Posted on 02/07/2014 8:22:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sandra Fluke first gained national attention when Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” on his radio show. During an appearance on MSNBC’s The Ed Show Thursday to discuss her bid for the California State Senate, Fluke agreed with Ed Schultz that Limbaugh may have actually done her a “favor” by bringing her that extra exposure.
As a Georgetown University law student in 2012, Fluke was initially barred from testifying on contraception to an all-male Congressional panel by its Republican members before ultimately testifying to Democrats on the issue. She argued her school should have to include contraception in its health care coverage despite any moral objections it may have.
Following Fluke’s testimony, Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his radio show, adding, “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.” He later apologized to Fluke for his “insulting word choices.”
“I think Limbaugh did you a favor by putting you out there like that and I hope you understand where I’m going on that,” Schultz told Fluke today. “I mean exposure is very important, people now look to you in a big, big way for leadership on some very pertinent issues.”
“I agree with you that exposure is important,” Fluke said in response, “because it lets us shine a light on important issues we need to be talking about.”
On the issue of a congressional run, which had previously discussed, versus the State Senate campaign she settled on, Fluke said she just wanted to go where she think can affect the most “progressive change.”
Watch video below, via MSNBC:
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
California has been electing people like her for years. Do you really believe that if Rush had not called her a slut that you would have a Conservative taking that seat? Stop dreaming. We have one running here in Texas for gov. Abortion Barbie might take Austin but I seriously doubt that she will be our next Governor.
They call it the “stupid party” for a very good reason.
That's what you WANT to hear. You WANT Rush to be let off the hook for indulging anger and bad manners.
Publicly calling anyone a "slut" is the territory of proud, vain clods, whether they hail from the political right, middle, or left.
There are consequences for such crappy behavior, and Fluke running for office with the extra fame and "credibility" (to the left, anyway) that Rush has given her, are a case in point.
READ THE POST I was responding to, dear.
What I should have said was: Fluke's speech is here and is relatively short. If I am misinformed, I would appreciate it if you would point out the parts of her speech that contradict my statements.
Same thing with any politician, left or right, who states that an obese person is a "fat hedonist." An obese person is surely that by definition, as much as a promiscuous woman is a "slut" by definition.
A promiscuous woman can certainly be called a "slut," and the word accurately describes her. An obese person can certainly be called a "fat hedonist," and the term accurately describes that person.
But how smart would it be for you, me, a medical doctor, or ANYONE ELSE to use the term "fat hedonist" to describe an obese person with whom they have a dispute of opinion? About as smart as a political figure like Rush calling a promiscuous woman in the opposing political party a "slut."
Look around you Finny, you live in California, what is one more liberal slut? Your state is a magnet for them.
Please advise if this is not true.
You are naive to believe that if Rush hadn't used the term slut - and not directly but by asking a question - that nobody would have paid attention to Fluke. Why on earth do you think the Dems held this bogus, unofficial hearing in the first place? They were going to use it to full effect. If your suggestion is that Rush should have ignored the testimony altogether in order to not make Fluke more important you may have a point. But it's what he does - and very well. You seem to think he should have a different purpose in life that conforms to your requirements.
BTW, let us all know when you reach a 20 million plus audience for your opinions so that we can take your career advice to Rush a little more seriously.
I figured you had, you are usually very meticulous that way...
She wasn't allowed to testify and for good reason.
Correct again. The Rats attempted to foist her upon the committee at the last minute. It's a pity, really, because separated from the chaff, a major flaw could have been pointed out had she testified *under oath.*.
Her statement was about a "friend of a friend" of hers who had some condition, which was supposedly something that could have been treated with birth control pills. The story line was her friend of a friend could not get them because Georgetown would not provide them, but that was the reddest of red herrings because they would have if the prescribing Doctor simply diagnosed her with the condition. Georgetown's problem with the medication involved was with people wanting it for birth control purposes, but would have popped for the pills if it was to treat the medical condition described.
I think her story was a lie from start to finish, and unfortunately those facts never came out. So....I figure I might as well poke fun at her for wanting government to supply $9000 worth of condoms because everything else was a lie anyway. Sometimes I'm bad that way.
Just before Rush went off on Fluke, he announced that he had this cnsnew.com article:
Please humor me and post as close as you can the exact way the word "slut" came about during Rush's broadcast.
You seem to be so hung up on that word, and my point is he could have used it or not, could have used another, or not, but just the fact the he made a commentary about it was going to generate publicity for Fluke. End of story.
That's what liberals do - they do everything in their power to shut up their opposition. Are you suggesting we give in to it?
No, the story was about her friend and the physician had verified the illness with the insurance company (according to Fluke).
From the testimony:
" For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy."
That's the story I said was a medical coverage issue, not a contraceptive coverage issue. Fluke's ridiculous statements on contraceptives included this doozy:
"You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true."
Your details are more accurate than mine, but not my point anyway. I wonder: How would things be different had she been properly vetted and under oath? Rush Limbaugh’s part in all this really isn’t as major as some would like to make it out to be, because the rest of the press was willing to jump in and repeat the falsehoods she spewed anyway.
BTW, as you correctly point out, it wasn’t a “contraception story,” it was a “medical story” being dishonestly reported as a story about contraception. As I pointed out, a red herring, which is why she would never have been allowed to testify in a real hearing.
On the first day, Rush said:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back."
On day two, Rush used the word "slut" six times, but four times he specifically quoted what he said on day one, and the other two times he was quoting what Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat, California, said on the House floor.
Rush's lawyers didn't seem particularly concerned about the term "slut." After the first day, the transcript on Rush's site was edited to remove the part of Rush's monologue where he called Fluke "base" and "immoral", but "slut" was left in the transcript until the whole thing was yanked from Rush's site.
I was wrong. Limbaugh said he had an article from Cybercast News Service.
I think she got plenty of exposure with the lifestyle that requires thousands of dollars of birth control.
Sorry - I know what was said I heard it when it happened. I was asking Finny because it appears he/she is unaware of the actual transcript. I was just trying to confirm my suspicion one way or the other.
The Tampa Bay Times correctly quotes Fluke as saying "And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them -- them, not me -- to be heard."
Fluke did not say ""And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them to be heard," as reported by ABC News. If you can stomach it, you can view the first minute of Fluke's testimony on Youtube to confirm this.
I’ll take your word for it.
I may seem like a bit of a wiseguy at times, but I’ve learned over the years you are one to be trusted. I mean that sincerely. Besides, you are a rare specimen: One who has been here longer than I. I, on the other hand, am not a “serious” poster. Just a wiseguy, often more amused than bemused, but it’s hard to tell the difference some days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.