March 5, 2012

The Rush Limbaugh show is on in a few minutes. I'm live-blogging it.

11:06 CT: "I knew it was getting bad..." He got a busy signal trying to call himself to cancel his own advertising for his Two If By Tea product. He begins with a joke. Then gets serious. He's going to explain what the apology really means. And people haven't understood it. His error was "becoming like" his critics by using "those 2 words." He tries to "maintain a very high level of integrity," and those 2 words were "uncalled for... and I, again, sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke." He never thought she was "either of those 2 words." He never uses those words, he asserts, and by using those words "I descended to their level." If you descend to the level of your opponent, he says, "They win." "There was no ulterior motive... no speaking in code... That's why I apologized."

11:10: At this point, Limbaugh details the the time line of the controversy, beginning with Issa's hearing. "Democrats tried to play a game" with that hearing. The hearing was originally not about contraception, but because Obama has a problem with women voters, Democrats decided to make the hearing about contraception and therefore to replace their male witness with the female Sandra Fluke (in violation of the committee's rules), Limbaugh said. This led to the spectacle of Fluke's exclusion, and then the Democrats' subcommittee staged testimony with Fluke, which, Rush asserts, showed her not to be the kind of expert who belonged on Issa's panel. Fluke "gave vague examples based on unnamed friends."

11:18: Georgetown is a Catholic University, Limbaugh says. Fluke didn't need to choose to attend that institution. "Why are you really there? Actually, they know what they're doing. They intentionally" choose institutions like this in order to work within them, trying to change them, he says. And Obama is trying to force these institutions to pay for birth control, over their moral objections. And the Democrats used Fluke to advance their agenda, he says. He wishes he'd said that last week. He focused on the idea of her having frequent sex because he's trying to be entertaining and it was relatively easy to do. That was the wrong focus. "I acted too much like the leftists who despise me.... It's way beneath me. It was wrong. I apologize — because I succumbed."

11:27: "The left... the media... giddy that some advertisers are leaving the program." But these advertisers have "done very well" through using his show to reach his audience. "They've decided they don't want you.... This show is about you, not the advertisers." He knows he's successful because of the listeners.

11:33: Intro music to this next segment is "Higher Ground." The previous segment began with "She Bop." Rush says he rejects millions of dollars in advertising because he puts the audience above the advertisers. He rejected GM, he says.

11:35: "The advertisers who don't want you — fine, we'll replace them." He criticizes those "on the left" who pressured the advertisers. That's not something he and his people do.

11:37: "I'm not waiting for apologizing from people on the left" who say "despicable" things. He mentions Bill Maher and Sarah Palin. "Don't expect apologies." He's portraying himself as on a higher level — "Higher Ground" — than his critics. He apologizes (for sinking to their level), and they don't apologize (it's their level). And they don't respect you, the people who make up his audience, who mean so much to him.

11:38: He quotes Tocqueville: "It is indeed difficult to imagine how men who have entirely renounced the habit of managing their own affairs could be successful in choosing those who ought to lead them. It is impossible to believe that a liberal, energetic, and wise government can ever emerge from the ballots of a nation of servants." That sets up a more general attack on Obama and the Democrats.

11:52: I won't live-blog all 3 hours of the show, but I'll listen to the rest on podcast later. To sum up:
1. Rush emphasized his high values and his apology for falling from them.

2. He characterized the left as consistently behaving at the level that he unfortunately descended to and as never apologizing for that behavior.

3. He wishes he'd emphasized what really matters, which is how the Democrats played Issa's committee to try to help Obama with his problem appealing to women voters. [ADDED: I note that he helped the Dems win at this game.]

4. He loves his listeners and does the show for them, not the advertisers, of whom he has plenty champing at the bit to get onto the program.

329 comments:

1 – 200 of 329   Newer›   Newest»
edutcher said...

I think this is a working definition of the phrase, "being played".

But, then, Rush was, too.

Kirby Olson said...

Let sleeping sluts remain dogmatic? Let's not have any rush to judgement. Judge not lest ye be judged. Hi ho hi ho, it's off to court we go. Rush Hour Traffic. It must be far nicer to be over at NPR where they don't have to worry about advertising dollars and instead get steady dependable tax dollars to throw out their slutty dogmatic opinions.

The Crack Emcee said...

I'm listening,...

cubanbob said...

Rush ought to do the following:
have his listners call Pro flowers or the other advertisers that drppoed him and place an order with the promo code Rush and when the order taker states that promo code is no longer valid tell the order taker to cancel the order.

That will certainly grab their attention.

edutcher said...

The 11:10 and 11:18 comments are the meat of the issue.

The Lefties wanted a Full Court Alinsky Grovel and they're getting the facts thrown back in their faces.

Their worst nightmare.

Somewhere, up there, Andrew Breitbart is smiling.

garage mahal said...

SHOCK: Limbaugh blames Democrats.

Quayle said...

The Lefties wanted a Full Court Alinsky Grovel and they're getting the facts thrown back in their faces

What Alinsky never understood, because he never understood Christ, is that Christians (a) don't purport to be able to live up to Christianity, only to be able to keep trying, and (b) forgiveness and repeat/retry is at the heart of Christianity.

LouisAntoine said...

Fluke wants her MEDICAL INSURANCE to cover her MEDICAL COSTS.

She does not want taxpayers to pay for them. She does not want Georgetown to pay for them. She wants her insurance, which she pays into, to cover them.

Why does Limbaugh continue to lie, over and over again?

Quayle said...

Shock: Garage only heard Rush through his left ear.

The Crack Emcee said...

Going after the advertisers who cut out - now we're talking:

GO, RUSH!

Jacques Cuze said...

His rationalizations so far and his comments re advertisers and listeners make it hard for me to understand why people wouldn't take his apology seriously....

Ann Althouse said...

"She does not want taxpayers to pay for them. She does not want Georgetown to pay for them. She wants her insurance, which she pays into, to cover them."

She wants the government to require the insurance companies to cover it. Let's be accurate!

Quayle said...

Fluke wants her MEDICAL INSURANCE to cover her MEDICAL COSTS.

She does not want taxpayers to pay for them. She does not want Georgetown to pay for them. She wants her insurance, which she pays into, to cover them.


If she isn't relying on the funds from others in her insurance pool to pay for her care, then it isn't insurance at all, it is a payment processing method.

So stop calling it insurance.

Or do you even understand what this means?

hombre said...

Limbaugh has 15 million listeners - today more. His advertising rates are exorbitant. If he wants new sponsors, he will lower rates and get them. The Dem shills who are cackling here don't understand the play of the free market.

Rush Limbaugh and this bullshit will not be an issue when the general election rolls around.

This is a distraction for nitwits.

Jacques Cuze said...

"He knows he's successful because of the listeners."

If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold. -- http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven-discontent#3256046

Jay said...

LouisAntoine said...
Fluke wants her MEDICAL INSURANCE to cover her MEDICAL COSTS.


Um, if birth control is a "medical cost" words have no meaning.

Jay said...

She does not want Georgetown to pay for them. She wants her insurance, which she pays into, to cover them.


Er, Georgetown does "pay for them" since they, as the provider, are sponsoring the plan.

Could you be any more ignorant on this topic?

DADvocate said...

Georgetown is a Catholic university that tolerated racial discrimination by its basketball coach for decades. They deserve the bad PR.

Joe said...

Wow, Jay, if BIRTH control isn't a medical cost, words have no meaning.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

I would really like to know tomorrow, or whenever it's available, how many people tuned in to listen to Rush today compared to his average listenership. We've got two lawprofs live blogging it (Althouse and Legal Insurrection), and everybody else with a blog, a column to write, a talk radio program to fill with content, and cable "news" networks (including Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert) are listening.

Hopefully Mediate or someone with access to Nielsen data will publish how much Rush's ratings spiked today.

I'll be surprised if he does not set a new record in the number of people who listened today.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LouisAntoine said...

Limbaugh cannot handle the substance of this debate. He very much prefers to fight on comfortable ground: the media is against me. Fine. But instead of getting hung up on the way he was crass and insulting (which he always is with people he disagrees with), his detractors should focus on the substance. He is spreading misinformation, i.e. he is lying, on the substance of the issue. Fluke never asked for anyone to "pay for" her contraception, except for her insurance-- as Anne points out, through a government regulation of insurance.

Have conservatives argued that this debate is about cutting medical costs? That insurance companies should be freer to turn down types of coverage for whatever reason they see fit? No, because that's a VERY unpopular line of argument to run on. "We fought for the rights of insurance companies to deny you coverage!" is not a winning platform.

Rush also hilariously knows very little about women he didn't learn from watching his cat. So we couldn't expect him to know that women take contraception at a fixed rate no matter how much they have sex. And that they use contraception to regulate other health issues, like painful menstruation and ovarian cysts, etc.

Why anyone would go to bat for this guy, to defend the ignorance and lies of a multimillionaire, points to a disorder of partisanship in this country that is mind-boggling.

AJ Lynch said...

Shock:

Sandra Fluke, the Methodist Democrat, rejects Rush's apology.

cubanbob said...

louie to the extent that employer paid health insurance is a tax deductible item there is a taxpayer subsidy. to the extent a non-profit and charitable organization is required to pay for it there is a taxpayer subsidy.

