth. whom ever has the power is right no matter what they do or say. republicans and the right have not exactly been as beholden to truth not power either. they have allowed the press to manipulate them into submission. they have allowed the press to hide behind a certain narrative. they have empowered their enemies. people only control you as much as you let them. i’d stop looking for apologies and start demanding republicans gather up their gonads and start using what power they may have against their opponents not against each other.

mittens on March 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Fake.

KMC1 on March 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM

They’re getting so squeamish and skittish on the left now that they’re trying pre-emptive strikes to get themselves absolved for past sins before the real bombardment starts and I’m sure Olberjerk has already uttered new insults at these women for telling him to shove his contrived phony apologies. And now it’s out, via Bill O’Reilly, that former WH CommDir and progressive Anita Dunn is representing Fluke, so, yeah, all these roads lead back to the Wretched Hive.

stukinIL4now on March 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Graciousness Datelessness. varied vapid creepiness (and books!)

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM

DHChron on March 8, 2012 at 9:13 PM

DevilsPrinciple on March 8, 2012 at 11:43 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

These women’s vaginas will be surprised to hear they are not suitable to qualify them as women in your book.

As Democrats asked, “Where are the women?” 20 feet from them, Dr. Allison Garrett from Oklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion from Calvin College would explain their belief that this was an issue of religious freedom, not contraception

F–

All I wasn’t to know from jackals like you is this. Is it intentional? Are you lying intentionally? Or do you put so much faith in the Pelosi’s of the world that when they lie to you, you just parrot everything they say?

CycloneCDB on March 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

I honestly am tied up deciding who is the worst scumbag.

Olbermann
Schultz
Mathews
Axlerod
Ayers
Wright
Maher
or…..wait for it….

Obama.

This is getting harder than some of the OOTW.

Wolfmoon on March 9, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Obey has a small dick from what Iv’e heard. LOL!

Winebabe on March 9, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Amen Wolfmoon

Winebabe on March 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Fluke has so much sex she goes broke paying for the birth control…but she’s not a slut.

Ronnie on March 9, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Oh and tina, why are you so sure the “exodus of advertisers” did not occur? Because Rush said so?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203050019

Ad Stats rundown:

A total of 86 ads aired during WABC’s broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show today.

77 of those ads were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council.

Of the nine paid spots that ran, seven were from companies that have said they have taken steps to ensure their ads no longer air during the program.

WABC’s online feed included about 5:33 of dead air when ads would normally have run.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM

You feeling pretty good today stalinist? Just a little bit closer to silencing your enemy?

tom daschle concerned on March 9, 2012 at 1:16 AM

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM

mediamaters.org LOL

TitularHead on March 9, 2012 at 1:25 AM

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

Ignorant women who are too stupid to figure out how to use birth control in the first place.

But it is acceptable to call a man a “p*ick”? I don’t doubt you. I was just curious where we find these “rules,” and who makes them.

Is that same rationale that allows criticism of a white President, but not a black one?

TitularHead

Liberals make them. They are the experts at playing the victim card. That’s why it’s so sad when so-called conservatives use these kind of arguments that you’d normally hear coming from idiots like Obama, or Pelosi, or Maher.

xblade on March 9, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Cupp and Malkin rule. I honestly didn’t know Keith Odormann was even still around.

Roymunson on March 8, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Good point…they bomb on a major network and then resurface or hang on despite the dismal or lackluster ratings…simply because they are Libtards.

As much as they deride Fox News, FNN gives many of them jobs and exposure-Beckel, Williams, Powers and several others. The funny thing is that all the aforementioned and their Liberal peers on Fox News hate Fox News despite Fox News paying them to spout their ideologies and talking points from the White House.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 9, 2012 at 1:29 AM

mediamaters.org LOL

You feeling pretty good today stalinist? Just a little bit closer to silencing your enemy?

It’s the free market. Contrary to right-wing belief Rush does not have the “right” to be on the air and say what he thinks. He has the right to be on air so long as it’s profitable for clear channel.

