Dear Rush:
It’s difficult to understand what’s going on in your head sometimes. Really. And, yes, I know that’s provoking raucous laughter and snide comments from some of my readers, but I’m being serious.
Okay, I get that you’re a conservative, and that, from the perspective of your base / followers / party, the idea of someone having sex outside of wedlock is abhorrent. Excuse me, the idea of a woman having sex outside of wedlock is abhorrent; guys don’t have to worry so much about it, esp. when jetting off on a trip to the Dominican Republic.
So the whole Sharon Fluke thing was a perfect opportunity both offer some criticism of liberal thinking on sexuality and (as you consider it) an entitlement society. For the moment, let me give you the benefit of the doubt that you really saw this all about women complaining that the government (well, insurance companies) should pay for their extracurricular nookie.
I don’t believe that for a second, but let me give you that rhetorical benefit of the doubt.
So in your standard operating procedure, you went all out. You called Ms. Fluke a slut. Okay, there’s the normal Rush way of doing things, and the audience laughs, and you move on.
Then the stupidity started.
Because people beyond your listenership heard this. And they objected. And they pointed out that Ms. Fluke’s testimony was about a wide variety of women at Georgetown who were impacted by the cost of contraception (which was not covered by the university’s student health plan). This included married women. It also included a friend who was a lesbian (and thus not out for pregnancy-risking slutty activities, no matter what your personal fantasies may be, Rush) and who suffered from ovarian cysts which would normally be treated by, yes, oral contraceptives. In this friend’s case, the inability to afford them meant she eventually had to have an ovary removed, with resulting further medical problems.
And, yes, some of the women involved were looking to have sex and not worry as much about the outcome. This might cause some in the Religious Right to have the vapours, Rush, but you and I know that it’s no more of a scandal than, say, insurance covering erectile dysfunction medication even for (gasp) single men or men jetting to or from an unsupervised trip to the Dominican Republic.
So, yes, some folks got their knickers in a twist over your language, and over your misrepresentation of Ms. Fluke’s testimony, but that’s happened for you before, Rush. You laugh, puff your cigar, and move on.
Except you didn’t. You doubled down. You repeated your misrepresentation of Ms. Fluke’s testimony (which, since by now you must have been informed of what it was, we can now call your lies regarding it). Further, on that basis, you stated that Ms. Fluke was merely looking for the taxpayer (no taxpayer funds are involved, Rush, but we can assume another lie here) to fund her scandalous sex life, which meant she was a “whore.” You also indicated you were happy to provide the funding, as long as she taped her sexual encounters and shared said tapes with you.
Further outrage ensued over your lies and defamation of Ms. Fluke but, having gotten so apoplectic a reaction, it was a perfect time to move onto some other trumped-up scandal.
But you didn’t. You kept at it, repeating yourself both as far as the language and as far as the arguments you were making. There you were, the very next day, suggesting that maybe Ms. Fluke could afford contraception better if she “backed off” a bit on the no-doubt-prodigious amount of unmarried sex she was having.
Of course, as has been noted, most female contraception doesn’t work like that. Yeah, if you use Viagra every time you have sex, then you can save on your Viagra bill (assuming you aren’t just borrowing it from a friend) by cutting back on your sexual encounters. But the Pill works on a monthly basis; you can’t just skip using it every now and then and save a few bucks. Indeed, mess up your intake, and it can take months again before you are fully covered contraceptively.
And that’s when things got really serious, Rush. Because not only did you have women and pundits and bloggers and politicians all in a froth, suddenly …
… the Advertisers started getting involved. And they started dropping out. Some of them were because even they at this point were offended by what you were saying. Some of them were simply feeling the heat from people complaining to them about your statements.
And suddenly, Rush, you looked around for your old pal, Glenn Beck. And remembered what happened when he got i trouble with his advertisers, and how he’s largely vanished from the scene.
Ruh-roh.
