... 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.
What's gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government, making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn't willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.
Now, the hearing that started all of this, I want to go back and put the timeline here in context, start at the very beginning. The hearing that started all of this was called by Darrell Issa, a California Republican, he's the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa is on our side. His point in calling this hearing was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired. But his committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. What this was all about was the president of the United States acting extra-constitutionally, mandating that Catholic churches and their schools provide contraceptives, abortifacients. He doesn't have that power constitutionally. He cannot mandate these things.
That was the original purpose of the hearing. He was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired, but his committee is made up of Republicans and Democrats and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. So the Democrats tried to play a game with Darrell Issa and his committee, and he rejected it. What they did was, they requested a witness for his hearing, a man named Barry Lynn to make their points for them. Barry Lynn is a guy that remits the Democrat point of view. They asked for him in advance. Issa's committee checked him out, invited him, and prepared for his testimony. Issa agreed he has a degree of expertise about the subject matter of the hearing, which was not contraception. That's what Obama wants to turn this into.
Obama is sorely hurting with women in preelect polls. He wanted to turn this into an issue much as they used to use abortion. So the Democrats played the game. What happened next is instructive, and it's very important. At literally the last minute the Democrats decided they want Sandra Fluke. What happened next, at the last minute the Democrats decided that Sandra Fluke would be a better witness for them, not because she had any special knowledge or credentials like Barry Lynn has, but because her optics as a woman and a college student, a 30-year-old college student and an activist on Democrat issues, by the way.
They thought all of that would show better than Barry Lynn. Now, this is at 4:30 p.m., 4:30 in the afternoon, the day before the hearing that the Democrats asked Issa to un-invite Barry Lynn, the guy they had asked for originally, and replace him with Sandra Fluke. Darrell Issa said (paraphrased), "Sorry, it's too late. She hasn't been vetted. We don't know who she is. She doesn't have any real qualifications to appear before this committee. We don't have the time to prepare for her and ask her questions. So the answer is: 'No. You cannot have her testify.'" All of this, by the way, is in a very interesting Washington Examiner article from last week, and I've linked to it at RushLimbaugh.com so you can read it yourself.
Now, the Democrats and the leftists sensed opportunity over this controversy that they created themselves. They publicly turned the situation they created to their own advantage. They invite Barry Lynn. They disinvite him at the last moment and they want him replaced with Sandra Fluke. "Who is this? We don't know who she is." The second panel of witnesses. It was Carolyn Maloney. If you don't recall last week, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, started shouting, "Where are the women? Where are the women?" They start saying Republicans hate women; they started attacking Issa and Republicans on the committee, saying, "They don't want hear from women! They're misogynist, sexist," or what have you.
Issa's committee invited the Democrat choice again, Barry Lynn, and the Democrats on the committee tried to replace him at the very last minute with this sympathetic woman when it was too late for the committee. So again they said no. So the Democrats played their game of lies, and Issa complained. On February 16th, he said, "The Democrats on his committee have appeared," this is a quote, "outright giddy in attempting to distort the testimony offered and purpose of the hearing." You bet they did. They wanted to turn this from a committee hearing on Obama and his unconstitutional mandate to the issue of contraception so as to bring back to life page 1-A of the Democrat playbook: Republicans Hate Women.
They wanted to change the whole subject. So how did they do it? Well, the Democrats have their own little subcommittee called the steering committee. This subsets inside the larger oversight and reform committee that Issa chairs. And they wanted their sympathetic witness on the record, Sandra Fluke. So they called her to testify before them, not Issa's committee. The subcommittee. They staged what was essentially a conference to look like a committee hearing. She gave the testimony that she was going to give to the full committee. It was taped and released and made to look like a committee hearing. And Darrell Issa had been right all along. Her testimony was not that of an expert.
It was just another non-expert person in this case, in Sandra's case: A 30-year-old, longtime birth control activist who went back to law school after a career of years of championing birth-control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left's true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you're listening to me for the first time, you may say, "Well, that's crazy." It's not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political. ...
Advertising's a business decision. It's not a social one. Only the leftists try to use extortion, pressure, threats to silence opposing voices. We don't do that. Never, ever, do any of us on our side of the aisle try to suppress the speech or the voices of those with whom we disagree, and we never will. So, as you've always done, you make your own business decisions about the products and services you buy. But don't be like the opposition. That was my mistake last week. Don't make it yours.
So let me do this once more, and then we're not gonna do it again. I should not have used the language I did about Sandra Fluke. It was wrong and, despite all the theories, my apology to her was for simply using inappropriate words. I'm not going to wait for apologies from the left ever. And you shouldn't, either. They won't come. You won't get apologies from people like Bill Maher [< my link here and HERE] or all the other leftists who have said some of the most horrible, despicable things about us, and people like Sarah Palin. They get rewarded for those despicable things. They get to make movies out of their despicable things and amplify them. But all of the other leftists that call me and other conservatives the most rude and explicit names, never an apology. In fact, they get patted on the back. Don't expect apologies. They are never going to apologize to you or me or any of us. That's the difference between them and us, and it's one more reason why ultimately we will prevail over them.
Rush was wrong to go so far as he did in his wordplay, to appear to be, literally, calling the 30-year-old law student (who refuses to accept his apology because she's such a noble, populace-loving, empathetic and warm person). He has apologized for his crass words. Three times. He didn't intend to call her those things, he was making fun of something that needed the "piss taken out of it" as I sometimes say. His foes took his words thoroughly OUT OF CONTEXT. Those foes, in this case, include people who might generally agree with him.
For instance, the cool-headed, fair-minded Bill Bennett said on his radio show (on Monday, March 5, 2012) that Rush was wrong to use those words. Bennett didn't miss the context, though. He's reasonable to oppose Rush's using such crass adjectives, as is anyone. Did Rush literally call her a "slut" and a "prostitute"? I don't think so. He let his little mocking of a fake (and rather unsympathetic and whining) testimony before a subcommittee of all Democrats get too far from humor and too close to insult of the woman. She was insulted, he realized those words are insulting, so he apologized. (Context notwithstanding, he went too far with some private citizen activist, as far as I'm concerned.) Good for him for apologizing.
He didn't use those words in that very clear manner in which talking toilets such as Bill Maher would, mind you, but because he's a conservative, and a big target. He has to be ever so dainty in his language to avoid being vilified by the popular, liberal press. Maher gets a pass, of course, because he's a recovering bullied little damaged creep who refuses to get appropriate help, so on every show demonstrates his mental malfunctions and cultural perverseness by attacking anything he sees fit in the most crass fashion he can get away with while still maintaining a non-basic-cable program. OK, that's just a theory. But Maher is far more crass than Limbaugh, on far too many occasions, and he almost universally gets a pass from the leftist pandering press.
But, in my view, the rest cannot understand the narrative context thoroughly, or are enjoying a bit of Rush's blood over the airwaves despite any questions of context, and they have, more than not, been guilty of far more reprehensible use of adjectives than Rush was in the case of mocking the fake Fluke testimony. Just pick any commentator on TV news channels. They accuse the GOP of being filled with racists and greed-driven businessmen on a daily basis. And they are not being clever nor toying with words as they do it. They are quite, quite serious about it.
If they are not, then they are better men and women than Rush, But they are, so, you know who's the better person in the end. The one who apologizes for being crass, but does not rapaciously insult those who take great and vitriolic joy as in assaulting him. He can do nothing right, not because he is wrong, but ONLY because he is not in agreement with them, and their loopy, short-sighted, big government, small freedom agenda.