Connect with us

How Rush Limbaugh’s “Apology” Destroys Any Credibility He Had Left On The Right

Published

on

Rush Limbaugh, after four days of putting the nation through a cultural, gender, sexist, and misogynistic war, has “apologized” and within his apology he has revealed the roots of his madness. Limbaugh, who spent half this week calling a college student a “slut” and a “prostitute,” then demanding she post online videos of her having sex, released a short statement (in full, below,) in which he reveals that every moment of his 35 years on the air have merely been “absurdity,” and that his comments and positions are not meant to be taken seriously. In other words, Limbaugh retreated to his supporters’ (faulty) default position that the conservative radio talk show shock jock is merely an “entertainer.”

READ: Limbaugh Brand Poison As List Of Advertisers Quitting Jumps Yet Again

To be clear, he is not merely an “entertainer.” And to be clear, were he merely an “entertainer,” he would still be held to the same standard as every other human being in this nation.

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

Shorter Limbaugh: “Officer, I didn’t know the gun was loaded.” Or, slightly longer, shorter Limbaugh: “I’m sorry, I thought I could get away with murder like I always do.”

But the gun is loaded, Rush, and you yourself, every day, go to Walmart, buy the gun, buy the ammunition, load the bullets, and shoot. Every day. “Three hours a day, five days a week.”

Limbaugh in this case reminds me so much of RedState founder and CNN contributor Erick Erickson, who immediately upon being hired at CNN was forced to issue an apology for his comments. His excuse? Essentially, “I was just talking like I do with my friends and neighbors.”

The lack of self-awareness of both Erickson and Limbaugh is astonishing. Were they both 18, perhaps we could understand — although not excuse — their daily atrocities, their daily assaults on this county. Alas, they are not.

But what is perhaps even more frightening is that is would seem Limbaugh is taking his marching orders — or at least his words — from Erickson.

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week,” Limbaugh’s statement said today.

“So of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting,” wrote Erickson Friday morning. “He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this.”

If that don’t beat all.

Rush Limbaugh is a 61 year old multi-multi millionaire who heads — albeit, unofficially — the Republican Party. And he has now headed it into shame, disrepute, misogynistic attacks, and we are left on the sidelines, watching the implosion.

Limbaugh has lost many corporate advertisers, and many companies lost by those advertisers, and possibly for the first time in his life he has been forced to apologize for his actions.

But his apology is not enough, not satisfying, not fulfilling. It is empty, shallow, the excuse-ridden day-late homework assignment of a fifth grader who copied it while looking over his shoulder at someone else’s work.

In short, he’s cheated again.

For locked within his non-apology apology is the fact that he still just doesn’t get it. He still has no idea what the issue is really all about.

“I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation,” Limbaugh says.

You think?

 

Limbaugh apologized because he finally realized that even he could go to far, and his comments all week had not only weakened the nation, not only weakened the Party, not only weakened his bank account, but had weakened his brand.

 

 

But, in fact, he didn’t choose the wrong words. He chose the wrong analogy. And he chose the wrong analogy because he doesn’t understand the situation to begin with.

Limbaugh’s ignorant comments — aside from the ad hominem attack on Sandra Fluke — reveal, as Rachel Maddow discovered, that Limbaugh thinks that women have to take a birth control pill every time they have sex. Limbaugh’s comments reveal that he thinks contraception is merely something women use to ensure they don’t get pregnant. And Limbaugh’s comments reveal his belief that the proper and default condition for women is to be pregnant.

“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress,” Limbaugh’s apology continues. If that were true, Limbaugh would have annihilated not Sandra Fluke, but Darrell Issa, who convened a U.S. House of Representatives hearing in which five men representing various religions were caught “discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.”

After claiming, “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke,” which — clearly — he did, Limbaugh says, “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.” That’s how Limbaugh’s “apology” ends. Note, it doesn’t say, for “my” insulting word choices. It doesn’t say “I apologize for using her as a target.” It doesn’t say, “I apologize for attacking all women.” It doesn’t say, “I apologize for my ignorance, I will explore the issue more in depth and consult with women in order to gain a better understanding of this issue that literally affects every person in America, directly or indirectly.”

No.

“I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation.”

“I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Too little, too late Rush.

Finally, let’s be especially clear: Rush Limbaugh did not apologize out of sincerity. Limbaugh did not apologize after wrestling with his inner demons, or after soul-searching, or after consulting with his better angels. Limbaugh apologized after losing a half-dozen advertisers — and after knowing more were about to jump ship. In short, Limbaugh apologized because he finally realized that even he could go too far, and his comments all week had not only weakened the nation, not only weakened the Party, not only weakened his bank account, but had weakened his brand. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the only reason Rush Limbaugh offered his three-paragraph apology.

Rush Limbaugh’s apology, full complete text:

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.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. 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?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.

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.

Actually, one last thing. What did Limbaugh write on his website one day before his apology was posted? It was called, “I’m a Danger to the Women of America?,” and included this:

So Pelosi arranges her own press conference for the woman, and the woman makes it clear (her name is Sandra Fluke) that she’s having so much sex, she can’t pay for it — and we should.  She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford it.

She gives the numbers: $3,000 worth of birth control pills worth of sex.  She’s paying anywhere from $35,000 to $50,000 a year to go to Georgetown, $20,000 room and board, and can’t afford the $1,800 to $3,000 a year for birth control pills and wants us to pay for it.  I said, “What does that make her?”  She wants taxpayers, the Democrats want taxpayers, to pay for it. They want to create a welfare entitlement program where we provide birth control pills, because pregnancy’s an illness. Pregnancy is a “women’s health issue.”  So the woman comes forth with this, frankly hilarious claim that she’s having so much sex (and her buddies with her) that she can’t afford it.

And not one person says, “Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?  Do you ever think maybe it’s your responsibility for your own birth control, not everybody else’s?”  Nobody raises those questions.  Amazingly, when there is the slightest bit of opposition to this new welfare entitlement being created, then all of a sudden we hate women! We want ’em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, all of these other things.  So that’s where we are.  And now, at the end of this week, I am the person that the women of America are to fear the most.

No, Rush, no one fears you anymore. Now, we merely pity and despise you. And that’s the way apologies work. No one is forced to accept them. You have to hope you have enough good will stored in your bank of gratitude to pay for it. And yours, Rush, has been overdrawn for decades.

When history has had its say on you, trust me, Rush, it will not have chosen the wrong words.

Related:

Limbaugh Brand Poison As List Of Advertisers Quitting Jumps Yet Again

Breaking: Fifth Advertiser Quits Rush Limbaugh After “Slut” Comments

Santorum On “Slut” Slur: Limbaugh An “Entertainer” Who Was “Being Absurd”

Limbaugh “Should Apologize” Says Scott Brown, First GOPer To Denounce

Third Limbaugh Advertiser Quits After Rush Calls 30 Year Old A ‘Slut’

Limbaugh Advertiser Exits Stage Left After Rush’s “Slut” Comments

Limbaugh: Law Student GOP Wouldn’t Let Testify Must Post Sex Tapes Online

Limbaugh Calls Law Student GOP Wouldn’t Let Testify “Prostitute” And “Slut”

Image: Rush Limbaugh by DonkeyHotey

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

3 hours ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

22 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.