Rush To a Fluke

Rush Limbaugh went so far to the right in denouncing President Obama's health insurance policy for guaranteeing insurance coverage for birth control that he actually, for the first time in a long time, threatened his own career. When Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke testified before House Democrats in favor of Obama's policy to require insurance companies to provide birth control coverage to students of Catholic universities such as herself, in recognition of Georgetown's obvious refusal to do so, Limbaugh called her a "slut" and a "prostitute" on the grounds that any woman who needs birth control is obviously sexually active and that funding birth control coverage through Obama's mandate is essentially asking taxpayers to finance someone's sex life.

This is so wrong on so many counts. First of all, birth control devices such as pills are not taken in anticipation of sexual activity or on a constant basis like, say Viagra. Second of all, providing birth control saves money on health care expenditures in the long term. And third and most important, calling a woman a "slut" or "prostitute" for something as innocuous as supporting birth control coverage is misogynistic and mean-spirited.

Faced with the obvious possibility of losing advertisers - he'd lost two already, both mattress companies, over this - Limbaugh (sort of) apologized and said that he selected the wrong terminology to make his case against federally mandated contraception coverage. I'll let him explain it:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."

If this sounds like a preamble to an excuse as well as an attempt to cast himself as a purveyor of wit, it is. Because this is what he also said in the same statement he issued today:

"[This debate is] utterly absurd . . .. In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom, nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level," he said.

Wow . . . "posited?" That's a very intellectual word for him! And by the way, if he doesn't think this is an appropriate topic for public discourse or worthy of the "presidential level" (Obama spoke to Ms. Fluke after Limbaugh made his original comments), then why did he dump all over Sandra Fluke in public during a presidential campaign?

And why did he mock her to the backing music of Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer?"

Democrats originally wanted Ms. Fluke to testify at a House committee hearing on the need for her to get birth control coverage that her Jesuit school will not provide for her, but the Republican-majority members of the committee holding the hearings refused on the grounds that they were asking about birth control coverage as a religious, not a medical, issue. The Democrats on that same committee held a counter-hearing after the Republican committee hearing heard exclusively from men and had Ms. Fluke testify in the hope of calling attention to her cause. They couldn't have gotten better attention and sympathy for Ms. Fluke than by provoking Limbaugh if they tried.

For one brief shining moment, it looked like Limbaugh would be thrown off the air and the only Rush we'd ever hear on the radio again was a power trio from Toronto. But his quasi-apology may have provided him enough cover to avoid have what happened to Glenn Beck at Fox News happen to him. (And by the way, Beck is still on the radio and hasn't really gone anywhere.)  And, to be honest, Limbaugh must be enjoying the free publicity he's getting for himself yet again. He knows that any press, even bad press, is good press, and when folks like Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz bash him, they're only focusing on Limbaugh's favorite subject.

Oh yeah, in his statement today he tried to explain his opposition to Obama's health care policy:

"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?"

I, for one, would gladly pay for a pair of sneakers for Limbaugh to encourage him to take up jogging (no cracks, please, about encourage him to jog off a short pier).

But I don't want my tax dollars to pay for the golf cart he wants to whiz through art museums in.