Video: Bennett wonders when Obama will give back Maher’s million

posted at 9:15 am on March 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I assume the correct answer here will be … never. Bill Bennett (my Salem Radio colleague) tangled with Donna Brazile over the comments made by Rush Limbaugh about Sandra Fluke, but Bennett demanded a single standard on outrage. For instance, Barack Obama told the press that he publicly criticized Rush on behalf of his own daughters, because “I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.” Why then, Bennett wonders, did Obama take a million dollars for his super-PAC from Bill Maher, who has routinely called Republican women worse names?

Bennett, who felt Limbaugh’s comments had been heinous, gave the conservative radio host credit for having apologized, which is, he said, “a lot more than Bill Maher and people on the left” have done. “We need to have a single standard on this,” he added, noting that liberals who have made comments similar to Limbaugh’s haven’t faced the same level of public or media scrutiny and, indeed, keep being invited onto networks like, say, CNN.

Blitzer then wondered whether Limbaugh’s apology would have been more effective had he made it to Fluke directly rather than online and via his radio show.

“I don’t know, I think it was fine,” said Bennett. “My question is whether the President will give back the million dollars Bill Maher gave him. I don’t know how he’s going to explain that to Sasha and Malia, when that guy uses language that would make Rush blush.”

Brazile sputters but never addresses Bennett’s point, although she does agree in the end that there should be one standard.

One other point should be made. Rush apologized in the same forum in which he erred, which is the correct policy to follow. Had Rush only apologized in private to Fluke, the Left would have accused him of cowardice under fire and of insufficiency. Fluke and her allies can choose to accept or reject the apology as they like, of course, but two apologies in public forums (website and on air) are sufficient to make the point. In truth, nothing short of quitting his show would satisfy Rush’s opponents, so debating whether Rush offered enough of an apology is a waste of time.


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

Rush quitting wouldn’t mollify the left, only his crow-pecked corpse swinging from a gibbet would satisfy them.

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I hope he gives back the money, ’cause that will solve the deficit and debt problems and bring sanity to our regulatory and energy policies.

/

mankai on March 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Did they interview him in a casino?

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Barack Obama told the press that he publicly criticized Rush on behalf of his own daughters, because “I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

Carrie Prejean, anyone?

Prejean would have loved to have only been Fluked for stating Obama’s position on SSM.

Resist We Much on March 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM

This goes in one ear and out the other with the lsm….nothing will come fruition on the dem side

Pathetic but they will continue with this double standard ad infinitum

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I hope he gives back the money, ’cause that will solve the deficit and debt problems and bring sanity to our regulatory and energy policies.

/

mankai on March 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Not directly, but if not having this million dollars helps defeat Obama in November then we might get to those other things.

dirtseller on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Rush is a victim of his success.

When you are the best, you get held to a higher standard.

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

In truth, nothing short of quitting his show would satisfy Rush’s opponents, so debating whether Rush offered enough of an apology is a waste of time.

Which is the same absurdity as rumors that Rush will be suspended for a period of time for his remarks. He’d have to suspend himself.

Rush’s apologies to the worthless slut that calls herself a reproductive rights activist were more than adequate. Enough already.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I think with what happened with Carbonite’s stock (related or not) and the fact that Maher has now come to Rush’s defense and Olberman apologizing, we have actually come out ahead on this. So, is it time to maybe let it go away now?

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM

As MM said this morning. This would be considered a double standard if the left actually had a standard. The left has no standard, no moral compass, no civility.

jbh45 on March 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Rush quitting wouldn’t mollify the left, only his crow-pecked corpse swinging from a gibbet would satisfy them.

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Only as respects Rush. If they managed to take him down, they’d move on to others with increased vigor.

It looks like the left overplayed this hand (as usual) and are now “sputtering” as Ed put it because they’re increasingly being asked about their own hypocrisy.

This will die out quickly now because the questions like this and the videos of SJL and Jan Shakowsky on Breitbart are starting to make them uncomfortable.

Lost in Jersey on March 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM

They see nothing wrong with it when it is against a conservative

Hang ‘em high

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Could we say that Bennett is betting that they won’t return the money?

/

mankai on March 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I always enjoy seeing Donna Brazile look foolish.

BettyRuth on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Isn’t the conservative argument that Super PACs are not under the jurisdiction of the candidate and therefore Obama has no say if the money is returned. Its just free speech after all.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The truth is, Rush hasn’t been financially hurt at all. He’s always had more advertisers waiting at the door than he has time to accommodate in his three hours each day, and he still does.

RBMN on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

It’s all Obama’s money until he deems you worthy of a share. Maher’s money just found its way back to the rightful owner.