And so comes your apology — or, rather, your “statement,” conveyed on your very own web site.
A Statement from Rush – The Rush Limbaugh Show
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.
Yes, it’s the classic, “I didn’t mean it, it was a joke, I’m just an entertainer / comedian” apology.
In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
It’s difficult to reconcile calling her a “slut” and a “whore” with it not being a “personal attack.” It is difficult to understand how leeringly suggesting that maybe she forward on her (your wishful thinking that they even exist) sex tapes should be seen merely as a poorly worded “analogy.”
I mean, c’mon, Rush — you’re a millionaire radio and TV personality. Political figures crumble at your displeasure. You have a huge audience that hang on your every word. You didn’t get there by being stupid — it was calculated and masterful. And making personal attacks is absolutely at the heart of what your brand of socio-political entertainment is about.
Don’t hide your loathsome light under a bushel, Rush.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.
I do, too, Rush. But, of course, it was Congress (well, the House GOP) that decided to ride the storm and hold a hearing about how a contraceptive coverage mandate to insurance companies was Purest, Darkest, Evillest Evil, an Abridgment of Religious Freedom Like Unto the Nazis and the Commies.
I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?
That’s right! Most people treat sexuality as something as trivial as jogging! Why don’t they just sit at home and eat potato chips and smoke cigars and broadcast on the radio and not think of sex!
Aw, c’mon, Rush — given your four marriages and your occasional visit to Caribbean nations, I’m sure you can appreciate that sex is a lot more important to most people than sneakers. And, of course, we’re not talking just about contraception coverage for single women (something I’m sure you always check for), but for married women, women who have medical conditions that benefit from them, etc. Y’know — all those other cases that people keep pointing out to you but that you continue to lie-through-omission about?
And, of course, positing that sex happens, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper for the “American citizens’ (via their insurance) to pay for contraception (for “social activities” or not) than to pay for pregnancies. Or abortions.
In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom …
An interesting way of framing it, Rush. Because your personal attacks and analogies are completely about what’s going on in someone’s bedroom. Your personal attacks and analogies are assuming that it’s all “Girls Gone Wild!” at Georgetown University (stop panting, Rush), and that right after these hot young law students get done demanding birth control pills, they’re going to start demanding taxpayer-funded lube and sex toys, too (I told you, stop panting, Rush).
It’s also a funny argument because so many in the GOP seem to think precisely the opposite — that it is, in fact, the public’s business to know what is going on in everyone’s bedroom.
… nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
I think it’s a topic that, having reached a Presidential level, should not have engendered any brouhaha.
My choice of words was not the best, …
Well, they were, if you were trying to shame Ms. Fluke and other women into silence.
… and in the attempt to be humorous, …
It was all a joke!
… I created a national stir.
Which would all have been fine, until the advertisers started bailing.
I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Another interesting word choice. You don’t apologize for the sentiment behind the words, or the policy statements, or your lies about what she testified, or for basically framing this as “loose women want to have free ‘social’ sex and want us fine upstanding citizens to pay for it,” nor even for the solicitation of her hypothetical sex tapes. You just apologize for (one assumes) the “slut” and “whore” reference. You still think the terms apply, but the words were “insulting” and you apologize for them.
Not … very convincing.
Granted, you did say “sincerely apologize,” which is more than some do. And since you avoided the “If anyone was insulted by what I say, I apologize for that” non-apology, you get a bit of credit.
But, really, what you seem to be apologizing for is not what you meant, but the way you said it. And your willful continued misframing of Ms. Fluke’s testimony would seem to be at least as insulting as your name-calling personal attacks.
And the fact that you didn’t try apologizing until suddenly advertisers were jumping ship calls the whole “sincerely” (or “with sincere concern for Ms. Fluke”, at least) into question.
But keep trying … I’m sure a sharp media personality, and someone with a claimed mastery of the absurd, will figure out some way to deal with this. Maybe Glenn could offer some advice, if you still have his number.