The Democrats are Desperate: Obama Calls Sandra Fluke, the 30-Year-Old Victim

[DCPatriot]

The Democrats are Desperate: Obama Calls Sandra Fluke, the 30-Year-Old Victim
March 02, 2012


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: "A Missouri House member frustrated with recent legislative debates over birth control and reproductive health is proposing to restrict vasectomies. Legislation sponsored by Democrat Stacey Newman would allow vasectomies only when necessary to protect a man from serious injury or death." You will not find the name "Rush Limbaugh" anywhere on this legislation.  Nor do I know Ms. Newman.  I'm not in cahoots with her.  In the state of Missouri, a woman "frustrated with recent legislative debates over birth control and reproductive health" has proposed legislation that would deny men the right to have a vasectomy whenever and for whatever reason they wanted.

Men would have to get that approved.  "Vasectomies would have to be performed in a hospital, ambulatory surgery center or health facility licensed by the state Department of Health and Senior Services." What, is this?  Are there back-alley vasectomies going on that we don't know about?  Have you heard this, Snerdley?  Are there back-alley vasectomies taking place?  "The Missouri House last week approved a resolution objecting to the federal health care law and a requirement that most employers or insurers cover contraceptives. Newman, who's from St. Louis County, says that such issues affect women the most." Really?  Affect women the most?



"She says men also must make family planning decisions." So here you have it, folks.  Now we're going to restrict vasectomies.  A legislator, state representative in Missouri wants to regulate and restrict vasectomies.  Can I do this?  Do I have this power?  I do not.  And yet it is happening.  Seriously, what is there about me to fear? (interruption) Oh, is that... Well, that's touching.  Obama just called Sandra Fluke to make sure she was all right? Awwww.  (kissing sound)  That is so compassionate! What a great guy.  The president called her to make sure she's okay.  What is she 30 years old?  Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown law who admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore.

And thus, a new welfare entitlement must be created so that society will pay for it. You know, somebody asked me, "Why are you so insulting?"  Me? Can anybody understand that a whole lot of us are insulted by this?  Here we are, we're minding our business one day. We're bothering nobody. We can't anyway! We can't inspect your kids' lunch box. We can't raise your taxes. We can't send your kids off to war. We can't make you buy a certain kind of car. We can't do anything.  And all of a sudden we're told that people who want to have sex without consequence, sex with no responsibility, and we have pay for it! We're told we have to pay for it -- and if we object, that somehow we're Neanderthal.  Just out of nowhere this comes up.

Now, that, to me, is insulting.

It's no different than if somebody that I don't know knocked on my door and said, "You know what? I'm outta money. I can't afford birth control pills and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight."

"Well, why are you coming to me?"

"Well, because you've got the money."

"Well, have you ever thought maybe you shouldn't? If you can't afford it, you can't do it."

Where is it written that all of a sudden, if you want something and don't have the money for it, somebody else has to pay for it.  I think the whole notion of being insulted here is misplaced. There are a lot of us insulted by this whole idea that is growing throughout the Obama administration, that the people who make this country work are somehow not doing their fair share.  Not paying their fair share.  We've gotta be punished even more.  And here's the latest example of it.  So the President has called her and asked her if she's all right.  She said she was, I hope.  Do we know what she said?  (interruption) Oh, she told that to Andrea Mitchell?  You know, I offered to pay for aspirins.  I thought I'd been quite compassionate here.

You know, also, one thing that's patently obvious, is that when the left wants to pretend they have no sense of humor, they are excellent at it.  Yesterday in the riff about it, "Okay, okay, fine. If we're gonna pay for this, at least let us have something for it. How about some sex videos?" If anybody doesn't realize that we are illustrating absurdity here by being absurd and that that is the trademark of this program...  But oh! No! "Oh, of everything else you've said, that's the lowest of the low. Demanding sex video? Who do you think you are?" Lighten up.  I remember using that phrase all the way back in 1989: "Lighten up."  They're also upset because I called Danica Patrick a "woman driver." (interruption)

Yeah, I know.  Snerdley, I told you, "This is gonna be bigger than the phony soldiers," and he didn't think it was.  I said, "Oh, it's gonna be ten times bigger.  This is gonna be ten times bigger than the phony soldiers, ten times bigger than the Michael J. Fox thing, 'cause the Democrats are desperate."  The Democrats are desperate, and I don’t know why they want people... Well, I do know why they want people to fear me.  This is all they've got, is to go out and try to discredit their critics, to impugn and discredit the people who disagree with them. Because there's no way, if we actually sat down and had a debate about this proposition, anybody on the left can win this.  Not in a sane world where there is common sense.