Buddahpundit on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

In truth, nothing short of quitting his show would satisfy Rush’s opponents…

No, some want a lot more than that.

Resist We Much on March 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

And Wolfie continues to beat this drum, first with cuda and now this

I guess using the Valerie jarret playbook

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Hang in there Rush!

Electrongod on March 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Rush shouldn’t have apologized. Every apology and ever backtracking attempt adds fuel to MSM bonfires of fake outrage. The conservatives should learn from the “best”: when Obama does something truly outrageous and is criticized for it, he does something even more outrageous next time and lets his critics drown in their own mouth froth as he escalates his arrogance.

One of the wisest phrases I have seen in my life was, “cat does not care what mice think of him”. Be the cat, not the mice.

Archivarix on March 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

This goes in one ear and out the other with the lsm….nothing will come fruition on the dem side

Pathetic but they will continue with this double standard ad infinitum

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

But it’s worth it to keep pointing out the double standard. Get them on record with their refusal to condemn the remarks of Maher or Uberdouche and throw this in their faces every time they try to claim the moral high ground.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I hope he gives back the money, ’cause that will solve the deficit and debt problems and bring sanity to our regulatory and energy policies.

/

mankai on March 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Not directly, but if not having this million dollars helps defeat Obama in November then we might get to those other things.

dirtseller on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

This issue has nothing to do with the money. The Left is loving it. They are framing the 2012 election. It’s currently about contraception and an imagined “War on Women.”

The million dollars is a drop in the bucket for Obama… and if they did give it back, it’d be easily replaced. This issue means nothing to anyone. It will have zero impact on the election… except to the degree that we fail to talk about the economy.

mankai on March 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

As MM said this morning. This would be considered a double standard if the left actually had a standard. The left has no standard, no moral compass, no civility.

jbh45 on March 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Disagree. The left has a standard and that is to win at all costs, truth be damned. Ends justify the means, etc. etc.

Breitbart learned this. Maybe we all should.

dirtseller on March 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

NEVER!
…and the LSM will go on to other things, furthering JugEars agenda. (Did you notice yesterday at the press conference how he avoided the question…and the other news people were deaf?)

KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Alrighty then, PBHO should at least make a few phone calls to Palin and Ingraham to profess his sympathy for how they’ve been treated by Maher, yes?

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Isn’t the conservative argument that Super PACs are not under the jurisdiction of the candidate and therefore Obama has no say if the money is returned. Its just free speech after all.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Don’t give me that BS. Obama could publicly single out that SuperPAC and request that they give back the million. He can’t communicate directly with them and he’s not allow to give them orders, but he can still call them and Maher out. The fact that he refuses to do so shows he and the rest of the left are full of crap on this.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I’d treat the double-standard as a given.

All questions should be answered with a “well, we’ve known for decades that the Left will never be held accountable for it’s hypocrisy. Now, about the economy…”

That’d piss them off and the idea that Leftist hypocrisy is a given which doesn’t even need discussing would successfully navigate that truth around the MSM wall.

mankai on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Rush shouldn’t have apologized. Every apology and ever backtracking attempt adds fuel to MSM bonfires of fake outrage. The conservatives should learn from the “best”: when Obama does something truly outrageous and is criticized for it, he does something even more outrageous next time and lets his critics drown in their own mouth froth as he escalates his arrogance.

One of the wisest phrases I have seen in my life was, “cat does not care what mice think of him”. Be the cat, not the mice.

Archivarix on March 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Rush’s language was inappropriate. He was right to apologize. The thing is, the Rush’s Fluke screeds were funny, but they would have been even funnier w/o the ‘shock’ language….leave that for Howard Stern.

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Alrighty then, PBHO should at least make a few phone calls to Palin and Ingraham to profess his sympathy for how they’ve been treated by Maher, yes?

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Actually yes. And I would’ve loved for his little Malia and Sasha speech (which was cute, but ultimately paternalistic and condescending) to be geared towards talking about how Maher and Rush demonstrate the ubiquity of patriarchy and sexism in American society. That its not a coincidence liberals and conservatives use “slut” as an insult against outspoken women. That would’ve been truly admirable. But Obama is no kind of feminist and so its the usual partisan games. Rinse, repeat.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The million is probably already spent.

TimBuk3 on March 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I hear ya Doughboy, just hope they hear ya

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Isn’t the conservative argument that Super PACs are not under the jurisdiction of the candidate and therefore Obama has no say if the money is returned. Its just free speech after all.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

If they are using Obama’s name…and Obama has a problem with a particular donor..