And since Fluke never claimed that she needs the pills for a medically indicted purpose what is the insurable issue?
So far the only lie is your observation.

Ann if you are going to insist on accuracy then lets be clear and state that Fluke wants policyholders to subsidize her sex life and she wants the government to force other people to subsidize her sex life. Not only is sheca slut but but a facsist as well.

Jay said...

She does not want Georgetown to pay for them. She wants her insurance, which she pays into, to cover them.


How dumb are you?

Seriously.

Georgetown as an employer and every employee pays for the insurance.

Kit said...

A direct apology would have been best, not the press-release that sounds more of a justification to program sponsors. He’d of been best to have kept it short, perhaps:

“I wholeheartedly apologize to Ms. Fluke. My remarks about her were ugly, deceitful, and cruel. I offer no excuse, as there in none. In all seriousness, I crossed the line and I am sorry.”

Any more is just incoherent self-congratulation, hand-wringing and finger-pointing.

LouisAntoine said...

Can anyone help me figure out whether Georgetown's insurance covers Viagra?

Jay said...

He is spreading misinformation, i.e. he is lying, on the substance of the issue. Fluke never asked for anyone to "pay for" her contraception, except for her insurance

Actually, you're the one lying.

Either that, or you don't understand group medical insurance at all.

RoBanJo said...

The appropriate thing about Rush's statement was he actually apologized. As opposed to the non-apologies (eg "If what I said offended anyone...")so commonly heard. Sincerely - RoBanJo

Jay said...

LouisAntoine said...
Can anyone help me figure out whether Georgetown's insurance covers Viagra?


Why would it matter?

Can you find out if there is a federal government mandate to pay for viagara?

Again, how stupid are you?

Quayle said...

Can anyone help me figure out whether Georgetown's insurance covers Viagra?

What difference does it make if it does?

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT!

If you or your feminist friends don't like what Georgetown covers or doesn't cover, go to a different school.

MayBee said...

No, Georgetown's insurance does not cover Viagra, fertility drugs, allergy treatments, or treatment for alopecia(although this they do treat at the student health center).
I believe it does also not cover vision treatment.

I'm never sure why bc pills are compared to Viagra rather than condoms.

john said...

LouisAntoine said...
Can anyone help me figure out whether Georgetown's insurance covers Viagra
?

I don't think there are a lot of middle age golfers at Georgetown. Could be wrong on that, tho.

LouisAntoine said...

This is what is so incredible about this debate! The right is stuck advocating for things that are just face-palmingly unpopular. "Freedom of contract." Like, I don't have to rent to minority tenants! I can fire people just because they're old! Freedom! I don't have to treat disgusting women at my hospital! Freedom! Freedom to be an unreconstructed bigot and meathead.

Keep it coming! You are the last holdouts in the Alamo, etc., freedom fighters...

Darcy said...

@Quayle at 11:29

Alinksy and great many other people don't understand this about Christians. Yes.

RuyDiaz said...

She wants the government to require the insurance companies to cover it. Let's be accurate!

Which in effect means forcing other people to subsidize her. Although you are being more accurate, the commenter wasn't far off target.

P.S. Hello people, how have you been?

MayBee said...

It seems to me people who object to Viagra object because they imagine the men taking it are dirty old men who just want to get it up and push themselves on women. Kinda the mirror image of the "slut" accusation.

If a man truly is having dysfunction, that affects his ability to perform as well as for his partner to enjoy the sex women are supposedly fighting to have.

chickenlittle said...

I liked Limbaugh's dedication to his audience. There are some blogs out there like "Trooper York" which do the same.

Peano said...

The Rush Limbaugh show is on in a few minutes. I'm live-blogging it.

Oh, good. We could never make sense of it without your brilliant interpretations.

Could you help us out with the evening news tonight?

hombre said...

LouisAntoine: Limbaugh cannot handle the substance of this debate.

Here is the real “substance of the debate,” LA. Show us how a smart lefty handles it.

It is absurd to believe:

That for the gov’t to compel a religious institution with scruples against birth control and abortive practices to provide insurance including those things raises no constitutional issues;

That compelling the insurance companies to absorb the costs of said coverage eliminates those and other constitutional issues;

That the preferences of people as reflected by polling ought to override the Constitution;

That a significant number of people want to use this issue to regulate recreational sex (or that the few who might are all Republicans);

That contraception is, per se, a health problem;

That doctors will be precluded from prescribing contraceptives for the treatment of medical conditions if the opponents of Sibelius/Obama policy are successful;

That taxpayers or other third parties ought to be required to pay for birth control so that men and women can engage in recreational sex;

That the cost of birth control imposes an inordinate financial burden on the users;

That this issue is crucial to the future of our country;

That a significant number of women (and men) are stupid enough to think otherwise and to vote for Democrats as a result.

Sadly, it appears from your comments and other recent comments on the Althouse Blog that a number of fairly articulate people endorse some, if not all of these absurdities.

AJ Lynch said...

I wonder if any Georgetown Law students have the balls to stand up and say they disagree with Fluke's testimony?

LouisAntoine said...

No MayBee. Viagra is there to point out that men get preferential treatment for the problems that effect only them, versus the problems that effect only women. A lot of insurance covers viagra, which could be seen as optional, while not covering birth control.

It's doubly strange when you consider the cost savings down the line from birth control. Not to mention, for pro-lifers, that it prevents abortions.

I have to conclude that some of these people are just plain stupid.

Jay said...

The right is stuck advocating for things that are just face-palmingly unpopular

Yes!

Because everything that is popular is good! And everything that is good is popular!

And, and, and, Fluke the floozy isn't asking anyone to pay for her birth control!!!

Well, except for the University and every employee of the University.

RuyDiaz said...

@ Louisantoniette;

Men get preferential treatment in medicine? Hahahahahahah.....

Shane said...

I called Carbonite to cancel my two year subscription and was told there are no refunds. By uninstalling Carbonite I'd essentially be giving them a donation.

Apparently the only way to hurt Carbonite is to affect their potential sales, or persuade those who signed up within the last 60 days to end their subscription and get refunded the pro-rated amount.

Quayle said...

LouisAntoine says: This is what is so incredible about this debate! The right is stuck advocating for things that are just face-palmingly unpopular. "Freedom of contract." Like, I don't have to rent to minority tenants! I can fire people just because they're old! Freedom! I don't have to treat disgusting women at my hospital! Freedom! Freedom to be an unreconstructed bigot and meathead.

Thanks, LouisAntoine, for making clear what we already knew about you - you are not for freedom.

You are for you deciding who in society is acceptable and who is not, and using the power of the state to reward and punish them.

You have completely given up on your ability to persuade your fellow citizens with words and reason, and have decided to just shut down the entire discussion through government edict and force.

Do you even have a clue how despicable your and your kind are?

LouisAntoine said...

The next thing you know, women will be asking to paid as much as men for doing the same work. That's an unpardonable attack on freedom of contract and the constitution.

RuyDiaz said...

@Shane;

They are more interested in the customer--who keeps on giving them revenue--than in the customer's money. Cancelling hurts them anyway.

Rialby said...

"It's doubly strange when you consider the cost savings down the line from birth control."

Why stop at birth control for cost savings? If cost savings are the driver, aren't there a number of things that the government should mandate all employers to cover in their insurance packages that control cost? For example, why doesn't Obama mandate that GTown's insurance policy cover abortion? It's a "medical issue" and it "saves cost".

cubanbob said...

LouisAntoine said...
This is what is so incredible about this debate! The right is stuck advocating for things that are just face-palmingly unpopular. "Freedom of contract." Like, I don't have to rent to minority tenants! I can fire people just because they're old! Freedom! I don't have to treat disgusting women at my hospital! Freedom! Freedom to be an unreconstructed bigot and meathead.

Keep it coming! You are the last holdouts in the Alamo, etc., freedom fighters...

3/5/12 11:53 AM

Right because being obligated to subsidize someone else's sex life is a winning argument. Only an idiot or a liberal can make you conflating subsidizing someone else's sex life with racial discrimination. But then again I repeat myself.

Jay said...

Viagra is there to point out that men get preferential treatment for the problems that effect only them,

Except for the fact that there is no federal mandate to pay for Viagra.

A lot of insurance covers viagra, which could be seen as optional, while not covering birth control.


Hysterical. Viagra = "optional" and the pill = "not option"

Again, how dumb are you?

It's doubly strange when you consider the cost savings down the line from birth control

Cost savings for whom?

Not to mention, for pro-lifers, that it prevents abortions.


Um, that would be false.

there is no peer-reviewed research, analyzing actual data on contraception spending and abortion rates, that finds a negative and statistically significant correlation between the two.

Interestingly, if one examines Planned Parenthood’s annual reports dating back until the year 2002, there is a consistent increase in both the number of individuals receiving contraceptives from Planned Parenthood and the number of abortions they have performed.


I have to conclude that some of these people are just plain stupid.


You've made a complete idiot of yourself here.

Carry on.

AprilApple said...

“Completely ignored is the more fundamental problem: this mandate is not only about the bedroom, it’s about the boardroom. You’ve heard of crony capitalism? Well this is America’s first example of crony contraceptives. Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of ‘the pill,’ which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all ‘FDA approved contraceptive methods.’ It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment. . . . It’s important to point out that among President Obama’s biggest financial backers are precisely the Big Pharma companies who benefit from the mandate.”