Rush sells himself to advertisers and radio stations as a product. If he says things that would make advertisers not want to associate with him and his program, he will fail.

The same way air america failed. This is not a right/left issue, so don’t pretend it is.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:31 AM

The same way air america failed.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:31 AM

The difference being, air america had no audience to sell to.

Sucks to be you.

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2012 at 1:35 AM

If Rush did not want to lose advertisers, he probably should have not called Ms. Fluke a slut. /captainhindsight

How you blame “stalinists” for the obvious consequences of Rush’s own commentary is baffling to me.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:38 AM

The difference being, air america had no audience to sell to.

Sucks to be you.

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Audiences don’t pay for airtime, advertisers do.

Is anything stopping you from starting a business and running ads with rush? Go for it. Prove the free market wants rush.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:40 AM

We’re simply laughing at the lib ankle-biters trying to take down Limbaugh. Clinton, Reid, 0bama… they’ve all tried and Rush is stronger than ever.

Best of all, he lives rent-free inside all of your little liberal heads.

TitularHead on March 9, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Audiences don’t pay for airtime, advertisers do.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:40 AM

And advertisers pay for access to an audience.

What color is the sky in your world?

CycloneCDB on March 9, 2012 at 1:47 AM

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I have listened every day this week – haven’t heard a second of dead airtime.

Maybe MMFA MF’ers internet feed was buffering. That happens sometimes.

CycloneCDB on March 9, 2012 at 1:49 AM

And advertisers pay for access to an audience.

CycloneCDB on March 9, 2012 at 1:47 AM

..so long as the relationship with the program (audience or not) isn’t toxic to the company’s marketing and corporate image.

I know, marketing is complicated.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:51 AM

I have listened every day this week – haven’t heard a second of dead airtime.

It was the online feed, the feed the radio stations get direct – which is usually filled with Rush ads. (Sleep number, carbonite, etc.)

You didn’t hear it live on air because your local station filled the dead air with local advertising.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

CycloneCDB on March 9, 2012 at 1:49 AM

MediaMatters is mostly racists and kooks. Zero credibility.

Even the libs are figuring that out.

TitularHead on March 9, 2012 at 1:54 AM

It’s the free market. Contrary to right-wing belief Rush does not have the “right” to be on the air and say what he thinks. He has the right to be on air so long as it’s profitable for clear channel.

Rush sells himself to advertisers and radio stations as a product. If he says things that would make advertisers not want to associate with him and his program, he will fail.

The same way air america failed. This is not a right/left issue, so don’t pretend it is.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Then explain why you stalinists work every day to intimidate his advertisers, run boycott campaigns, and manufacture concern and outrage over what he says?

He is just a guy on the radio, but he constitutes a threat to you stalinists, doesn’t he?

That is why he must be destroyed, right?

tom daschle concerned on March 9, 2012 at 2:01 AM

(S)he who laughs last, laughs loudest.

Good for The Boss, and good for Ms. Cupp.

To hell with unfelt, grandstanding “apologies”. It’s worthless tripe for the lemmings’ consumption.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Then explain why you stalinists work every day to intimidate his advertisers, run boycott campaigns, and manufacture concern and outrage over what he says?

I don’t think you understand what the hell you’re talking about.

The people of Russia had to read what the state allowed, see what the state allowed and listen to what the state allowed. The state’s control of the media was total. Those who attempted to listen, read etc. anything else were severely punished.

That was life under Stalin.

One could not simply boycott the advertisers of state media and remove the puppet of the state. You listened to propaganda and you liked it.

What the left is doing is simply this: Rush called a private citizen a slut, among other things, and so the left is contacting advertisers to voice their complaints that said advertisers would consider supporting something that is widely considered to be offensive. If Rush goes off air due to lack of funds, that’s called something else. It’s not Stalinism.