Obama can call it out…SuperPac would be wise to heed..

Electrongod on March 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Isn’t the conservative argument that Super PACs are not under the jurisdiction of the candidate and therefore Obama has no say if the money is returned. Its just free speech after all.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I think we should rename you Tasmanian Devil, you spin so fast.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Did they interview him in a casino?

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

….no…probably on a Golf course…where Obama spends all of his time.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Barack Obama told the press that he publicly criticized Rush on behalf of his own daughters, because “I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

Barry is okay with letting Bill Maher call his daughters “dumb c*nts” ’cause Maher is one of Barry’s house tamed attack poodles.

BTW, has Maher provided any proof he gave a million bucks? He seems a bit too tightwad-y even for this.

Dusty on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Don’t give me that BS. Obama could publicly single out that SuperPAC and request that they give back the million. He can’t communicate directly with them and he’s not allow to give them orders, but he can still call them and Maher out. The fact that he refuses to do so shows he and the rest of the left are full of crap on this.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

But you concede that Bennett, and by extension Ed Morrissey is being intellectually dishonest by acting as if Obama can “give the money back.” The very campaign finance system that you all support and advocated for before the Supreme Court relies upon the idea that Obama can do no such thing.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

But Obama is no kind of feminist and so its the usual partisan games. Rinse, repeat.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

So Hope and Change really was just a smokescreen and you got suckered by it, nice that you can finally admit it.

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Me likey Mankai

Zing!

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The thing is, the Rush’s Fluke screeds were funny, but they would have been even funnier w/o the ‘shock’ language….leave that for Howard Stern.

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

That makes Rush…
A Comedian……
But that can’t be…..The left said so.
Oh…because they didn’t find it funny…
I see.

Electrongod on March 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Define ‘slut’ and then compare that definition to Fluke’s admitted behavior. Just sayin’

Knott Buyinit on March 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Bennett copying Sarah Palin from 3/6 11:30 am

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10150665566973588

hrh40 on March 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Define ‘slut’ and then compare that definition to Fluke’s admitted behavior. Just sayin’

Knott Buyinit on March 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

If Fluke had gone in front of congress and said “I have long ears, I bark and walk on four legs” and Rush called her a dog, the left would still be up in arms.

dirtseller on March 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I think we should rename you Tasmanian Devil, you spin so fast.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

You don’t seem to understand the definition of spin. The facts are that Obama can not have communications with his Super PAC. The spin is what’s happening in Bennett’s comments and its being perpetuated by this post. Just look at the language Ed uses

Why then, Bennett wonders, did Obama take a million dollars for his super-PAC from Bill Maher, who has routinely called Republican women worse names?

Well Obama didn’t take anything, his Super PAC did. All of the arguments before the Supreme Court argued that these organizations were separate entities from the candidates themselves. Conservatives themselves consistently made that argument. Could Obama wage a public campaign with the Super PAC to give back Maher’s money? Sure. But that’s certainly not how Ed or Bennett are framing the issue. It is intellectually dishonest and they both know it.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Electrongod on March 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

What is you, ig’nant?

Rush as Entertainer is sooooooooooooooooo 2008.

Rush as defacto head of the GOP is the new popular theme.

Why do you want to be unpopular?

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

So Hope and Change really was just a smokescreen and you got suckered by it, nice that you can finally admit it.

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Oh honey, I knew that the instant he selected Tim Geithner as his Treasury Secretary….

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

But you concede that Bennett, and by extension Ed Morrissey is being intellectually dishonest by acting as if Obama can “give the money back.” The very campaign finance system that you all support and advocated for before the Supreme Court relies upon the idea that Obama can do no such thing.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

..you can try and spin this all you want.
The bottom line is Obama can demand that no money be accepted from the misogynistic bigots on the left.
It’s his PAC….he is the leader of the democratic party and can refuse any money at any time.

With you pathetic logic….the Klan could contribute and Obama would have to take the money if the PAC refuses to send it back.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Libfree, and yet the lsm consistently asked the gop candidates to respond to address their superpacs why can’t obama do the same

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Define ‘slut’ and then compare that definition to Fluke’s admitted behavior. Just sayin’

Knott Buyinit on March 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

yes, we get it, all young single women are sluts.

good luck in november!

sesquipedalian on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I once ran for office as a Republican. There has always been a double standard. The most qualified people don’t get elected because conservatives that love this country set much higher standards for themselves. They play into the double standards and if this doesn’t stop, we will have four more years of destruction in this country.

Obama is a smug, nasty little twit that is playing for any anti-USA team that will hug him. We’re down to the wire on this one.