-Peter Schweizer - the Daily Beast

Mike said...

LouisAntoine

The viagra comparison isn't to birth control - it is to menopausal medication and vaginal dryness remedies. Things that treat medical conditions which prevent proper sexual functioning.

If viagra were available recreationally, which you apparently think it is, you would have a point.

Geetz Romo said...

dig it baby.

can obama make the insurance companies and the catholic squares kick down a lid or two of some kick ass maryjane? that black cat has some serious pull.

i'm flat out of bread and need to deck up a few.....for medical reasons, dig?

chickenlittle said...

Rialby said...
For example, why doesn't Obama mandate that GTown's insurance policy cover abortion? It's a "medical issue" and it "saves cost".

Don't give them ideas.

MayBee said...

No MayBee. Viagra is there to point out that men get preferential treatment for the problems that effect only them, versus the problems that effect only women. A lot of insurance covers viagra, which could be seen as optional, while not covering birth control.

It's doubly strange when you consider the cost savings down the line from birth control. Not to mention, for pro-lifers, that it prevents abortions.


Really? A lot of insurance covers viagra but not birth control? Do you have numbers?
If birth control saves money, why would any insurance company opt for the viagra coverage instead of birth control coverage?

And yes, viagra could be seen as optional, just as medicine for women's bladder control issues could be seen as optional. It just isn't on the same level as birth control, which is available for men. What I'm saying is this: if a coupled man can't have sex, both partners suffer, right?

Neither viagra nor condoms nor vasectomies are being mandated by the government. The idea of men receiving preferential treatment in insurance- especially now- is counter to reality.

Jay said...

Why stop at birth control for cost savings? If cost savings are the driver, aren't there a number of things that the government should mandate all employers to cover in their insurance packages that control cost?

Which is why these people want to ration care.

They're all for deciding who gets to live and die.

But all the "death panels" stuff was hyperbole!!!

edutcher said...

When he says, "The advertisers who don't want you — fine, we'll replace them.", he's hitting them where they live and reminding everyone of the power of the Conservative dollar.

He admits he fell for a trap; he's big enough to admit a mistake.

As I said Saturday when all the trolls thought they'd won something, no, this is smart.

Now he has everybody listening to the facts and reminding his erstwhile advertisers that he's heard on hundreds of stations while Ed Schultz is on a couple of dozen.

As our little Lefties love to say, "Eat it".

phx said...

Listen to him. Read the quotes. Are those your conservative values? Are they good values?

cubanbob said...

I called Carbonite to cancel my two year subscription and was told there are no refunds. By uninstalling Carbonite I'd essentially be giving them a donation.

Apparently the only way to hurt Carbonite is to affect their potential sales, or persuade those who signed up within the last 60 days to end their subscription and get refunded the pro-rated amount.

3/5/12 12:00 PM

Dispute the charge. If enough Rush subscribers do that it will break them. Once the credit card companies charge back the payment pending the dispute process they will fold when their cash flow dries up.

Shane said...

@Ruy

I thought about that, but I'd rather be getting something for the money I paid (space on a server somewhere) than to have the owner keep my money free and clear - it's as near to giving a donation to Move-on.org as I'll ever get.

I did tell the customer service rep that I'll just have to do what I can to make sure no one else signs up. They've got my money and they won't give it back - so it's the least I can do.

RuyDiaz said...

@Rialby;

You are conceeding the main point for no good reason. Birth control does not lead to savings in the long run. Society as a whole needs children that can become productive citizens in the future. This is especially true in our current society, with pay-as-you-go programs like Social Securite and Medicare that depend on a stream of productive workers to pay the benefits of the beneficiaries.

MayBee said...

The next thing you know, women will be asking to paid as much as men for doing the same work.

Will we also start demanding we pay the same auto insurance rates, life insurance rates, and have the same life span?

Russell said...

@LouiseAntoine
"
Fluke wants her MEDICAL INSURANCE to cover her MEDICAL COSTS.

She does not want taxpayers to pay for them. She does not want Georgetown to pay for them. She wants her insurance, which she pays into, to cover them."

Paying 'into' is not the same thing as 'paying for' is it? Someone ELSE is subsidizing it. And that someone is religiously opposed to something they are being FORCED to pay for (something that is also relatively inexpensive). Where is the lie?

And another general point, there was a time where 'insurance' was meant to cover EMERGENCIES, not ALL COSTS. Do you whip out your Allstate card when you get your oil changed or a tire fixed? Yes, I know that boat has sailed, but that is also the reason why medical insurance in general is so F'd up. Insurance was never meant to be an ATM machine.

(Note: I'm not defending Rush's abusive slur he used. I would have gone with 'tool of the liberal media industrial complex', but maybe that's just me)

Shane said...

@cubanbob

Thanks Bob - that sounds promising. I'll look into it.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

Viagra is covered because it addresses a sexual dysfunction. Birth control pills do not cover any kind of dysfunction (spare me the rare exceptions when birth control is prescribed for ailments other than to prevent pregnancy).

The cost of birth control is a routine, regular expense to avoid pregnancy. Sorta like eating food is a regular routine expense to avoid hunger. Or paying your heating bill is needed to have warmth when it's cold.

Except that food and heat are necessities for life, as opposed to birth control which is not.

It so violates every principle of insurance that ANY health insurer ever covered the expense to begin with. All they were doing were jacking up premiums from men and women who don't use birth control, collecting their cut off the top, and shifting the money over to the women who use birth control.

Insurance was invented to cover events that happen 1) infrequently; 2) can have ruinous financial consequences; and 3) happen by accident or from an act of God.

Birth control and health "insurance" is not insurance at all.

Jay said...

As a reminder, the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all “FDA approved contraceptive methods.”

Pretending that is the same as Viagra (can you have sex when 1 partner is disfunctional?) is silly & obscene.

Nosmo said...

Comcast,a big Obama supporter, is still one of Rush's advertisers.

David said...

A fluke is also a flounder.

I would say Rush is still Fluking.

traditionalguy said...

OK, Rush admits that there is the good Rush and there is the bad Rush. Which reminds me of Newt's personality.

We have long admired and been intrigued by the intelligence of the good Rush.

But the bad Rush, while he is fun when he is attackings our foes, becomes a real embarrassment when he attacks women for female issues that he doesn't understand.

Conservative Men are now like Romney and other GOP Senate candidates. The bad Rush has put us all into the position where must pretend that we can't stand Limbaugh.

machine said...

Obama now leads Romney by 55 - 37 percent among women...

Keep it up....

Sofa King said...

Keep it coming! You are the last holdouts in the Alamo, etc., freedom fighters...

Okay...I'm not sure you really want to be on the other side of that analogy, actually; you may have noted (or perhaps I assume too much) that Texas is not in fact a part of Mexico...but I digress.

phx said...

I'm just surprised if anybody serious on the right wants to be tied to this guy.

chickenlittle said...

cubanbob said...
I called Carbonite to cancel my two year subscription and was told there are no refunds. By uninstalling Carbonite I'd essentially be giving them a donation.


Carbonite remissions are not covered under the Kyoto Protocols. They do however contribute to global warming.

Jay said...

machine said...
Obama now leads Romney by 55 - 37 percent among women...


I bet!!!

Obama is like so popular!!!

And of course all that matters is polling.

Not whether or not something is a good idea, just polls (which of course you have no source for or link to).

cubanbob said...

LouisAntoine said...
No MayBee. Viagra is there to point out that men get preferential treatment for the problems that effect only them, versus the problems that effect only women. A lot of insurance covers viagra, which could be seen as optional, while not covering birth control.

It's doubly strange when you consider the cost savings down the line from birth control. Not to mention, for pro-lifers, that it prevents abortions.

I have to conclude that some of these people are just plain stupid.

3/5/12 11:59 AM

Abstinence accomplishes the same goal and is even cheaper. I have come to the conclusion judging from your comments that you are indeed an idiot.

Maybe the left can explain in simple terms for the great unwashed just why it is a public good to be paid for by them to subsidize Fluke's love life. Please explain to the ignorant masses how someone who can afford to go an elite university can't find the money to pay for her pleasure. Please do so. I'm sure it will be very entertaining.

mariner said...

I don't understand why birth control pills are being equated with Viagra.

Viagra helps the body to work as designed; birth control pills *keep* the body from working as designed.

From a medical point of view they are not equivalent but opposite.

LouisAntoine said...

Republicans: Defending the Rights of Insurance Companies to Deny You Coverage

Oh, and Stop Having All the Sex, You Sluts

It's a winner. Go with it. Really in tune with 21st century America. Romney 2012.

RuyDiaz said...

@Jay;

'Machine' is engaging in a bit of old-fashioned bandwagon campaigning. Keep mention how popular Obama is, how his re-election is inevitable, etc. in the hope of energizing the left and discouraging the right. I supposse that, if you are a complete tool, that's a good investment of your time.

chickenlittle said...

Russell wrote: And another general point, there was a time where 'insurance' was meant to cover EMERGENCIES, not ALL COSTS. Do you whip out your Allstate card when you get your oil changed or a tire fixed? Yes, I know that boat has sailed, but that is also the reason why medical insurance in general is so F'd up. Insurance was never meant to be an ATM machine.