That’s capitalism.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:15 AM

It was the online feed, the feed the radio stations get direct – which is usually filled with Rush ads. (Sleep number, carbonite, etc.)

You didn’t hear it live on air because your local station filled the dead air with local advertising.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Meanwhile, El Rushbo is smoking a fine cigar and laughing his ass off at schlubs such as yourself who cannot see that you have become that which you pretend to detest.

Heh. Your little dreamworld must be tons of fun.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Meanwhile, El Rushbo is smoking a fine cigar and laughing his ass off at schlubs such as yourself who cannot see that you have become that which you pretend to detest.

Heh. Your little dreamworld must be tons of fun.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:16 AM

I have no doubt that Rush is smoking a fine cigar and laughing at schlubs such as yourself. He will win no matter what happens. He’s a class-A troll and he’s not an idiot – he knew what would happen.

However, I sincerely doubt his advertisers feel the same way, which is why he’s lost over 80 of them.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Oh sorry, that number is 50, not 80.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:20 AM

If Rush goes off air due to lack of funds, that’s called something else. It’s not Stalinism.

That’s capitalism.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Good luck with that, dribble triple.

Your side got caught with their proverbial pants down misrepresenting some half-wit activist as a young “victim” of the supposed lack of contraceptive choices, which is a damn lie from the get-go.

Anyone with half a brain can see that this whole scenario was gamed out beforehand; or is it a complete coincidence that George (I talk to the White House Every Damn Day) Stephanopolous asked the contraception question OUT OF THE CLEAR BLUE SKY during that debate which he helped “moderate”? The whole damn thing’s a set-up, including the so-called student who just happens to fit the phony narrative that Plouffe and Company dreamed up to deflect criticism away from the Jugeared Jesus’ hideously poor performance.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:23 AM

However, I sincerely doubt his advertisers feel the same way, which is why he’s lost over 80 of them.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Watch and learn.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Ah yes, the huge left-wing conspiracy to make rush call sandra fluke a slut. Of course! Why did I not see this sooner??

Thanks for explaining that in a way that completely makes total sense. You are correct and not a crazy person.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Ah yes, the huge left-wing conspiracy to make rush call sandra fluke a slut. Of course! Why did I not see this sooner??

Thanks for explaining that in a way that completely makes total sense. You are correct and not a crazy person.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Your lazy strawman does nothing to refute my assertions about the strategy of your heroes. You know I’m right; I know I’m right — hell, everybody knows that it’s a cooked-up nothingburger. No one ever attempted to limit contraceptive choices, yet your Messiah and all his little minions keep beating that doltish drum.

We’re not that stupid.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:29 AM

ok, hillbilyjim. Two things.

1) You are definitely not a crazy person, I said so myself. Please take me seriously, as I am very serious and not at all sarcastic.

2) Rush is a big boy and can defend himself. He doesn’t need a million loyal followers to defend the indefensible. It’s okay to say calling someone a slut is wrong.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:36 AM

triple on March 9, 2012 at 2:36 AM

Rush was merely pointing out the complete absurdity of the whole contraception imbroglio by being over-the-top absurd in his own inimitable style. He even announced beforehand his intent.

Oh well, I guess it is an acquired taste — to each their own.

Good night and good morning.

hillbillyjim on March 9, 2012 at 2:40 AM

Not only that, he was correct in his assessment of Fluke. He nailed it.

The truth is what really gets these lib’s panties all wadded.

TitularHead on March 9, 2012 at 2:45 AM

You know, it is customary to use a picture of S. C-Cup when she is mentioned in a post.

BDavis on March 9, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Rush was merely pointing out the complete absurdity of the whole contraception imbroglio by being over-the-top absurd in his own inimitable style. He even announced beforehand his intent.

That doesn’t give him license to call someone a slut and a prostitute on national radio.

What if rush called your daughter a slut, over national airwaves? Is that okay, because he’s deemed it “absurd”?