Hening on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The words rush used will sound quaint compared to the names people will call obama this summer when they have to pay $5 a gallon for gas.

rik on March 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

The fallout from all this is so curious.

Clear winners: women and beta males who don’t like certain words being used in public; liberals of most stripes.

Clear losers: Men of all political stripes who get paid to speak their minds while entertaining people; Conservatives who know Rush should never have apologized.

Draw: Various women talkers who revel in women who castrate their bf/husbands and fantasies abou the same because they cheated. I assume next time a woman goes Full Bobbit on her male lover this anti-slut standard will be applied judiciously? See also: The View, The Talk, etc.

The only winners here are feminine thought police and the conservative men and women who enable them by engaging in “two can play at that game.” The smart thing for conservatives to do – especially the Bennetts and “outraged” R- women of the world – would be to either defend Rush or drop it. By characterizing his remarks as “offensive” – which they weren’t – they helped fuel a narrative that Rush had done something wrong. I’m not sure how getting Maher and Olbermann to backtrack on age-old remarks that were vastly worse helps anything. Republicans: either quit getting offended or start supporting Democrats.

King B on March 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM

But you concede that Bennett, and by extension Ed Morrissey is being intellectually dishonest by acting as if Obama can “give the money back.” The very campaign finance system that you all support and advocated for before the Supreme Court relies upon the idea that Obama can do no such thing.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

We concede nothing. I would say you are intellectually dishonest by acting like you are too stupid to argue about the merits of the debate rather than trying to parse like Bill Clinton. Or maybe you are.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM

With you pathetic logic….the Klan could contribute and Obama would have to take the money if the PAC refuses to send it back.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

You do relize that the precise point of a Super PAC is to give candidates plausible deniability on their connections to problematic donors. For GOP candidates the legal division between candidate and Super PAC makes it easier for them to deny they are controlled by corporate interests. Again, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL WANTED when you cheered the Citizens United ruling. Its just amusing to see it come back and bite you on this issue.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Rush’s language was inappropriate. He was right to apologize. The thing is, the Rush’s Fluke screeds were funny, but they would have been even funnier w/o the ‘shock’ language….leave that for Howard Stern.

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I disagree with you (and Rush for that matter) that what he said was inappropriate. As Rush pointed out, he sunk to speaking like liberals and that is beneath his normal standards. But it was hardly inappropriate because the fact of the matter is professional slut, Sandra Fluke, made her use of contraceptives an issue by that sham Congressional hearing. Where Rush and many others erred was focusing on the fact that Fluke apparently humps with the frequency of rabbits instead of the much more serious issue of Obama’s curtailing religious freedom.

The most interesting thing to me at this point is the fact that Maher isn’t getting a pass. He’s finally feeling the pressure for years of being a pig. Sean Hannity pointed out that Maher is appearing at a fundraiser in Huntsville for Alabama Democrats (yes there are some). I wonder how well the sales for that event are going this week.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

The First Amendment hypocrites will always make excuses, but it doesn’t wash. Until Maher takes back the money (and I think there’s still a chance this will happen), this issue won’t go away.

The attacks on the First Amendment are solidifying into a potent line of attack against Obama. His nasty attack on (primarily) the Catholic Church with the contraception mandate has not gone away. It is still a big issue and the Catholic bishops are not backing down. Taking on Catholics (especially the Irish, Italian, and Hispanics) was a huge mistake by the Obama team.

Now, the First Amendment attacks on free speech via the coordinated (but unsuccessful) attacks on Limbaugh is another way in which Obama and his acolytes spit on the Constitution. Obama has done himself no favors with some of what he’s said about the Limbaugh issue.

Oh, but George Will and other elitists know better: Obama is unbeatable.

EMD on March 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Obama could publicly single out that SuperPAC and request that they give back the million.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Now, now, you know Obama can only “publicly single out”:

George Bush
Dick Cheney
The Tea Party
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Republicans
Paul Ryan
Eric Cantor
John Boehner
Standard and Poor’s
Wealthy people who want to keep what they earned
Slurpee drinkers
Health insurance companies
Corporate jet owners
Millionaires and billionaires
Rich fat cats
Wall Street
Hedge fund managers
Bitter clingers
As$es, who need to be kicked
“Enemies”
Oil companies
Koch Brothers
Americans for Prosperity
Foreign currencies
ATM machine makers
People, who want to be their actual brother’s keeper, and keep more of what they earn
People who don’t eat their peas

Resist We Much on March 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Oh honey, I knew that the instant he selected Tim Geithner as his Treasury Secretary….

