Rush is back!

[Pogo]

No. Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, not a radio bloviator (like Ingraham) who fields such criticism as part of her job on a daily basis.

In any case you presented a postulation naming two names, and I refuted both of them. Wouldn't you agreeeeee? Coming back with "yeah but this" and "yeah but that" just sounds kinda lame. As does Ilar doing the same thing analyzing the whys and wherefores.

Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.

End of problem.

Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted. That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.

It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure. Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said. They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it. The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.

As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true. But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:

Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called many things, from a heroine to a “slut,” but actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting information:

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

Though there aren’t links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that it’s all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women’s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.

First, there’s the matter of Fluke’s age. In a segment on Fluke’s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman.

According to a bio on Georgetown's website, Fluke's professional background is in domestic violence and human trafficking advocacy. At Georgetown law, she is the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and vice president of the Women's Legal Alliance. She has a bachelor's degree in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies from Cornell.

Read more: Who Is Sandra Fluke? - BusinessInsider.com - Business Insider

Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.

A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor

Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'? Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.

But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure? Not in my book.

Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this. There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website. It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it. (I could be off on the timeline.) But it has vanished. And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.

Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs

You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try). That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such. I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial. And yes that is different from a private citizen. And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for three hours a day times three days. You're fooling no one but yourself here. And this is really not the topic anyway.

To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.

End of problem.

Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted. That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.

It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure. Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said. They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it. The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.

As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true. But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:

Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.

A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor

Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'? Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.

But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure? Not in my book.

Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this. There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website. It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it. (I could be off on the timeline.) But it has vanished. And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.

Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs

You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try). That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such. I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial. And yes that is different from a private citizen. And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for three hours a day times three days. You're fooling no one but yourself here. And this is really not the topic anyway.

To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio

Wishing for it won't make it come true, ploddo.

We all get it. You hate conservative talk radio programming. You wish it would die. Ho hum.

But this month's "moving away" can easily be next month's "moving back."

The cause of modern American liberalism self-implodes with the horrendous performance of the Obama Administration relative to the IRS, Benghazi and the coverup scandal, the misuse (or alleged misuse) of the Patriot Act type laws, etc. etc etc.

The disquiet that folks feel for government in these cases, magnified by their numbers and importance, might just feed into a brand new re-invigoration of conservative talk radio.

But go ahead and count your chickens before they're hatched. Hell, count 'em before the eggs even get laid.

 

[edthecynic]

It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure. Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said. They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it. The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.

As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true. But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:





Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'? Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.

But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure? Not in my book.

It does matter that she had already become a public figure. HOWEVER, that does NOT excuse the fact that Rush called her a "slut."

And I still say that Rush owed her a genuine apology for saying that.

Rush (pardon my French) fucked up. He has paid a rather hefty price for that, by the way.

The efforts of the usual-suspect lefties to exploit it to the point of silencing him completely is transparently disingenuous, though.

He did apologize.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."--Rush Limbaugh. He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.

Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.

But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it. Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.

That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs. And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.

You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."

March 03, 2012
RUSH: But this is the mistake I made.* In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.*
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.* That was my error.* I became like them, and I feel very badly about that...
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals. Good.

The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke. My bad for having forgotten that.

Foxy is right. He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.

 

[Foxfyre]

The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals. Good.

The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke. My bad for having forgotten that.

Foxy is right. He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.

If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.

 

[edthecynic]

It does matter that she had already become a public figure. HOWEVER, that does NOT excuse the fact that Rush called her a "slut."

And I still say that Rush owed her a genuine apology for saying that.

Rush (pardon my French) fucked up. He has paid a rather hefty price for that, by the way.

The efforts of the usual-suspect lefties to exploit it to the point of silencing him completely is transparently disingenuous, though.

He did apologize.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."--Rush Limbaugh. He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.

Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.

But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it. Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.

That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs. And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.

You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."

March 03, 2012
RUSH: But this is the mistake I made.* In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.*
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.* That was my error.* I became like them, and I feel very badly about that...
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability

The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals. Good.

The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke. My bad for having forgotten that.

Foxy is right. He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.

If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.

You can't be serious. Wait a minute, yes you can.

The qualifier says it wasn't the insult that was the problem, but the words used to insult. It wasn't the insult, it was the Liberalism of the words used to insult her. Had he insulted her with less liberal more CON$ervative words like tramp instead of slut and whore instead of prostitute the insult would have been perfectly OK.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

He took a shot at the liberals while he was offering an apology to Fluke for what he said.

Obviously, close-minded partisan hack guys like edthesickdick are incapable of accepting that Rush could very easily have been JUST as sincere in apologizing to Fluke as he was sincere in taking a well-deserved shot at liberals.


They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Pogo]

The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals. Good.

The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke. My bad for having forgotten that.

Foxy is right. He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.

If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.

It was never a secret why it was necessary; as somebody described it at the time, it was a "walletfelt apology". He was hemorrhaging sponsors.

 

[Foxfyre]

He did apologize.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."--Rush Limbaugh. He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.

Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.

But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it. Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.

That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs. And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.

You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."

March 03, 2012
RUSH: But this is the mistake I made.* In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.*
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.* That was my error.* I became like them, and I feel very badly about that...
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability

The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals. Good.

The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke. My bad for having forgotten that.

Foxy is right. He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.

If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.

You can't be serious. Wait a minute, yes you can.