The answer is no, its not okay, and neither is defending it.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 3:33 AM

ALERT * ALERT * ALERT

Sandra Fluke’s parents have made a public statement:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/homeless-couple-arrested-for-having-sex-on-stage-at-danbury-green/

jarhead0311 on March 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM

I suppose the same could be said of Rush Limbaugh: He never apologized directly to Sandra Fluke

Actually Rush retracted the whole thing in the same segment. The main stream media just cannot be bothered to play that part.

NTxOkie on March 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM

Tripster, answer this:
Do you think the country would be better off if Rush Limbaugh was not on the air?

BigAlSouth on March 9, 2012 at 5:31 AM

ALERT * ALERT * ALERT

Sandra Fluke’s parents have made a public statement:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/homeless-couple-arrested-for-having-sex-on-stage-at-danbury-green/

jarhead0311 on March 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM

Ok. That was mean. Funny. But mean. Besides, she does not look a bit like them.

NTxOkie on March 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM

ALERT * ALERT * ALERT

Sandra Fluke’s parents have made a public statement:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/homeless-couple-arrested-for-having-sex-on-stage-at-danbury-green/

jarhead0311 on March 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM

Ok. That was mean. Funny. But mean. Besides, she does not look a bit like them.

NTxOkie on March 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM

Yes I really should not expose her Mum and Dad to such reproach, for that I do apologize.

Also, I realize Sandy is not as good looking as her Mum but when you have multiple partners who knows what will cum of it?

jarhead0311 on March 9, 2012 at 5:42 AM

Tripster, answer this:
Do you think the country would be better off if Rush Limbaugh was not on the air?

BigAlSouth on March 9, 2012 at 5:31 AM

I think conservatism can be better represented. Right now the main proponent of your political ideology is using his show to call private citizens sluts, prostitutes – and his millions of listeners, determined to defend the man – forgot the true purpose of conservative ideals.

Is it a conservative principle to call people whom you disagree with sluts?

You guys can do better than rush. Listen to someone you can respect. Listen to someone you don’t have to apologize for every 5 seconds.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 5:55 AM

You guys can do better than rush. Listen to someone you can respect. Listen to someone you don’t have to apologize for every 5 seconds.
triple on March 9, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Fluke you triple and who r u to give advice to strangers? You part of the Fluke traveling show: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/homeless-couple-arrested-for-having-sex-on-stage-at-danbury-green/

jarhead0311 on March 9, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Fluke you triple and who r u to give advice to strangers?

BigAlSouth asked me to.

What’s your excuse for being a douche?

triple on March 9, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Who cares who apologized to whom?

The facts are:
- Obama is such a failure that he cannot run on his record, so he has to generate conversations on fake issues… like contraception.

- Sandra Fluke is a professional victim, offered by Democratic party strategists to the public as a way to make contraception the issue.

- Ms. Fluke was not offended when Limbaugh mentioned her on his program, she was elated. He made her career. He also vindicated her “testimony,” which was designed to evoke just such reactions. Her outrage is all, and I do mean all, for the camera.

Limbaugh ought not to have apologized. His comment was on the money (pun intended): she was asking for public subsidy for an unrestrained lifestyle. But his apology was also pointed: “I’m behaving like they do.” Now we’ve illustrated just how common it is to hear public leftists insult women the way Limbaugh did. We all knew that was so. Let’s move on now.

If the exposure will make leftists think twice before insulting conservative women again, this all will have been worthwhile. But I’m not holding my breath. They’re speaking out of the heart, and revealing who they are on the inside. I, for one, and glad to have the evidence in public.

philwynk on March 9, 2012 at 7:04 AM


Sandra Fluke speaking out?? give us a break with that “Govt should pay us to have sex” crap, and then the so called Pres of the US calling that nut job on the phone

HAGGS99 on March 9, 2012 at 7:11 AM

Someone’s attacking Trig now? News to me. Of course any attacks on a Downs Syndrome toddler would be unjustified, as are your implications that I would think otherwise.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Do you live in a cave? Andrew Sullivan has been obsessed about Trig and where he came from since Sarah Palin became Joh McCain’s running mate in 2008.

zoyclem on March 9, 2012 at 7:14 AM

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

When liberals mention “reproductive healthcare” what they are really talking about is abortion. You support the practice obviously, so why not come out and say it rather than try to disguise it with less offensive words?

zoyclem on March 9, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Oh cool, I can play that game too.