I'm with you but you must realize that the President's followers willfully misunderstand insurance. Remember Obama's 2008 campaign speech where he chastized his old auto insurance company for not giving him comprehensive coverage for the price of collision insurance when he was a student?

They really do want something for nothing.

Quayle said...

Oh, and Stop Having All the Sex, You Sluts

It's a winner. Go with it. Really in tune with 21st century America. Romney 2012.


I think the winner is: these Obama folks want to spend all your money and tell you what you can and can't do.

That definitely IS a winner.

And you know it.

And you also know your man in the White House is in serious trouble politically.

Which is why you are really trying hard to distract and divert.

MayBee said...

Republicans: Defending the Rights of Insurance Companies to Deny You Coverage

Georgetown also does not cover organ transplants. Did Fluke go to Congress demanding zero copy organ transplants?

The "deny you coverage" thing isn't going to go away with Obamacare. There is never going to be a time we get all we want for zero copay.

Oh, and Stop Having All the Sex, You Sluts

Isn't that what you are saying with your Viagra arguments?

Nathan Alexander said...

@Louise,
The next thing you know, women will be asking to paid as much as men for doing the same work.

Yeah, I can see why a feminist like yourself would be against women taking a pay cut in favor of pay parity.

Or are you stupid enough to believe the liberal Big Lie that women get paid less than men for identical work?

chickenlittle said...

@RuyDiaz: Disingenuity (bad faith) is a feature of certain contributors to the Althouse comment section.

Never take certain commenters seriously.

alppuccino said...

I want Obama & Co. to force the insurance companies to pay for my haircuts.

How can I chase tail if my mullet is frayed.

But I'm not a hound dog, I just have a healthy appetite for poonani.

Scott said...

Why argue about whether a particular policy covers viagra or birth control pills? It would be wrong for the government to mandate that either are covered. An employer should be free to purchase a policy or not, and to have that policy cover, or not cover, whatever the employers wants to pay for. Want more? Buy more.

Sofa King said...

Republicans: Defending the Rights of Insurance Companies to Deny You Coverage

A lie. "Deny" is not the same as "decline to offer." Burger King is not "denying" me pizza because it isn't on their menu, even if it is the most convenient restaurant for me to "access." The republican position would be more accurately stated as "protecting your right to buy a policy that fits your needs."

Quayle said...

And why inwardly you are scared.

'Cause you remember how well you guys did in 2010.

And you can feel the ground swell of blow-back coming right at Obama.

MadisonMan said...

I wonder: Does something like this increase his listenership and make his show more attractive to advertisers?

I assume it does.

Quayle said...

Remember LouisAntoine?

"It's the economy, stupid!"

David said...

LouisAntoine said...
No MayBee. Viagra is there to point out that men get preferential treatment for the problems that effect only them, versus the problems that effect only women. A lot of insurance covers viagra, which could be seen as optional, while not covering birth control.


Well, Medicare does not cover Viagra or similar drugs, so the most comprehensive program does not cover the drug for the group of men who need it most.

And, you sexist pig, why do you assume that Viagra benefits only men? My wife, for one, would disagree.

MayBee said...

Let's imagine, for a moment, that the tables were turned and ONLY condoms and vasectomies were being mandated for zero copay.

What would we be hearing from our pro-mandate friends?

Lyssa said...

The next thing you know, women will be asking to paid as much as men for doing the same work.

Will we also start demanding we pay the same auto insurance rates, life insurance rates, and have the same life span?


We should start demanding equal representation in prisons and on college campuses as well.

RuyDiaz said...

@chickenlittle;

Yeah. I remember a few from when I posted here often. As Thomas Sowell has written: "while it is true that there are honest disagreements, there are also dishonest disagreements." Some of the commenters here fall on the latter category.

rhhardin said...

Homophone trouble: [Rush on rap] The p-word, meaning urinate, is common now.

prairie wind said...

AprilApple...I saw that, too. Excellent point.

Anytime the government requires gets its hands in something, the costs skyrocket. Now that drug companies are sure of payment for bc, who thinks the cost will go down?

phx said...

Who is Rush helping? Republicans? Democrats?

He isn't sorry. He's fighting mad. He's not the one who's low, he's saying. It's his opponents who are low! That's no apology.

John Stodder said...

What's really going on is, Rush is losing it. Last year, I had very few entertainment or news options, so I listened to a lot more Rush than I had in many years. What I noticed was that whereas in the past he'd been reliably funny, he was almost never funny anymore. And he seemed very cranky, most of the time, and very frustrated with both what he called the GOP Establishment (shades of the non-Rinos on this site) but also Republican voters and poll respondents who offended him by not going along with his preferences. Like many right-wing talk show hosts, he pushed the absurd notion that independents were actually MORE conservative than avowed Republicans, and the ONLY way to get them was to nominate a candidate like Bachmann, Cain or Santorum. He also pushed the notion that the GOP Establishment was the source of all Romney's support, and that their play was to nominate Romney expecting him to lose, but hoping he would minimize losses in congressional races. Unlike the old days however, he seemed to confuse his opinions regardless of any empirical facts and facts.

I expect he can back up his bravado about advertisers. This is not going to drive him off the air. But his show is terrible now, and it would be better for the conservative movement if he retired. He's survived controversies in the past that liberals hoped would drive him off the air, but he's older now and doesn't have the moves he used to have.

phx said...

He sure shows a lot of contempt for his advertisers as well.

Why shouldn't they be boycotted? I think the Dems ought to double down after this.

Lyssa said...

Re: Carbonite - my subscription is right at up, and I was debating renewal when I found that they rejected post-apology. THEN, I found out that they still advertise on Ed Schultz, who famously called Laura Ingram a slut, several times, and aparently just for kicks.

Assholes. They got a nice email from me promising that I won't be renewing.

garage mahal said...

This is all going exactly as planned. Onward!

roesch/voltaire said...

I noticed he didn't mention his riff on asking for the video tapes, but tried to narrow the focus to the word "Slut," because he knows that there is no excuse for the other over-the-top attacks HIs claim that he was descending to tactics of the left is ironic considering he has made attacking the person( through name calling) a regular part of his propaganda.

phx said...

Why shouldn't the Dems go after the stations that host him? Is that a problem?

rhhardin said...

Contraception doesn't save money. It eliminates the worker that's supposed to support today's population when they're old.

Lacking that worker, costs rise. Supply and demand, with less supply.

cubanbob said...

LouisAntoine said...
Republicans: Defending the Rights of Insurance Companies to Deny You Coverage

Oh, and Stop Having All the Sex, You Sluts

It's a winner. Go with it. Really in tune with 21st century America. Romney 2012.

3/5/12 12:19 PM

Next you know Louie is going to be advocating in favor of subsidizing gigolos and hookers for those who can't make use of their subsidized birth control.

Keep digging Louie. You will hit China someday.

chickenlittle said...

@garage: I thought "forward" was your motto. Or was is "further"?

The Crack Emcee said...

Rush did O.K., not great but, I guess, enough to keep me in the fold.

He's now discussing Andrew Breitbart being from West Los Angeles - as I am - and how that changed him.

I'm discussing Andrew and the blogospere today, too.

Great minds think alike,...

bgates said...

The right is stuck advocating for things that are just face-palmingly unpopular. "Freedom of contract." Like,

I can cancel my advertising on a talk radio show!

Or we can eliminate freedom of contract and let the next Congress pass a law that says Limbaugh's free speech rights would be violated unless all past advertisers return to the fold, no matter what he decides to charge them.

phx said...

Please don't tell us that there is faux outrage over this.

It doesn't matter that there is. There's good reason to be outrage. And frankly, the GOP deserves having to wear this. They aren't very smart it seems.

Salad fork for the main course indeed.

MayBee said...

I just can't get over my sudden realization that the anti-Viagra rant is hilarious w/r/t this birth control= slut outrage.

The anti-Viagrists really do want to accuse men of being sex-enjoying prowlers, using Viagra for their own lascivious desires and possibly to force themselves on women. As opposed to women, who should be empowered to have sex without being called bad names.

chickenlittle said...

rhhardin: Contraception doesn't save money. It eliminates the worker that's supposed to support today's population when they're old.

I thought their plan was to import more workers and give them the right to vote Democratic?

phx said...

When is the GOP going to get serious about divorcing themselves from Rush Limbaugh?

Gumby said...

Rush is a foul misogynist racist pig as are all who listen and agree with him.

You know I am only joking.

I apologize if anyone mistook my words as being offensive to misogynist pigs or other creatures who live in shit.

cubanbob said...

phx said...
Why shouldn't the Dems go after the stations that host him? Is that a problem?

3/5/12 12:35 PM

And I'm sure when the republicans defund NPR you won't have a problem with that. Incidentally if the republicans were to go after the stations that host liberals can I assume you will have no problem with that?

RuyDiaz said...

Speaking of tools....

Hello Garage! How have you been.

William said...

I think it was kind of cool that Limbaugh's first commercial was for a product that regulates hormonal imbalances due to menopause.....He pronounced the woman's name "Fluck" instead of the usual pronunciation of Fluke. Was that a dig or is that the way the woman's name is pronounced? If the woman's name really is pronounced Fluck that explains a lot. If not, Limbaugh has dug a little deeper hole, so to speak.....I listen to Limbaugh precisely because he is funny and hyperbolic in his criticism of liberals. After all the ridicule Stewart, Letterman, et al heap on conservatives, it's good to get a little of your own back. Ok, in this case he went too far, but is the offense really that odious and despicable......Does criticism of a man for being bald, overweight, and viagra user count as verbal sexual abuse?

hombre said...