The qualifier says it wasn't the insult that was the problem, but the words used to insult. It wasn't the insult, it was the Liberalism of the words used to insult her. Had he insulted her with less liberal more CON$ervative words like tramp instead of slut and whore instead of prostitute the insult would have been perfectly OK.

Nope. He was further chastising himself for sinking to the level of people who think it is okay to direct such terms to some people, namely the hateful, judgmental, politically correct Left. He was acknowledging that he should have known better and not sunk to such a level. It was wrong to use those words or anything like them and he felt badly about that. It did not minimize or excuse or take anything away from the direct apology in any way.

 

[edthecynic]

He took a shot at the liberals while he was offering an apology to Fluke for what he said.

Obviously, close-minded partisan hack guys like edthesickdick are incapable of accepting that Rush could very easily have been JUST as sincere in apologizing to Fluke as he was sincere in taking a well-deserved shot at liberals.


They aren't mutually exclusive.

As sincere as using names and exaggerations is beneath him, after all he has never given anyone an insulting name like "feminazi" in the entire history of his show.

March 05, 2012
RUSH: I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level.

 

[edthecynic]

You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."

March 03, 2012
RUSH: But this is the mistake I made.* In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.*
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.* That was my error.* I became like them, and I feel very badly about that...
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability

If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.

You can't be serious. Wait a minute, yes you can.

The qualifier says it wasn't the insult that was the problem, but the words used to insult. It wasn't the insult, it was the Liberalism of the words used to insult her. Had he insulted her with less liberal more CON$ervative words like tramp instead of slut and whore instead of prostitute the insult would have been perfectly OK.

Nope. He was further chastising himself for sinking to the level of people who think it is okay to direct such terms to some people, namely the hateful, judgmental, politically correct Left. He was acknowledging that he should have known better and not sunk to such a level. It was wrong to use those words or anything like them and he felt badly about that. It did not minimize or excuse or take anything away from the direct apology in any way.

Chastising himself for being consistent with the entire history of his show, you mean.

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

 

[Foxfyre]

You probably still couldn't define feminazi or know who/what Rush means with that term if your life depended on it, Ed.

 

[Pogo]

You probably still couldn't define feminazi or know who/what Rush means with that term if your life depended on it, Ed.

You're saying there's a context where "Nazi" is a compliment?

 

[edthecynic]

You probably still couldn't define feminazi or know who/what Rush means with that term if your life depended on it, Ed.

So you think Feminazi is a compliment. Then you must think that using one person's speech pattern to insult another person's name is "an act of compassion."

To the wicked, everything serves as pretext.
Voltaire

April 1, 2008
RUSH: New York governor Mario Cooomo who was on -- where was this? -- The Situation Room. For those of you new to the program, "Rush, it's Cuo-mo." I know that. But a long time ago, I heard the Reverend Jackson pronounce his name "Cooomo." You know, it's not stylish and it's not classy to correct somebody's pronunciation of things, especially when the mistake is made by a man of the cloth and a respected, revered Rev. So if he thinks it's Cooomo, then on this program, it's Cooomo, and that is an act of compassion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since Ed has a really difficult time with context, here is the full context of Rush's comments a day or two AFTER his initial policy to Sandra Fluke that I have already posted and a subsequent media release on Friday, March 3 I think.

Note that he apologized a second time on air in this broadcast segment.

While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

Since Ed has a really difficult time with context, here is the full context of Rush's comments a day or two AFTER his initial policy to Sandra Fluke that I have already posted and a subsequent media release on Friday, March 3 I think.

Note that he apologized a second time on air in this broadcast segment.

While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

How many times does he have to pretend that his entire history is one of insulting those he doesn't agree with before you see him as the liar he is. His "apology" had all the sincerity of a pathological liar.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the point still goes whistling over the heads of Pogo and Ed. A pity, but oh well. I still say it's something in the water the liberals drink. . . .

 

[edthecynic]

And the point still goes whistling over the heads of Pogo and Ed. A pity, but oh well. I still say it's something in the water the liberals drink. . . .

And the point that he could be lying to cover his ass couldn't possibly be whistling over YOUR head, after all it's not like he has ever denied doing what he does before so the pathological liar is 100% believable.

May 6, 2008
RUSH: Everybody tampers with elections because they're trying to influence the outcome. But I'm not a tamperer.

May 9, 2008
RUSH: Operation Chaos involves Republican operatives tampering in, messing around with, having fun in, Democrat elections

January 19, 2009
RUSH: I don't see groups of people.

December 01, 2011
RUSH: This is an election of the makers versus the takers, and what hangs in the balance really is the American way of life.

 

[Pogo]

And the point still goes whistling over the heads of Pogo and Ed. A pity, but oh well. I still say it's something in the water the liberals drink. . . .

Drinking water is one thing; the waters of DeNial run much deeper.
And they have undercurrents that can sweep you away

 

[Ernie S.]

Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.

End of problem.

Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted. That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.

It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure. Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said. They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it. The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.

As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true. But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:

Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.

A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor

Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'? Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.

But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure? Not in my book.

Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this. There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website. It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it. (I could be off on the timeline.) But it has vanished. And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.

Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs

You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try). That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such. I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial. And yes that is different from a private citizen. And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for three hours a day times three days. You're fooling no one but yourself here. And this is really not the topic anyway.

To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio

Just an observation, Pogo: People might take you a bit more seriously if you called Mr. Limbaugh by his right name instead of some insulting bastardization of it that you find humorous.

You want people to treat Ms. Fluke with respect, but can't reciprocate?

Just a touch hypocritical, no?