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Does anyone know why S.E.Cupp no longer makes appearances on Fox News? She used to be one of the funniest guests on Red Eye. Did she make a business decision to move on, or did she get the boot?

humdinger on March 9, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Oh cool, I can play that game too.

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Yes, the majority has embraced religion in this country since its founding and that’s why American women are bound and shackled now.

What a fool.

zoyclem on March 9, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Are you really implying that liberal female leaders are not also insulted?

Please – everyone insults everyone. This moral high ground in civility is straight up stupid.

A Axe on March 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

You know that you sometimes have to apologize “for yourself”. I’ve done it. I was told another guy that “It’s not like me to snap at people and I’m sorry I was short with you.” This made him a little uncomfortable and he said “I don’t need your apology”. I replied “Hey, I don’t need your acceptance. My standard is to apologize for any time when I’ve treated someone in a way that I would not want to be treated.”

Even though Rush’s apology was not purely for Fluke’s benefit, he did indicate that he had not lived up to his own standards.

What Keith is doing here–and what I think Maher does as well is commit a fallacy that I’m formulating right now. I call it “Intentional Fallacy”. It is a fallacy that works like this, I did not intend to do that, therefore I did not do that. I don’t intend to snap at people–and if you knew me as a co-worker you can see that 98% of the time, I do a pretty good job. But just because I don’t intend to snap at people and be short, it doesn’t mean that I don’t accomplish this.

Liberals imply this disconnect when they see conservatives “trying so hard to be nice to black people” (thus intending not to be racist) to override their bigoted feelings below–which come out in outbursts and “code words”. Because to liberals, conservatives have a “bad heart”. But it could be said that despite the sewage that dwells in the conservatives veins, they intend to avoid being racist to black people.

But they often say that I can’t be misogynistic, because I support Woman’s causes. As if they can’t compensate for some bilious notion inside them. Can a pillar of the Church community say “I can’t be abusing my kids, look how often I’m in Church!” and get away with it? No. The directional skepticism (not true, methodological skepticism) of the modern world would fire right in with the answer: Sure you can! People can try to be respectable yet have a loathsome on the inside. The skepticism of the age understands this.

But comes from the fact that people are instances of an experiential cluster, not projections from a rational theory.

So to sum it up: It would be my policy to accept Kieth’s apology–even if it were only for himself and his standards, if it weren’t for justifying his behavior by Intentional Fallacy that he can’t be misogynistic because he wears the Democrat white hat and not the Republican black one.

Axeman on March 9, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Oh cool, I can play that game too.

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

You can play this game too? Liberals are the owners of that game. What you’re saying is “religious freedom” is a “code word” for theocracy. Do a search on “code word” and “dog whistle” the vast majority of people who engage in this straw man method are liberals.

But I’m pretty sure that you can see a difference between the freedom to do something and making everybody else do something based on your belief. Thus it’s an implication that NO conservative can see the same thing in regard to religion (because they’re religion-muddled!!). And that’s little-league ball, pal.

Axeman on March 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Are you really implying that liberal female leaders are not also insulted?

Please – everyone insults everyone. This moral high ground in civility is straight up stupid.

A Axe on March 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Well, apparently, they can be because they’re public figures. My standard doesn’t sink this low, but apparently I’m allowed to call Michelle Obama what Paul Newman and Judge Roy Bean called the Dancehall girls–and worse.

