I've said before...Rush was technically correct. But it can't be disputed that the way he made his point was what became the national topic of conversation rather than who this woman really is, and her real agenda.
I'm a fan and thought he handled the first hour today very well. He talked about Fluke, but stayed focused on the fact that she is a well-known feminist activist anti-Catholic bigot with a very specific leftist agenda...and hardly just a “college student”.
Rush advertiser boycotts have never gone away. Lurk at DU...about once a week someone is quoting some Media Matters nonsense and they pass a Rush advertisers boycott list back and forth...and it never works. But his time, Rush handed them a neatly packaged, hand delivered gift.
This is fixable...and Rush will fix it. But it was unnecessary, and during a presidential primary...not helpful.
And Sears and AllState can weather this economy WITHOUT a bailout when they lose 15 million customers.
“But it can’t be disputed that the way he made his point was what became the national topic of conversation rather than who this woman really is, and her real agenda.”
Fair enough, and I’m sure at this point Rush agrees - thus the apology.
The media - the MSM with no interest in the truth - was able to turn what he said into something else. That isn’t entirely unexpected,.
What frustrates me is that folks here on FR attack Rush for being mean to the ‘girl’, or suggest he could be sued for slander, when it was always obvious he did NOT believe she was having sex 3-6 times/day, 365 days/year!
That was why my daughter, hearing it on Rush 24/7 that night, started laughing...as soon as Rush started doing the math...”$1000/year, even at $1 per condom means...”
And my daughter started laughing, because she appreciated the absurdity of a woman needing $1000/year to prevent pregnancy. So if my 14 year old daughter could understand the point - which was that the woman told a blatant lie - then why are so many Freepers still saying Rush attacked the woman?
Yes, I understand that in a given paragraph, with no context, Rush ‘attacked’ the woman. But in the context of the discussion, it was obvious Rush was attacking her lies, and laughing at the idiot politicians who took her seriously.