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Doesn’t change the fact that you swallowed Obama’s hook all the way to the sinker. Just admit you got suckered and move on, you might gain a little respect around here.

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You don’t seem to understand the definition of spin. The facts are that Obama can not have communications with his Super PAC. The spin is what’s happening in Bennett’s comments and its being perpetuated by this post. Just look at the language Ed uses

Why then, Bennett wonders, did Obama take a million dollars for his super-PAC from Bill Maher, who has routinely called Republican women worse names?

Well Obama didn’t take anything, his Super PAC did. All of the arguments before the Supreme Court argued that these organizations were separate entities from the candidates themselves. Conservatives themselves consistently made that argument. Could Obama wage a public campaign with the Super PAC to give back Maher’s money? Sure. But that’s certainly not how Ed or Bennett are framing the issue. It is intellectually dishonest and they both know it.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

More parsing, more spin.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Define ‘slut’ and then compare that definition to Fluke’s admitted behavior. Just sayin’

Knott Buyinit on March 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I guess in her mind…
She doesn’t want to ask her partner (man) to help in the shared responsibility…
She wants it provided for free so she never has to ask…
A slut by proxy?

Electrongod on March 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Oh honey, I knew that the instant he selected Tim Geithner as his Treasury Secretary….

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Good grief. It took you that long?

Resist We Much on March 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL WANTED when you cheered the Citizens United ruling. Its just amusing to see it come back and bite you on this issue.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Oh, and you liberals were against super PACS? Why the hell then did your jug-eared idol set one up then? Effing hypocrite.

The reality is that it would only take a call from the jug-eared bastard for his PAC to send that check back or on to some left-wing charity. Why hasn’t the bastard done that??? Answer those questions before you post moronic hatred of what you think conservatives think!!!

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Isn’t the conservative argument that Super PACs are not under the jurisdiction of the candidate and therefore Obama has no say if the money is returned. Its just free speech after all.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Here you go, moron. Do I need to tell you who Bill Burton is?

The Count on March 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

But it was hardly inappropriate because the fact of the matter is professional slut, Sandra Fluke, made her use of contraceptives an issue by that sham Congressional hearing.

Oh that’s the other bit of insanity on the part of Rush’s acolytes. Congressional sub-committee hearings are still Congressional Hearings. Here’s a hint. If the hearing has testimony you don’t like it doesn’t mean its any less of a Congressional Hearing. Do you honestly believe Democrats invented some new thing when they held a sub-committee hearing for Fluke? Honestly?

As for this professional slut business, I’m genuinely curious how you came to this conclusion. Where on earth did Sandra Fluke talk about how many men she sleeps with?

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Rush’s apologies to the worthless slut that calls herself a reproductive rights activist were more than adequate. Enough already.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I applaud the defiance of our moral betters.

thuja on March 8, 2012 at 9:48 AM

You do relize that the precise point of a Super PAC is to give candidates plausible deniability on their connections to problematic donors. For GOP candidates the legal division between candidate and Super PAC makes it easier for them to deny they are controlled by corporate interests. Again, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL WANTED when you cheered the Citizens United ruling. Its just amusing to see it come back and bite you on this issue.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Incorrect. What is ‘wanted’ is unlimited, but fully disclosed contributions directly to the candidate. The SuperPACs are what we all have to live with thanks to folks like you, Mr. Feingold and Mr. McCain who think you have the right to monopolize the airwaves…you don’t!

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

But Obama is no kind of feminist and so its the usual partisan games. Rinse, repeat.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

It’s not a “partisan game”….liberals demonize for political gain.

We just got through watching liberals in the streets for years yelling and screaming about “Bush’s war crimes”….”war is not the answer”….”stop the killing”…..”Iraq didn’t attack us”….”they were not a threat”…..”no blood for oil”.

Now that Obama is doing it…..liberals have gone from the streets to the coffee shops….have gone from calling the policies of the War on Terror “war crimes”,to calling it “smart power”.

Liberals exploited the blood and sacrifice of our Soldiers…..used the difficulties of war to demonize their political opposition so they could gain seats on the Hill.

They use these same demonizing methods to humiliate and demean Conservative leaders.To try and destroy their credibility in the public arena.

democrats making hateful and bigoted remarks about Bush and Palin became a regular thing and actually improved their standings in liberal circles.
This is who liberals are and this is what you support on a daily basis….all your spinning does not change that.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

But you concede that Bennett, and by extension Ed Morrissey is being intellectually dishonest by acting as if Obama can “give the money back.” The very campaign finance system that you all support and advocated for before the Supreme Court relies upon the idea that Obama can do no such thing.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

They’re not being intellectually dishonest. You’re being too literal. Obviously Obama can’t directly return that money, nor can he order the SuperPAC to do so. Bennett and Ed’s point still stands though. Obama CAN publicly call out the SuperPAC and Maher and request that the money be refunded in full. Certainly the PAC can say no, but something tells me a group whose sole purpose is to reelect the President won’t refuse to heed his request.