Apparently Sandra Fluke told Obama something. When he asked her if she's okay, she said that Obama told her that she should tell her parents they should be proud. (pause) Okay, I'm button my lip on that one.  The president tells Sandra Fluke (chuckling), 30-year-old Sandra Fluke, that her parents should be proud.  Okay.  Let me ask you a question.  I might be surprised at the answer I would get to this question.  Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud?  I don't know about you, but I'd be embarrassed.  I'd disconnect the phone. I'd go into hiding and hope the media didn't find me.  See, everybody forgets what starts this, or what started this whole thing. Or maybe they don't! Maybe that's normal behavior on the left now, for all I know.

But it's one thing for Obama to call and ask her if she's okay.

I'm waiting for Bill Clinton to call her.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Have I denied Sandra Fluke her birth control pills?

"No, but you would."

No I wouldn't.  I wouldn't deny her her birth control pills.  That's not what this is about. This isn't about birth control pills, anyway, folks.  This isn't about contraception anyway.  This is about expanding the reach and power of government into your womb, if you're a woman.  This is about the Democrat Party wanting more and more control over you.  What was early feminism all about?  Emancipation, individuality, freedom, liberation, all of these things. Now here comes Danica Patrick out and she says, "I'm perfectly comfortable letting the government make my health decisions for me."  Well, folks, I'm gonna tell you: Right there, that's the death and the end of feminism.



When Danica Patrick can come out and say (paraphrased), "Oh, I'm perfectly fine with the government making these health care decisions for me," and that's feminism?  I don't want to make these decisions! Nobody is denying Ms. Fluke her birth control pills.  Ms. Fluke is approaching everybody and asking us to pay for them.  I take it back.  The president of Georgetown University whose name is John DeGioia (I've never heard it pronounced so I don't know how). Georgetown University president John DeGioia blasted my comments as "misogynistic" and "vitriolic."  But who is it exactly that is denying Sandra Fluke her free birth control pills?

Isn't it this guy?  Who's she upset at?  Georgetown!

She went to Georgetown knowing that they didn't provide free contraception as part of their health plan, whatever it is. And this guy, the president of the university, is thus the man denying her her birth control pills -- and she's mad at me! This guy says I'm "misogynistic" and "vitriolic," and he's the guy that's denying Ms. Fluke her free birth control pills.  Yet I, El Rushbo -- a harmless, lovable little fuzzball -- am the enemy here.  The dirty little secret is nobody's denying Sandra Fluke her birth control pills, obviously.  Isn't it obvious?  As frequently as she has sex and to not be pregnant, she's obviously succeeding in contraception.  So nobody's denying here contraception, and nobody wanted to.  Certainly not I.

I don't care, except when I'm told that policy makes it that the rest of society must assume responsibility and cost for behavior that people want to engage in with no consequences and no responsibility themselves.  That's insulting.  Pure insulting.  Now, the definition of a "misogynist" is a man who hates women almost as much as women hate women.  That's what a misogynist is.  Did you know that, Snerdley?  A misogynist is a guy who hates women almost as much as women hate women, and I do not hate women.  Why should gay people have to pay taxes to supply birth control for straight people, for the breeders?  Why should they?  Where's the social justice in that?

Open Line Friday.  Let's move on.  Scottsbluff, Nebraska.  This is Tamara.  Great to have you, and welcome to the program.

CALLER:  Thank you, sir.  Good afternoon.  I will get right to the point.  You know, over the last couple of days, listening to your show, never once was I offended or insulted by any statement you made.  What insulted me and offended me -- and, quite frankly, made me furious -- was the comments made by the women of this whole proceeding: Those who were hosting it, the commentators that reacted to it.  The entire time I listened to Sandra Fluke speak, all I could think of is, "You are setting every woman in this country back decades."

RUSH:  How?

CALLER:  "You make it sound like we are incompetent and ignorant and not capable of thinking of a way to take care of ourselves.  You're smart enough to be accepted into Georgetown law, but you can't think of a way to pay for birth control?"  Birth Control is as important as housing a roof over your head, clothes for your body, food for your mouth?  You've got to be kidding.

RUSH:  That's a good point. Where does it stop?  Once contraceptives are paid for by everybody else, what about food next? And what about clothes, the Manolo Blahniks? What about that?