@ LouisAntoine: "LA. Show us how a smart lefty handles [the substance of this debate]. (Listing issues)" (11:58 AM)

LA was under no obligation to address real issues, of course. But it is fair to assume from his/her silence that he/she is just another lefty troll spouting talking points on an issue about which he/she kinows nothing.

And that's the game for the Dems, isn't it? Rally the dupes.

edutcher said...

Actually, I think the trolls are scared. Look how much FUD they're trying to spread. Trying to find something that will stick.

Again, Rasmussen's approval index has Zero at -18 (25% Strong Approval, 43% Strong Disapproval).

He can't win with numbers like that.

Nathan Alexander said...

I wonder if it bothers all the liberal Fluke apologists that they are working so hard just to line the pockets of Big Pharma?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/02/peter-schweizer-big-pharma-s-role-in-the-contraception-debate.html

Didn't Big Pharma used to be the bad guys?

No wonder so many liberals want to live off the govt teat; it's a full-time job just keeping up with the latest Liberal Enemy List.

Jay said...

phx said...
When is the GOP going to get serious about divorcing themselves from Rush Limbaugh?


When anyone on the left pretends they care when conservative females are called sluts.

Hagar said...

Limbaugh is making a bad mistake by giving more airtime to this.

chickenlittle said...

phx said...
When is the GOP going to get serious about divorcing themselves from Rush Limbaugh?

What does Romney think of all this anyway?

RuyDiaz said...

Slightly off topic....

The part of the story I find most surreal is that Obama called Ms. Fluke to... what exactly? Console her? Knight-in-shinning-armor comes to save damsel in distress. Ridiculous.

phx said...

LA was under no obligation to address real issues, of course. But it is fair to assume from his/her silence that he/she is just another lefty troll spouting talking points on an issue about which he/she kinows nothing.

Yeah, and if I had a quarter for every time a rebuttal of mine went unanswered by the righties. And then I'd like a quarter for each time someone was so poorly equipped or so poorly showing in good will that I just ignored them, which is probably what LA is doing.

cubanbob said...

phx said...
When is the GOP going to get serious about divorcing themselves from Rush Limbaugh?

3/5/12 12:38 PM

As soon as the asses get serious about divorcing Ed Schultz, Bill Mahr, Keith Olberman, the NYT, CBS,NBC, NPR and Barack Obama to mention a few names.

Jay said...

RuyDiaz said...

The part of the story I find most surreal is that Obama called Ms. Fluke to... what exactly? Console her?


Yes, since she's on the pill, why not? She's a hero fighting against those greedy insurance companies!
And the Catholic Bishops too!

Or maybe knowing she's so dedicated to birth control Obama was trolling for a little action...

hombre said...

phx wrote: "Please don't tell us that there is faux outrage over this."

This was outrageous for a conservative, since conservatives have identifiable standards. For a liberal, not so much.

And: "When is the GOP going to get serious about divorcing themselves from Rush Limbaugh?"

When they decide to succumb completely to deluded lefty wishful thinking.

Unknown said...

A point here is that for the most part women still see themselves as a group as being inferior to men. They reinforce it in themselves. Sure there is the occasional exception but when push comes to shove on an equal playing field women will go to court or to the media to complain of unfairness. That is mostly because they are trying to think of themselves in male terms. There is good female power and bad female power, but neither sees the light of day as long as the womyn define themselves as the counterbalance to 50's chauvinism.

Think of the early 60's sitcoms Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie. Women leads with a feminine power about them married to men who tried to castrate that power out of them.

The use of the term slut, whore, bitch, ho is meant to keep women down in a place and make them like it. Ok for fantasy role play, not ok anymore for any board room in the US. Visit Michele Malkins site to see how the left wears this attitude like an OJ glove. So if it is not ok for the left, it is not ok for Rush.

This is a media meme that is not limited to Rush Limbaugh. The left is just as guilty and conspires to hide their dark side here. You see it in a few lefty commentors here on althouse.

The analysis should not be of Rush Limbaugh, he should just be the introductory paragraph to a broader expose that includes Anderson Cooper and Bill Oreilly.

MayBee said...

Ruy- I can't believe the President of the United States told a 30 year old woman her *parents* would be proud of her.
Talk about treating a woman like a child!

RuyDiaz said...

@Jay;

If Obama was trolling for action, he should get a medal for bravery. I mean, have you seen Michelle's biceps?

phx said...

You can see why people use namecalling on either side of course.

Then nobody can hear anything other than the namecalling. So attention is taken away from the argument, which actually rests on reason.

They don't or can't make a reasonable argument.

Unknown said...

The Iowahawk twitter opinion on this.

If you're 30 year old, have a college degree, and need other people to supply you birth control, you're the unviable tissue mass.

hombre said...

phx: Yeah, and if I had a quarter for every time a rebuttal of mine went unanswered by the righties. And then I'd like a quarter for each time someone was so poorly equipped or so poorly showing in good will that I just ignored them, which is probably what LA is doing.

Is this the lefty equivalent of the PeeWee Herman response: "I know you are, but what am I? Nah, nah, nah, nah nah."?

Nice try PeeWee. You can find a list of issues at 11:58. Take your best shot or forgo whining about lack of reponses to your talking points for tools.

RuyDiaz said...

@MayBee;

Obama excells at that kind of petty agitation-theather B.S. He may be the President of the United States, but deep down wants to be Hugo Chavez.

davis,br said...

@LouisAntoine 3/5/12 11:41 AM
>>Limbaugh cannot handle the substance of this debate.

The actual substance of the debate goes unrecognized and unremarked and unaddressed by the Left; the "real substance" is ....

Will the president, the administration, and the bureaucracy recognize the primacy of the first phrase of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

At some point soon, the majority of people are going to become aware that this isn't an insurance issue at all, it's an issue of their religious freedom ...the freedom from which all their other freedoms are based. The root of the tree from which all the other branches spread.

A freedom which even the nonreligious and the irreligious know is essential to the very lifeblood of the core idea of America.

Alinskyist methods only go so far, and require a certain level of ignorance on the listener to not be seen for what they are.

Granted that the greater the disingenuousness of the Alinskyist agents provocateur, @louisantoine, the longer it can take for the less adept and politically motivated to recognize the technique.

But sooner rather than later (at this point), @louisantoine, the recognition of the danger that the HHS mandate, and this administration, poses to fundamental constitutional liberties will reach maturation in the thought processes of the American people.

And make no mistake, @louisantoine, the American people will awaken from their slumber to the danger of the state imposing its will on this most treasured of American freedoms.

They aren't going to be very happy when that day comes.

...because upon that day, they will know they have been lied to.

...because upon that day, they will know they have been made to appear childish and stupid.

...because upon that day, they will know their faith has been challenged ...by the evil, in men.

And if you will forgive me use of an all-to-apt metaphor ...they are going to call down the wrath of God upon all such prevarications, when that day comes.

...and upon that day, the Left will fall.

...and upon that day, the Democrat party will cleanse itself.

They will no longer be able to hide behind the Big Lie. They will not be able to look to safety to their fellow travelers in the MSM. They will not be able to run far enough or fast enough from their past.

...and the presidency and the Congress and the courts will be called to a day of reckoning.

...and by a very, very angry We the People of the United States ....

Be afraid, for that time comes soon. Be very afraid.

edutcher said...

phx said...

When is the GOP going to get serious about divorcing themselves from Rush Limbaugh?

What does Romney think of all this anyway?


Ask Steffi.

WV "omervica" What Fluke, GodZero, and all our little trolls want to turn America into.

phx said...

Threats anyone?

Jay said...

AJ Lynch said...
I wonder if any Georgetown Law students have the balls to stand up and say they disagree with Fluke's testimony?


Yep. And this young lady kind of calls her a slut too:

Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me


I'm sure her car will be keyed or she'll be harrassed...

Nathan Alexander said...

Yeah, and if I had a quarter for every time a rebuttal of mine went unanswered by the righties. And then I'd like a quarter for each time someone was so poorly equipped or so poorly showing in good will that I just ignored them, which is probably what LA is doing.

Typical liberal thought process: "Give me money I haven't earned just because I think I have a right to it."

William said...

I think Stodder's point at 12:30 is welll taken. I frequently turn Limbaugh off. I do this not because he calls liberals sluts but because of his criticism of the Republican "establishment", i.e. any Rrepublican he disapproves of.....Net net: His fans will love him more, and liberals will hate him more. Those who don't pay much attention to things like this will accept the liberal narrative of this conflict, and the Republican cause will be the loser.

Jay said...

RuyDiaz said...
@Jay;

If Obama was trolling for action, he should get a medal for bravery. I mean, have you seen Michelle's biceps?



Unfortunately, yes.

I just don't see those 2 really being that close.

What a bizarre couple...

hombre said...

phx: You can see why people use namecalling on either side of course. ... They don't or can't make a reasonable argument.

Oh, please. Enough of the self-righteousness. You are obviously trolling this website for the Dems and, absent your sarcasm, are completely out of your depth.

phx said...

Be afraid, for that time comes soon. Be very afraid.