Also, what say you about Maher headlining a fundraiser for the Alabama Democrats to raise money for them? That to me is actually far worse than the SuperPAC donation since the Democrat Party itself is requesting Maher’s presence and in effect endorsing his brand of “comedy”.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

You do relize that the precise point of a Super PAC is to give candidates plausible deniability on their connections to problematic donors. For GOP candidates the legal division between candidate and Super PAC makes it easier for them to deny they are controlled by corporate interests. Again, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL WANTED when you cheered the Citizens United ruling. Its just amusing to see it come back and bite you on this issue.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

So if you know this why do you keep trying to pretend otherwise? I don’t see how it comes back to bite Republicans to point out your hypocrisy, and that of your comrades.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

A single standard sounds nice, until you try it. Take how things have been. The left is full of flame throwing types, You and I both know this, someone from our side throws out a bit of flame, and its Armageddon. If the single standard we have now isn’t working, what makes anyone think a new version of it will work. Does anyone believe the left will stop using the technique? Nope my take is just the opposite, for every comment they make that is over the line, make one twice as over the line. Just make it so that is is built on the back of the one the opposition. For example, we have a poster here at HA that likes to use the the term bigot Santorum. I will now post the word bigot Santorum multiple times after her comment. It doesn’t mean I embrace the term bigot when used in relationship to describing Santorum. It just highlights the inappropriateness of the commenters use of it. Rush likes to illustrate the absurd with the absurd. I think it has been a good technique over the years. He feels as if he went to far with the slut comment. I happen to agree, but only because he didn’t stick strictly to what Fluke had said.

Bmore on March 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

. Congressional sub-committee hearings are still Congressional Hearings.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

It wasn’t a Congressional committee hearing..
It was staged by Peloci

Electrongod on March 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Did they interview him in a casino?

KeninCT on March 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Does it matter.

It could have been a dating site for all anyone should care.

Unless they are as classless as Maher trying the same sort of snide attacks.

cozmo on March 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Bennett copying Sarah Palin from 3/6 11:30 am

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10150665566973588

hrh40 on March 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

He’s not “copying” he’s backing her up in this war over cultural symbolism.

the_nile on March 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Keep playing these games, Ed. Keep being a part of the machine.

Must keep the sheep occupied and bleating over irrelevant, inconsequential matters. Keep them distracted!

Dante on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Doesn’t change the fact that you swallowed Obama’s hook all the way to the sinker. Just admit you got suckered and move on, you might gain a little respect around here.

Bishop on March 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM

If you think I’m going to play some game for your “respect” where I jump through various hoops you’ve vastly overrated my interest in gaining your (or anyone’s) respect around here.

But separate from that non-issue, I’m pretty open about my criticism of Obama and his failure to live up to what seemed to be serious commitments to a progressive presidency. I also found his election compelling as a symbol of America’s incremental progress on race. But, my disappointment in Obama isn’t that I was fooled into thinking he was a moderate.

And more to the point, I find a lot of the criticisms of him from the right infuriating because he’s not a radical break in anything, he’s a continuation of the same neoliberal Presidency we’ve had since Bill Clinton on all but the most superficial issues. Issues like this, which the right claim to hate, but which distract from important economic matters. Like mounting worker exploitation at the hands of American employers.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I disagree with you (and Rush for that matter) that what he said was inappropriate. As Rush pointed out, he sunk to speaking like liberals and that is beneath his normal standards. But it was hardly inappropriate because the fact of the matter is professional slut, Sandra Fluke, made her use of contraceptives an issue by that sham Congressional hearing. Where Rush and many others erred was focusing on the fact that Fluke apparently humps with the frequency of rabbits instead of the much more serious issue of Obama’s curtailing religious freedom.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

We are 90% sympatico…it’s just the ‘s’ word that he should have stayed away from. It’s just got too high of a shock value. Maybe “tramp” would have still been on the ‘ok’ line.

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Doughboy, don’t forget axlerod going on mahers show SD well

cmsinaz on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

This is alinsky , demand democrats to live up to their own rules.

the_nile on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I thought Rush was stupid to feed the left and make this about women issues. But now I have to admit I’m liking this. Having the right point out with all the many examples that the left has given us, this double standard, and watching these pathetic spineless women spit and sputter or refuse to answer makes my heart happy.
My bigggest regret is that none of my Democrat friends have brought this up to me.