Are a lot of conservatives tasteless these days? Yes, they are. Michelle Malkin wrote about that a couple years back about the increasingly popular “South Park” brand of conservative. But face it, saying offensive things about other people was never as popular until it was theorized by Marcuse of the Frankfort School that you wear your opponent down by shouting filth, and when they sense the conveyed hostility, there is a natural human decency that doesn’t want to re-engage with that person–and you use this force to your own advantage. Political invective, hostility and public obscenity comes from the power games of the LEFT. And then you add to that public ridicule and game-playing from Alinsky’s win-at-all-costs-because-our-cause-is-right methodology.

All this crap–plus the value of “pushing the envelope”–started on the LEFT and was all about ramming through a progressive agenda against the friction of a people who thought different.

There’s a certain Hegelian sense that progressives did not anticipate, continually entertaining themselves (ala Alinsky) with obscenity and invective rhetoric (ala Marcuse), they never anticipated the push back from a Synthetic brand of vulgar conservatives. Now that they have this new brand to contend with–and Rush is a vanguard of this, because Rush relates that he wanted to promote the ridicule qualities of SNL and other “fun” that the Dems (Alinskyan dynamic) were having in a conservative direction–and now we ridicule you and call you bad names and you turn all Blanche Dubois on us.

But you have to, and so your next move commences.

Axeman on March 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Whoops. Forgot to answer your question.

Are you really implying that liberal female leaders are not also insulted?

A Axe on March 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Of course, I’m not the “you” in question, but anybody who would imply this just needs to scan down a page of comments at Hot Air. But of course you could compare it to scanning down the page at Democratic Underground or Daily Kos, and if you were open to the experience, you might see a difference. I’ve found that HA is not as consistent with the high peaks of incivility; it reaches some of the same highs. But there is also more of the distribution at the low end.

Most searching and civil discussions that I’ve seen between major political factions are conducted on CONSERVATIVE boards. And while the “GET OFF OUR FORUM” posts are not unrepresented on C-forums, they aren’t the salvo and firewall that they are on liberal forums.

Axeman on March 9, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The white western conservative/Christian male is the lowest creature on the food chain these days. If you criticize someone who is black, you’re a racist. If you criticize a homosexual, you’re homophobic. If you criticize a woman or a known slut, you’re a misogynist. Oh, that’s right, I’m sorry, the word slut is considered insensitive these days. I meant to say a loose woman who has sex with whomsoever she wants to without being married. I will just have to learn my place I guess.

NeverLiberal on March 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Yeah, you’re right. We should take away those laws and morals that force our religion onto others. We’ll start off with murder and rape, then move to child molestation and after that, theft.

There! Since you obviously embrace those crimes, we shouldn’t force our religious values on you.

(/sarc, like I really need to enter this tag)

Kingfisher on March 9, 2012 at 11:30 AM

You guys can do better than rush. Listen to someone you can respect. Listen to someone you don’t have to apologize for every 5 seconds.
triple on March 9, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Like Obama? Who’s he going to apologize to today?

Kingfisher on March 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I would like to remind my fellow conservatives that while the left is fixed upon Fluke and her sluttly friends, Obama is taking away medical coverage for our military personnel but not to union workers.

http://www.inquisitr.com/200985/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers/

Considering the coverage (or rather, the lack thereof) from our lib “friends” and the media, it is obviously clear what their priorities are and it’s certainly not the military.

The next time you hear a libturd say that they support the military, tell them that they should go to hell! Maybe Fluke can give them one of her “specials.”

Kingfisher on March 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Fluke Keith Olbermann!

Colony14 on March 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I created a nice montage of Olbermann verbal diarrhea a couple of years ago. Let this remind you what a slime ball he is, there is no way his apology can be sincere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFD79m7HUJk

TheLoudTalker on March 9, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I thought Issa denied the request to have Mz. Fluke testify at a congressional hearing because she wasn’t an expert on religious liberty & San Fran Nan staged a Press Conference to look like a Congressional hearing. Can someone confirm that for me?

margategop517 on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM

From Doc Zero himself:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50096

dthorny on March 10, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4