Has to be an agent provacateur for the left.

And you moderates have such a problem. So does Romney.

Jay said...

MayBee said...
Ruy- I can't believe the President of the United States told a 30 year old woman her *parents* would be proud of her.
Talk about treating a woman like a child!


Oh come on MayBee, we're all just helpless boobs and the Democrats and their big government are here to help!

30 is the new 15 you know!??

garage mahal said...

They aren't going to be very happy when that day comes.

In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh is getting his ass kicked by a college student.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

Oh, please. Enough of the self-righteousness. You are obviously trolling this website for the Dems and, absent your sarcasm, are completely out of your depth.

I spell my values out. If my arguments aren't backed by reason, I admit it. I bring respect to those I argue with, until they demonstrate they don't deserve it. Then I ignore them.

What are your values?

Joe said...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

But this has nothing to do with that. Quite to the contrary; if a law is neutral and states that all organizations purchasing insurance must buy policies with x, y and z coverage does nothing to infringe any constitutional rights of that organization. Once the law starts carving out exceptions for religion, then it does violate the constitution.

To say that a religion or religious institution be allowed to not pay for anything which in turn may be used to violate some tenet of their religion would create an absurd situation where a religion could pay for almost nothing.

(Whether the federal government has the right to dictate this IS the real question. However, state governments have the right and exercise that right continually.)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I wasn't going to respond, but this issue is personal to me on many levels.

I am a woman
I am a Catholic
I used birth control and THAT issue is between me and God.
I am a consumer of insurance
I am a business owner

The lefty trolls are completely missing the bigger points and totally distorting the truth....on purpose of course.

1. The government is mandating what kind of coverage that insurance companies MUST provide. When the government can MAKE you buy a product or MAKE you sell a product, where is our freedom and free will.

2. As a woman who no longer needs birth control or maternity services, I am being forced to buy a policy that subsidizes the lifestyle of lying SLUTS like the Fluke chick.

3. The totalitarian Obama regime is forcing an organized religion to provide services that they find morally objectionable, sinful and intruding into the First Ammendment rights of free practice of religion.

4. The Church, by not providing coverage for pills, abortions etc is NOT denying anyone medical coverage. The women are able to get their Pap smears, annual check ups and other MEDICAL procedures under the current insurance programs. The Doctors are free to prescribe abortions and morning after pills and birth control pills. Condoms are cheap and easily available and don't require medical prescriptions.

5. The Church is, or used to be, free to chose NOT to pay for certain medications or procedures. If you need birth control pills or want to pop that pill to get rid of an inconvenient human being......WalMart and many other places sell at very VERY low cost those items. If you are working at a Catholic Hospital and say you can't afford the $9 a month for pills.....I suggest you cut back just ONE latee a week and you will have more than enough. Planned Parenthood will be more than happy to give you pills and help you kill your children.

6. If you don't like the health insurance coverage at your Catholic University or your religious employer. Get another job. Go to another school. Instead you want to FORCE the Church to go against it's centuries of tradition and deeply held religious practices for your own selfish convenience.


This is NOT about birth control.....it is about Government control and destroying religious institutions.

Steve Koch said...

What is funny is that purt near everybody involved in this is at least somewhat duplicitous.

Fluke is functioning as a dem operative and is primarily concerned with making political points.

Rush is primarily concerned with expanding his audience and is thrilled at all the attention he is getting over this brouhaha.

The micturating, profoundly hypocritical dem trolls professing horror at Rush's words are just trying to reduce the political effectiveness of big, bad Rush (not gonna happen).

As is often the case, the Althouse analysis seems completely wrong headed (sigh) but at least she is expanding her blog viewership.

Nathan Alexander said...

@garage,
In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh is getting his ass kicked by a college student.

Which office if Rush running for again?

He is not the GOP. He is not the Conservative Movement. He represents one channel by which conservatives are able to hear information blocked by the Great Liberal Firewall of "Narrative".

But if he is actually getting his ass-kicked by a college student (a point which is in dispute to anyone not brainwashed by the Left), then it still doesn't really matter much. He's won many, many more battles than he's lost. If he does lose this one, his record against Obama is still something like 240,572,891 to 3.

I Callahan said...

This is NOT about birth control.....it is about Government control and destroying religious institutions.

This times 1,000.

What is so incredibly dishonest about this? If it is so important that contraceptives be given out to anyone who needs them, then why doesn't the government come up with a way to pay clinics and pharmacies directly? Why mandate that insurance companies cover it?

Like you said - control. In addition to destroying religious institutions, they want to destroy insurance companies as well.

shiloh said...

Don't worry Rush as Althouse will still be infatuated w/you regardless lol.

Again, how did Obama get soooo damn lucky! :)

As conservative lemmings listen to his propaganda w/baited breath. :-P

The horror!

hombre said...

phx wrote: I spell my values out. If my arguments aren't backed by reason, I admit it.

What values? What arguments? That Limbaugh behaved like a jerk? Ok. That it will hurt the Repubs. Maybe, but what about the substantive issue related to the regulations in question?

And: What are your values?

Well, let's start with respect for the Constitution, limited government, love of country, self-reliance, individual responsibility, private charity. Those are a few of my political values. I also have religious, family and personal values. And you?

phx said...

hombre: Let's start with reason.

Joe said...

This isn't about government destroying religious institutions, but religious institutions attempting to get government to violate the first amendment by establishing special rules for them.

If I am a member of a religion which believes war is never justified, then taxation of any kind which directly or indirectly funds any aspect of the military would be unconstitutional.

Don't say this is different. A major point of the establishment clause is that religions DON'T get to dictate government policy.

I also hasten to point out that even Jesus said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;" Paying taxes does not render you culpable for the sins of the tax collector nor for the government.

I doubt that even the most religiously conservative insurance policies have a clause that states that the insurance shall cover no medical procedure which shall result in a termination of pregnancy or the sterilization of the patient.

(Do NOT conflate the issue of paying for insurance and providing medical care. There IS an issue about forcing hospitals or doctors to perform some procedures. What if the only hospital in a town would be run by the Jehovah Witnesses, who don't believe in blood transfusions. Could the state force them to provide blood transfusions as a condition of being certified as a hospital?)

LarsPorsena said...

"..But this has nothing to do with that. Quite to the contrary; if a law is neutral and states that all organizations purchasing insurance must buy policies with x, y and z coverage does nothing to infringe any constitutional rights of that organization. Once the law starts carving out exceptions for religion, then it does violate the constitution......"


LOL! Do you know how many waivers have been granted for various provisions of Obamacare? Ask Nancy Pelosi and the labor unions.

John Stodder said...

The government is mandating what kind of coverage that insurance companies MUST provide.

I made that argument til I was blue in the face during the 2009-10 era. The government can set minimum standards for a legal health insurance policy, and require it to cover all kinds of things.

Covering birth control -- and by the way, according to one article I've read, it's all brand-name BC, no generics -- is at least motivated by a pure political desire to pander to women.

But other things will be included in these mandatory minimum policies that will be the result of lobbying from pharmaceuticals. It'll be much quieter. Rush Limbaugh won't even know about it. But we'll all pay.

Obamacare is crony capitalism/socialism on steroids. (cliche, sorry).

cubanbob said...

Joe said...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

But this has nothing to do with that. Quite to the contrary; if a law is neutral and states that all organizations purchasing insurance must buy policies with x, y and z coverage does nothing to infringe any constitutional rights of that organization. Once the law starts carving out exceptions for religion, then it does violate the constitution.

To say that a religion or religious institution be allowed to not pay for anything which in turn may be used to violate some tenet of their religion would create an absurd situation where a religion could pay for almost nothing.

(Whether the federal government has the right to dictate this IS the real question. However, state governments have the right and exercise that right continually.)

3/5/12 1:12 PM

You do realize that the Supreme Court will rule on whether Congress can mandate health insurance this term? So why exactly are congressional democrats yammering about?

You do know that the courts have carved out religious exemptions in other areas?
As for the states and their sub-divisions, their rights are not unlimited and mandating insurance companies to be required to cover non-insurable events is a contract law question that will probable be heard soon enough by the courts. As mentioned by others should auto-insurance companies be required to pay for tuneups and oil changes? That is no different than mandating things that are directly related to an insurable issue.

shiloh said...

"I wasn't going to respond, but this issue is personal to me on many levels.

I am a woman
I am a Catholic
I used birth control and THAT issue is between me and God.
I am a consumer of insurance
I am a business owner"

I Me Mine

bte DBQ, your right wing personal anecdote and blather is charming and hit all the right irrelevant conservative talkin' points.

Congrats! Hopefully you feel better now as you preach to Althouse's conservative choir. :)

take care

Dust Bunny Queen said...

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.

chickenlittle said...

Shilho wrote: As conservative lemmings listen to his propaganda w/baited breath. :-P

The horror!


Yow! Who let tuna-mouth in here?

Abate thyself, Shilho!

Joe said...

All states require health insurance companies to cover certain things. 28 require that birth control be covered. The federal government also requires health insurance companies to cover certain things.

I believe this list from both the states and federal government is too long and based more on emotion, but it exists and is the law and the courts have upheld it.

For all those protesting this single provision, are you aware that 28 states already require something that is comparable? (And that the Catholic church abides by those state laws?)