CALLER:  That's my point.  That was the first of it. When I was putting myself through college, I paid for every dime of it myself and there were months I was scared to death 'cause I didn't know how I was gonna make the money to pay for the next semester. But I did it, and I did it because I had a job.  But never in my entire college career did I say, "Oh, golly, how am I gonna pay for my birth control this month?"  It didn't cross my mind.  It wasn't a need.  It was my responsibility to take care of my education, my food and my body, and nobody else's.  You want us to take care of our own bodies yet you're gonna make the argument that somebody else needs to pay for your child care --

RUSH:  That's an excellent point.

CALLER:   --  and your birth control?

RUSH:  I tell you what.  I would go further.  Once this is permissible, once any citizen -- say "women," once a woman -- opens the door of the government providing contraception at no charge, the door is open. And with Obamacare in place, dictates on all aspects of our behavior can then take place.

CALLER:  You have hit the nail on the head, and I can't believe there aren't more women from the left screaming at the top of their lungs, "Shut your mouth, please! You're killing us."

RUSH:  Well, I say this really with the absence of all ego: What this is about now is getting me.  What this is about is silencing me, removing my voice as a credible critic.  This is not even about contraception or any of that anymore.  Because you raise another good point.  The assumption in this is that every woman in this country is angered by what I said. Every woman in this country.

CALLER:  We're not!

RUSH:  Of course not.



CALLER:  We're angry about them, and you can button your lip all you want. I'll handle this one myself, because I can take care of myself. And every parent out there should be embarrassed if they had a daughter that stood up and said, "I'm sorry, I can't take care of this one. Will someone handle this for me?" I pray every morning and every night when I send my little girl out of my home when she turns 18 (or even sooner if she chooses), if she has a job and she can take care of herself, is that she goes through this world... And I have armed her with enough intelligence and self-worth and common sense that she can take care of herself and she doesn't have to rely on anybody else but herself.

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  And then she can use the gifts God gave her to help anybody she chooses, in any way she wishes --

RUSH:  Well, the gifts --

CALLER:  -- if she can take care of herself.

RUSH:  Well, "the gifts that God gave her" are the Democrat Party today.  That's what you're supposed to think. It's what Sandra Fluke thinks and Danica Patrick thinks and what you're supposed to think.  But the question in terms of feminism is: Whatever happened to "hands off our bodies"?  So now we got a woman in Missouri upset over all this who now wants to restrict vasectomies.  The door's open.  That's what's insulting to me.  And I'll tell you something else.  In addition to being insulting, what's frightening is how few people apparently see this.  Now, the media, they're just in lockstep. This is the template; this is the narrative. As I say, this is the third or fourth such attempt is this.  And there will be more.

I appreciate your call, Tamara. 

END TRANSCRIPT
__________________________________________________

[Rapunzel]

The head honcho from the Washington Post was on Special Report tonight and going off on Rush -- sounded exactly like this article in The Post today by "Editorial Staff" (cowards)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-can-no-longer-avoid-its-rush-limbaugh-problem/2012/03/02/gIQA1xvVnR_story.html?hpid=z3

The GOP can no longer avoid its Rush Limbaugh problem.
By Editorial Board, Friday, March 2, 4:37 PM

IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.

Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note.

We are not calling for censorship. Nor are we suggesting that the ostensible policy issue here — mandatory provision of contraception under health insurance paid for by religious-based institutions such as Georgetown — is a simple one. Those who questioned President Obama’s initial decisions in this area — we among them — were not waging a “war on women,” as Democrats have alleged in strident fundraising appeals.

What we are saying is that Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.

House Speaker John Boehner took a step in that direction Friday: “The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an e-mail Friday morning. But there’s no moral equivalency between the Democrats’ hyperbolic but abstract “war on women” line and Mr. Limbaugh’s targeted attack. Mr. Boehner and others of his stature need to say unequivocally that such gutter rhetoric has no place in their party or in American politics.

Incivility is not a one-way street in America. Far from it: Mr. Limbaugh’s left-wing equivalents have trashed any number of conservatives over the years. Conservatives have a point when they protest that the “mainstream media” don’t always heed their legitimate grievances.

Yet under the influence of Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk, the Republicans risk coming before the voters in 2012, and after, with nothing but grievances. This is what former Florida governor Jeb Bush was trying to tell his fellow Republicans when he observed, apropos of a recent discourse in the GOP primary: “It’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that’s kind of where we are.”

For the good of U.S. political culture — or at least its own political self-interest — the GOP must distance itself from Mr. Limbaugh. In response to listener complaints and, apparently, the promptings of its own corporate conscience, Sleep Train Mattress Centers has quit advertising on Mr. Limbaugh’s show. Dare Republican leaders show less decency?