How dare theyse women be outraged! Karma’s a b—-.

magicbeans on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

We just got through watching liberals in the streets for years yelling and screaming about “Bush’s war crimes”….”war is not the answer”….”stop the killing”…..”Iraq didn’t attack us”….”they were not a threat”…..”no blood for oil”.

Now that Obama is doing it…..liberals have gone from the streets to the coffee shops….have gone from calling the policies of the War on Terror “war crimes”,to calling it “smart power”.

Quite right, which is one of the reasons I probably hate liberals as much as most people on this board do. My screen name isn’t just tongue in cheek. Hypocritical liberals drive me up the wall. I am part of the left, not a liberal. No doubt conservatives feel the same way about most Republicans.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

You do relize that the precise point of a Super PAC is to give candidates plausible deniability on their connections to problematic donors. For GOP candidates the legal division between candidate and Super PAC makes it easier for them to deny they are controlled by corporate interests. Again, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL WANTED when you cheered the Citizens United ruling. Its just amusing to see it come back and bite you on this issue.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

…and apparently you don’t seem to realize that that candidates PAC is for HELPING the CANDIDATE.That means if he does not support what they are doing,he can demand that they follow his principles or he can cut ties with it.
Obama is not forced to accept the funds are services from anyone he does not support.
This is the same guy that goes to war without Congressional approval….he can certainly stand up to the bigotry of the left.
But he won’t because they stuff his pockets full of cash.
The rules of the Super PAC are being embraced by the same hypocritical democrats that railed against them in the beginning.
But just like Campaign finance reform that Obama whined about on his soap box so self-righteously…..democrats do just the opposite of what they preach and go for the same almighty dollar that they pretend and spin doesn’t matter.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I thought Rush was stupid to feed the left and make this about women issues. But now I have to admit I’m liking this. Having the right point out with all the many examples that the left has given us, this double standard, and watching these pathetic spineless women spit and sputter or refuse to answer makes my heart happy.
My bigggest regret is that none of my Democrat friends have brought this up to me.

How dare theyse women be outraged! Karma’s a b—-.

magicbeans on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Maybe he dropped this bomb on purpose…

the_nile on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Oh that’s the other bit of insanity on the part of Rush’s acolytes. Congressional sub-committee hearings are still Congressional Hearings. Here’s a hint. If the hearing has testimony you don’t like it doesn’t mean its any less of a Congressional Hearing. Do you honestly believe Democrats invented some new thing when they held a sub-committee hearing for Fluke? Honestly?

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

You do realize that the Fluke ‘testimony’ was not at a congressional hearing?? It was at a staged Democratic event…sort of like a press conference.

Deafdog on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Also, what say you about Maher headlining a fundraiser for the Alabama Democrats to raise money for them? That to me is actually far worse than the SuperPAC donation since the Democrat Party itself is requesting Maher’s presence and in effect endorsing his brand of “comedy”.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I think it also hurts her previous argument that Maher is “just” a comedian, because that is how his show is listed in the TV Guide. He is obviously a “Political Speaker”.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Dante on March 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Yeah, got that memo from you on the other two threads. If it makes you feel distracted stop paying so much attention to it. Otherwise learn how to multitask. What exactly is it that you find it distracting from?

Bmore on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

What do you call a girl that needs 30 rubbers a day?

faraway on March 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

The Left: Fluke The Facts

1. Ms Fluke admitted that Georgetown’s insurance pays for birth control pills for non-contraceptive uses.

2. The contraceptive mandate does not apply to student health plans.

3. The topic of the hearing at which Ms Fluke wanted to testify was neither contraception nor insurance.

4. The subject was religious liberty.

5. Maerose Prizzi and her hairy-legged harridans wanted Ms Fluke to testify as a substitute for Rev. Barry Lynn, the President of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State when he had to pull out.

6. Rev. Lynn IS an expert on the subject (some may disagree with his position), but Ms Fluke IS NOT.

7. The panel was NOT all-male as the Democrats alleged. The warriors fighting against the Republicans so-called “War on Women” walked out before Dr. Laura Champion and Dr. Allison Garrett testified.

8. Ms Fluke did NOT testify before a Congressional panel.

9. Ms Fluke did NOT testify under oath.

10. Ms Fluke spoke to a Maerose Prizzi’s weekly kaffe klatsch instead.

11. Ms Fluke believes in “free speech for me and not for thee” as she fought to silence pro-life groups at Cornell.

12. Ms Fluke not only believes that the Catholic Church — not just religious institutions, hospitals, colleges, etc., — should pay for contraception, she also believes that the government should be able to force it to pay for its employees’ sex reassignment surgery.