If it's constitutional for a state to dictate what health insurance policies must cover, why is it not okay for the federal government to do so ASSUMING they have that power?

If the federal government doesn't have that power (and I don't think it does) that doesn't change the power of the states.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, I learned something here in this long thread. The aggrieved woman is named "fluke" and not "flake". Not sure if that helps her all that much. And, that "fluke" is not that far phonetically from "fluck", just a softer "u".

And, yes, we have people commenting here, like Louis, who seem to both not understand the point of the debate and what Rush was saying, and are trying to change the subject as fast and as often as possible to detract from the 1st Amdt. issues that started the debate in the first place - the Administration intentionally picking a fight with the Roman Catholic church over the issues of abortion and contraception in order to pander to women, and side track the election year debate from how Obama and the Democrats have destroyed the economy over the last five years through their truly prolific spending, crony capitalism, and willingness to regulate all areas of our lives.

(Did I really write a sentence that long? Shame)

steve l said...

Keep it coming! You are the last holdouts in the Alamo, etc., freedom fighters...

I prefer to think myself as the Yellow Rose at San Jacinto

Jay said...

For all those protesting this single provision, are you aware that 28 states already require something that is comparable? (And that the Catholic church abides by those state laws?)


Um, states are not the federal government and in states where there are mandates religious organizations can simply opt out by self-insuring or dropping prescription drug coverage. The federal mandate does not allow any of these alternatives.

When are you going to stop lying?

Joe said...

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Requiring a health insurance policy cover birth control does not violate YOUR free exercise of religion if you don't buy birth control.

Or are you going to head down the path that being required to pay for something that in turn may pay for something with which you religiously disagree is violating your freedom of religion?

RuyDiaz said...

Joe said:

This isn't about government destroying religious institutions, but religious institutions attempting to get government to violate the first amendment by establishing special rules for them.

This is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to see where to begin a rebuttal.

1. I'm not sure what first ammendment you are talking about; the one in the Federal constitution prohibits the Federal Government, and only the Federal Government, from establishment a Church. At the time of the ratification of the bill of rights, there were four established churches in individual states, and the first ammendment had nothing to say about it.

2. Churches are trying to get a special dispensation, but the rule is immoral all around. So, if you are a business owner that has a moral issue, your conscience doesn't count? The law is abominable, period.

3. I would have to agree, however, that 'this isn't about the goverment trying to destroy religious institutions'. Of course not. This is about meddling commissars trying to expand their power and to force others to live according to their vision. Not so much about destroying religious institutions, but about creating a depending, impassive population.

Jay said...

Joe said...
if a law is neutral and states that all organizations purchasing insurance must buy policies with x, y and z coverage does nothing to infringe any constitutional rights of that organization. Once the law starts carving out exceptions for religion, then it does violate the constitution.


Um, you couldn't be more wrong.

The law isn't "neutral" at all.

Nobody but the most deluded think that it is.

mishu said...

This issue is stupid. Obama is offering consequence free orgasms in exchange of higher energy prices. I don't think this is a fair trade off. You can masturbate and have a consequence free orgasm if you really want to save money.

shiloh said...

"Going after the advertisers who cut out - now we're talking:

GO, RUSH!"

A win/win for the advertisers. Much like that inane conservative women's group that went after Penny's re: Ellen because she was gay. Penny's stood firm and they are both now reaping the benefits.

Rumor has it, there are still some conservatives in the world, evangelicals whatnot, who believe in the the religious concept of Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Fortunately for Rush, the Bible also believes in redemption if you are sincere in your apology.

Soooo Limbaugh just has to break that sincerity barrier. Surely, a bridge too far! :D

MayBee said...

It is about government control, religious freedom, and the ability to pay off big donors with our money- money they can't even be bothered to collect as a tax and budget.

The fact the mandate requires tubal ligation zero co-pay coverage, but not vasectomies, gives away the game. There's no way to justify that without getting to "we see women as victims of men".

Jay said...

Joe said...

Requiring a health insurance policy cover birth control does not violate YOUR free exercise of religion if you don't buy birth control.


You're even dumber than the lady that was using the alias that used to be "Love"

You understand that the Catholic Church as an institution engages in the free excerise of religion, right?

Joe Schmoe said...

I can't let slander slide. LouisAntoine claims conservatives cry freedom of contract so that they can use it to discriminate against minorities and women.

Louis, you reveal yourself as a crybaby charlatan who's never been on the ownership side of a transaction. And you parrot standard lefty misinformation about good and decent people.

I'm happy to rent to minorities or anybody who is a good tenant and can pay the rent. That's all. Nothing prejudicial and bigoted about that. To claim that's the main desire of conservatives when it comes to contracts is flat-out libelous and wrong. You may think you're speaking truth to power, but you're just a lazy, nonproductive redistributionist. Go contribute to society by helping out those who are disenfranchised regardless of their race or gender. Quit pissing about everyone else and look in the mirror. You're the only one holding you down.

What we don't want is the government to make us enter into transactions which we know are going to fail, just to give preferential treatment to certain people in exchange for votes. Or so the Dems hope. Decades of handouts have yet to yield the millenial Democrat Reichstag. The most recent installment ended about 998 years too soon when the 2010 midterms kicked their asses.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

All states require health insurance companies to cover certain things. 28 require that birth control be covered.

Not so. The States have generally required the insurance companies to provide policies that cover certain things.

They, until now, have not required that ALL policies offer EVERYTHING.

You could select the level of coverage and the amount of deductible. Insurance policies USED to be a legal contract.

As a consumer, shouldn't I have the right to purchase the coverage that I want? If I no longer need maternity, or if I am a young single man.....why should I be forced to buy coverage for something that I don't want nor do I need. (we all know the answer to that. subsidizing)

If I go the grocery store am I going to be forced to buy milk whether I want it or not so that the price of milk can stay low for others? Forced to buy a Chevy Volt, whether I like it or not?

This entire thing could be solved by allowing the free market to work and allowing insurance companies to provide levels of coverage. INCLUDING a separate program, (like dental insurance) that the employee could purchase on their own.

BUT that isn't the point. It is about government control and the destruction of religious institutions...plain and simple.

Sofa King said...

Or are you going to head down the path that being required to pay for something that in turn may pay for something with which you religiously disagree is violating your freedom of religion?


And if the church, as large institutions are wont to do, self insures? What then?

shiloh said...

btw, as a Catholic and Christian, I am prayin' for Limbaugh's soul ...

Joe said...

Jay, enough of your personal attacks. If you disagree with what I, or anyone else says, make a cogent argument, not a personal attack. If you can't do that, perhaps Althouse can simply ban you.

How is pointing out that there is a legitimate debate over the power of various levels of government lying?

The point you missed, Jay, is that in the majority of states the law dictates that any health insurance, must provide a birth control benefit. Catholic organizations in those states purchase those policies with little to no protest.

Neutral: not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy:

In other words, making it apply to everyone without condition.

Jay, you keep telling people that they are defining words wrong, but it is you who seems illiterate. To say birth is not a medical issue is as bizarre and misguided as saying neutral means something other that what it actually does.

Are you proposing that the Catholic Church has the right to, and in fact does, opt out of any law with which is has a moral disagreement?

AprilApple said...

The left want to expand the welfare state to include people like fluke, and line their pockets.

edutcher said...

AJ Lynch said...

I wonder if any Georgetown Law students have the balls to stand up and say they disagree with Fluke's testimony?

About 250, last I heard.

garage mahal said...

They aren't going to be very happy when that day comes.

In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh is getting his ass kicked by a college student.


Sure, that's why his ratings for today will be through the roof.

Right now, people are listening to him lay out the facts - the last thing the Lefties want - and in greater numbers than would otherwise be listening. They gave him a platform to tell his side.

Now he's playing them because what garage and his friends want is to silence Rush.

And the exact opposite is happening.

chickenlittle said...

Shilho wrote: As conservative lemmings listen to his propaganda w/baited breath. :-P

The horror!


Yow! Who let tuna-mouth in here?


Mom said bathtub swabbie could go play on the Internet if he finished cleaning the basement.

And didn't drool on the floor.

steve l said...

Keep it coming! You are the last holdouts in the Alamo, etc., freedom fighters...

I prefer to think myself as the Yellow Rose at San Jacinto


Tell me, Miss Morgan, is it true Sam Houston sent you?

traditionalguy said...

There is a level of entitlement expected by Americans. They want jobs in their town. They expect medical care.

It is a small step from that into the Canadian system where nobody with a job is ever fired and all health needs are free and provided for by a government monopoly.

The Canadians have only recently started to back off 30 years of that system because it has cost them so much for so little.

But Americans seem ready to try it out for themselves.

And Rush Limbaugh is not making any converts by trashing those who have such expectations.

Bruce Hayden said...

To say that a religion or religious institution be allowed to not pay for anything which in turn may be used to violate some tenet of their religion would create an absurd situation where a religion could pay for almost nothing.

Reductio ad absurdum, to be sure. But, still, why not?

Obamacare will not only mandate what procedures and drugs much be covered (and which ones "for free", without deductible), but also that the employers must carry the coverage for their employees.

And, yes, that decision will, by its very nature, be political. As this one surely is, given the timing and that this coverage was mandated to be without copay. Why no copay, when medicine aimed at real medical problems invariably requires copays? My guess is just to egg on the debate.

