[Fox Nation, 3/1/12]
CNN’s Erickson: ” Of Course Rush Was Being Insulting … But He Was Using Insult And Sarcasm To Highlight The Absurdity Of Sandra Fluke And The Left’s Position.” In a March 2 RedState post, CNN contributor Erick Erickson responded to Carly Fiorina, vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, after she criticized Limbaugh’s comments as “insulting.” Erickson wrote:
Well of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. It is not something I would do, but he was using insult and sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of Sandra Fluke and the left’s position, which in a nut shell is they think you, me, and every other American should pay for them to have sex. And while I understand people being offended, I am offended by many of these same people thinking I should be subsidizing what has, for years, been considered a consensual act. [RedState, 3/2/12, emphasis added]
NRO’s Charen: Limbaugh’s “Choice Of Words Was Crude But … I Certainly Understood And Sympathized With The Point.” In a March 2 post on National Review Online, Mona Charen addressed comments she had made during a recent appearance on NBC’s Nightly News. Charen wrote:
The producers culled a few unrepresentative words from my interview. So here’s what I said.
When the producer asked: “What do you make of Rush Limbaugh’s comments?” I said that his choice of words was crude but that I certainly understood and sympathized with the point he was making. A law student is now a hardship case? She needs the rest of us to provide her with free contraceptives? [National Review Online, 3/2/12, emphasis added]
Hot Air’s Korbe: “Rush’s Comments Are Intentionally Provocative, But They Also Underscore The Point.” In a February 1 post on Hot Air, Tina Korbe wrote of the controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s comments:
Rush’s comments are intentionally provocative, but they also underscore the point that women and men who aren’t sexually active rarely have a need for contraception. Others have made the point he’s making — that if we’re gonna pay for birth control, we want something in return — in a less over-the-top way by pointing out that, if we’re going to pay for our neighbor’s birth control, then we should have a say in our neighbor’s sex life. How does that newly-coined saying go? “If you don’t want Uncle Sam in your bedroom, don’t ask Uncle Sam to pay for what goes down in your bedroom.” [Hot Air, 3/1/12, emphasis added]
NewsBusters On Limbaugh’s Comments: “Obviously, A Bit Of Humor Which Escaped The Overly-Sensitive Left-Wing/Media Axis Always Looking To Be Offended.” In a March 1 NewsBusters post, Brent Baker, vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, criticized NBC‘s Nightly News and anchor Brian Williams for its report on the controversy over Limbaugh’s comments. From NewsBusters:
Limbaugh’s comment which Williams characterized as “offensive”? This is the one and only Limbaugh soundbite NBC played:
So, Ms. Fluke, and the rest of you Femi-Nazis, here’s the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and, thus, pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
Obviously, a bit of humor which escaped the overly-sensitive left-wing/media axis always looking to be offended. [NewsBusters, 3/1/12, emphasis added]
Jim Hoft: Fluke “Insisted She Was No Prostitute For Wanting Government To Pay For Her Sex At College.” In a March 2 Gateway Pundit post titled, “Hot-And-Bothered Coed Who Demanded Free Birth Control From Congress Responds to Critics — Insists She’s No Prostitute,” Jim Hoft wrote:
On Thursday night, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz interviewed hot-and-bothered Georgetown coed Sandra Fluke, the woman who went before a Congressional panel and demanded free birth control for herself and her peers. Sandra Fluke, who was mocked by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this week, insisted she was no prostitute for wanting government to pay for her sex at college. [Gateway Pundit, 3/2/12, emphasis in original]
Fox’s Starnes: “Limbaugh Is One Hundred Percent Right.” On his Twitter, Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes cheered Limbaugh for his remarks about Fluke. Starnes wrote:
[Twitter, 3/1/12, 3/2/12]
CNN’s Loesch Suggests Fluke Is “Promiscu[ous],” “Not … Virtuous” And Asserts That Limbaugh “Is Calling The Truth For What It Is.” In a March 2 Big Journalism post, CNN contributor Dana Loesch wrote:
Instead of projecting surrogate modesty towards Fluke, they project it towards Limbaugh, who is calling the truth for what it is. Fluke, a 30 year-old (presented as a 23 year-old college coed by the media) women’s activist/professional student, is likely not having monogamous sex with the same man approximately 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years (in order to satisfy the calculations about which she felt confident enough to present during a congressional testimony). If she is, kudos! But promiscuity is not the hallmark of a virtuous woman. Is it Limbaugh’s fault for pointing it out or Fluke’s fault for the behavior? It’s a rhetorical question and the answer proved Limbaugh’s entire point.
The real war on women is being perpetuated upon us by our own sex; women who seek to place us under the control of a pimp-daddy government by demanding it cover all our needs, in exchange for control, or force private entities to do so in its stead. [Big Journalism, 3/2/12]
Fox’s Hannity: Limbaugh Is Making The Point That “For Crying Out Loud, Why Is The Taxpayer Bearing The Cost Of The Sex Life Of Students At Georgetown University Law School?” On the March 2 edition of his radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity said:
HANNITY: [W]ith absolutely, you know, just a sense of confidence in what is right here, I watched this woman Sandra Fluke give this testimony. And it’s — there is a sense of entitlement and outrage that in fact that she or her fellow law students will have to pay for their own contraception.
And now people are mad at Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh, I’ve been a fan of for years. And for years, what does he say? He illustrates absurdity by being absurd. And Rush says: “Well, if we’re going to pay for it do we get videos with it?” Did he mean it? You know, for those on the — no, he did not mean it. He’s making a point. And the point is is that for crying out loud, why is the taxpayer bearing the cost of the sex life of students at Georgetown University Law School? And how that’s missed on the media. I mean, maybe she could take a year off of law school to pay — to fund, you know, the remaining three years of one’s sex life. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]