13. On “The View,” the alleged victim of “hate speech” directed millions of Americans to read about same at Media Matters, a purveyor in “hate speech,” especially Anti-Semitism.

Cry me a Fluking river, already!

Resist We Much on March 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I think it also hurts her previous argument that Maher is “just” a comedian, because that is how his show is listed in the TV Guide. He is obviously a “Political Speaker”.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Maher also started to defend Rush , bill knows he’s in a trap.

the_nile on March 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Quite right, which is one of the reasons I probably hate liberals as much as most people on this board do. My screen name isn’t just tongue in cheek. Hypocritical liberals drive me up the wall. I am part of the left, not a liberal. No doubt conservatives feel the same way about most Republicans.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

More bullsh!t and pathetic spin coming from you.
You have your lips pressed just as firmly against Obama’s butt as the rest of the democratic party.
Your postings on here show nothing but a complete commitment and support for the democratic party and their failed policies.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

You do relize that the precise point of a Super PAC is to give candidates plausible deniability on their connections to problematic donors. For GOP candidates the legal division between candidate and Super PAC makes it easier for them to deny they are controlled by corporate interests. Again, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL WANTED when you cheered the Citizens United ruling. Its just amusing to see it come back and bite you on this issue.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I reject the premise of your comments as it’s just a distraction from the real “precise point” which is that Barry supports the hate shoveled at Rush and will give moral support to that shoveling (by bringing his daughters into it, no less) yet does not lift a finger to scold his supporters who do the same exact thing (and that would apply equally in protecting his daughters.)

Dusty on March 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

yes, we get it, all young single women are sluts.

good luck in november!

sesquipedalian on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

No, just women who need / want $1000 worth of contraception per year.

Mitoch55 on March 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Maher also started to defend Rush , bill knows he’s in a trap.

the_nile on March 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

He may have defended Rush, but he has yet to apologize.

NoFanofLibs on March 8, 2012 at 10:05 AM

yes, we get it, it’s OK for leftist men to abuse their women, as long as they advocate Uncle Sugar Daddy picking up the bill, at the end of the night!

good luck in november!

sesquipedalian on March 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The fixing up of yet another hypocritical leftist retard.

MNHawk on March 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I reject the premise of your comments as it’s just a distraction from the real “precise point” which is that Barry supports the hate shoveled at Rush and will give moral support to that shoveling (by bringing his daughters into it, no less) yet does not lift a finger to scold his supporters who do the same exact thing (and that would apply equally in protecting his daughters.)

Dusty on March 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

See, libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I think it also hurts her previous argument that Maher is “just” a comedian, because that is how his show is listed in the TV Guide. He is obviously a “Political Speaker”.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

…leave it to a liberal to designate certain career titles that allow someone to be as bigoted as they want to be and get a pass…. so pathetic, hypocritical, and expected.

liberals are just to morally bankrupt to be able to admit that a democrat can say and do anything they want no matter how racist or corrupt,as long as they further the goals of the democratic party.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

What do you call a girl that needs 30 rubbers a day?

faraway on March 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I’m sure that is just a fluke.

Happy Nomad on March 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

No, just women who need / want $1000 worth of contraception per year.

Mitoch55 on March 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Really? All women who want birth control pills are sluts? Even married women? Even women in long term monogamous unmarried relationships? Even women who just want relief from painful monthly cramps and heavy flow? All of them are sluts? Fascinating. What women ISN’T a slut under your definition?

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I think it also hurts her previous argument that Maher is “just” a comedian, because that is how his show is listed in the TV Guide. He is obviously a “Political Speaker”.

Night Owl on March 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

He’s far more than a comedian. He’s appeared on the cable news networks(even FoxNews) many times. He’s been a panelist on This Week right alongside George Will(then again so has Meghan McCain). He has countless Democrat politicians and pundits on his HBO show. And now he’s donating a million bucks to the Obama reelection effort and headlining a Democrat fundraiser in Alabama.

He’s a Democrat operative essentially. If someone like Carville said the kind of stuff Maher has, he’d never be booked on TV again. So Maher deserves to be held to the same standard.

Doughboy on March 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

More bullsh!t and pathetic spin coming from you.
You have your lips pressed just as firmly against Obama’s butt as the rest of the democratic party.
Your postings on here show nothing but a complete commitment and support for the democratic party and their failed policies.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Perhaps you’re confusing me with liberal4life.

libfreeordie on March 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2