Part of the problem with modern health insurance is that by separating the payment from the consumption, through health care companies and employers, the normal supply and demand signals are lost. And, the lower the apparent cost of something, the greater the demand. Zero copays necessarily and automatically eliminate all tie to need, and result nigh unlimited demand.

Eliminate copays, and replace them with, say a percentage contribution and a cap, would go a long way towards reining in health care costs. And, of course, eliminating coverage for anything voluntary, such as most contraception, male ED medicines, etc., would also reduce health care costs. (And, no, eliminating medical contraceptive coverage does not save money through lower pregnancy costs for a number of well known reasons, including that there are plenty of low cost or no cost alternatives available, including rhythm, condoms, and abstinence).

cokaygne said...

If everyone and every employer is required by government to have health insurance then health insurance premiums are taxes. Obama and his supporters think it is a sound public policy for taxpayers/insurance premium payers to pay for contraceptives for every woman.

Rush really blew it with this one. Sure, according to Reynolds, Maher called Palin a "cunt." No way does that justify Rush calling someone a "slut" and a "prostitute." He brags about his vast audience. Did he not realize that his remarks would get more coverage than Mahers? Did he not realize that this whole issue is an orchestrated attempt to change the subject of the campaign away from 0bama's incompetence. Now the campaign is being fought on 0bama's ground. He is defending a student who was publicly defamed by Rush. That's all anyone, including Rush, is talking about.

I grieve for my country and I blame it on Republicans because their base is bigoted small-town Protestants and lace-curtain Irish. Whenever victory is within their grasp and the country is close to turning away from disastrous welfare-state policies that will leave us all dependent on a government that cannot pay for its promises, the Republicans ignore their chance and pander to the American Gothic crowd.

WE ARE DOOMED!!

Joe said...

And if the church, as large institutions are wont to do, self insures? What then?

In many (most?) states it doesn't matter. If you provide health coverage for employees, you must provide certain benefits. Every state has a list. So does the federal government (even before Obamacare.)

I've already clearly stated here and elsewhere that these lists are too long and intrusive and have had unintended consequences, such are reducing the availability of low cost, high deductible, limited policies.

But they exist and pretending that on the local level a company or organization can do whatever they want is simply not true. (Some states give "an out" on some provisions, some don't.)

You also miss the point that the Cahtholic Church routinely buys insurance policies which provide a birth control benefit in those states that require it. So why the moral outrage now?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

A separate birth control and abortion program.... I meant to add.


Requiring a health insurance policy cover birth control does not violate YOUR free exercise of religion


It does if you require me, as the employer or in the case the Catholic Church, to buy a product whether for myself or for someone else, that goes against my religious principles.

The Church doesn't believe in birth control or abortion. YOU as an individual can do what you want and ignore your Churches beliefs.

What the government wants is to FORCE the church and employers to pay for things that they find sinful (whether you agree or not is immaterial) and go against their beliefs.
Are you going to force Seventh Day Adventists to have blood transfusions or pay for them when they are a religious belief.

And...before you go there with taxes going to wars. The government doesn't levy a separate WAR TAX. The money goes into the general fund and is then used for all sorts of purposes that we probably all can object to at some level.

There are also exceptions for participating in war activities for religious groups such as the Quakers.

Synova said...

"Don't say this is different. A major point of the establishment clause is that religions DON'T get to dictate government policy."

And government doesnt get to dictate church policy.

As for Caesar... he's a greedy bastard. I don't know that the definition of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's ought to be considered whatever a grasping government thinks they want from you today.

Particularly in a republic or a democracy where people are SUPPOSED to have a voice over what Caesar doesnt get.

Moneyrunner said...

I have given thought to using Carbonite. This event helped me make up my mind. Thanks to this controversy I have learned that Carbonite is losing money and has never made money since going public. They also have a number of competitors. Two are Sugar Sync and IDrive, both of which provide 5 GB of storage for free. This is more than most people have on their computer hard drives. I believe that a lot of Carbonite’s customers are Rush listeners because of the size of his audience. I think they will lose a lot of them over this; it could cause a very bad cash crunch for a company that has negative cash flow.

I also sent an e-mail to Pro-Flowers who I have used a few times to remove me from their mailing list.

Here is list of competitors and a review of each.

shiloh said...

As DBQ continues to preach to Althouse's choir! Go girl! :-P

Sofa King said...

You also miss the point that the Cahtholic Church routinely buys insurance policies which provide a birth control benefit in those states that require it. So why the moral outrage now?

The answer to your question is because now it is (a) a federal policy and (b) imposed by a bureucracy instead of by legislation.

Now, I agree with you to the extent that it's obvious that the federal government possesses the constitutional power to do this under current precedent. However, it's so obviously immoral, imprudent, and impoverishing that it nonetheless terrible policy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You also miss the point that the Cahtholic Church routinely buys insurance policies which provide a birth control benefit in those states that require it.

Not completely true and you are distorting the facts.

Schools like Sacred Heart University, in Connecticut, already cover "certain contraceptive and family planning services, even though not provided to treat an illness or injury." The University of Notre Dame in Indiana covers oral contraception if it's for the "correction of existing pathologies of the reproductive system," but not for preventing pregnancy. And others, like Loyola University in Chicago, allow employees to use their pre-tax Flexible Spending Account to pay for "birth control items."

The coverage you are talking about is for MEDICAL pathologies and when the employees use THEIR OWN money.

The Obama regime wants to force the Church organizations to pay for ALL discretionary birth control, NOT for medical reasons and for recreational use and for abortions.

Get your facts straight.

shiloh said...

Re: Limbo's and the lemmings here continued deflection to Maher:

Maher is on HBO and has no advertisers. Whereas Limbaugh, who was the keynote speaker at 2009 CPAC ie the titular head of the rudderless/leaderless Rep party, does.

Supply and demand ~ free enterprise ~ different rules/regs.

Synova said...

"You also miss the point that the Cahtholic Church routinely buys insurance policies which provide a birth control benefit in those states that require it. So why the moral outrage now?"

Why not now?

If there is some rule about how long a person has to object or they never get to object again, I haven't heard of it.

Also, the (supposed) lack of objections doesnt change the facts.

Nor does state law change the facts.

It could well be that state constitutions dont have the same provision for religious exemption that the federal government has. If that is the case the timing reflects an encroachment of the federal governmnet and violation of the constitution.

Chip S. said...

Joe said...

The point you missed, Jay, is that in the majority of states the law dictates that any health insurance, must provide a birth control benefit.

Speaking of missed points, the fact is that 21 of the 26 states with this requirement exempt religious organizations.

Care to tell us exactly how it's possible to know some, but only the most convenient, details of each state's insurance regulations? You being such a noble pursuer of truth and all, I'm sure it couldn't possibly be intentional omission of inconvenient facts.

Joe went on to say...

Are you proposing that the Catholic Church has the right to, and in fact does, opt out of any law with which is has a moral disagreement?

No. No one has said this.

But you seem to be claiming that the Catholic Church does not have the right to protest an administrative ruling that forces it to violate its own doctrine.

oldirishpig said...

Hmmm. Maybe Fluke should purchase insurance that covers the things she wants covered. If, for sake of argument, insurers don't cover contraception, hey, now there's a king hell business opportunity for Ms Fluke, right?

Sofa King said...

The answer to your question is because now it is (a) a federal policy and (b) imposed by a bureucracy instead of by legislation.

And, as such, I will note it may not be constitutional but could violate RFRA.

Sabinal said...

Joe Schmoe said...

What we don't want is the government to make us enter into transactions which we know are going to fail, just to give preferential treatment to certain people in exchange for votes. Or so the Dems hope. Decades of handouts have yet to yield the millenial Democrat Reichstag. The most recent installment ended about 998 years too soon when the 2010 midterms kicked their asses.


Exactly. I'm prochoice Virginian and just had to endure the idiocy of the VA Republicans' Annual Personhood Kabuki Theatre with the Transvaginal Ultrasound Players and it's been postponed for another year (like it always is).

But even I know that Obama is using women and women's fears to drum up votes. What boils by biscuits is how easily the Reps (with the exception of Romney) got played into it.

No one is going to restrict contraception from the American people. I say people, because men do have a stake in women's health - my hubby's always worried about mine.
But what O did was supercede the Church in desperation. Now I believe that if you take any govt money you must follow govt rules but O is so desperate for votes that he's willing to create a s---storm so people will vote for him by default.

To me, O insutled women not Rush. I always know Rush was a meathead and so I always listen with that in mind. Obama is the potus -- he's the one making the decisions

RuyDiaz said...

@Chip S;

I see you are still in top form. How have you been?

Sofa King said...

Argh, should read "may not be UNconstitutional."

Jay said...

Joe said...

How is pointing out that there is a legitimate debate over the power of various levels of government lying?


Um, that isn't what you were lying about.

This:
in the majority of states the law dictates that any health insurance, must provide a birth control benefit. Catholic organizations in those states purchase those policies with little to no protest.



Is. Feel free to stop lying at any time.

To be clear, what you said is abjectly false.

It was pointed out that it is false and you repeated it.

So yes, you're a liar.

Sofa King said...

So yes, you're a liar.

Now, now, be generous. In all likelihood it's simply something passed along from some other liar, making him a mere dupe.

If you're correct, of course.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 329   Newer› Newest»