Monday, March 12, 2012

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

Politics is often a game of fools, with both sides vying to out-do the other in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s what’s happening with slutgate. Indeed, the ironies here are tremendous. Let’s discuss.

Round One: Rush should be condemned for two reasons. First, Rush was wrong to call this girl a slut, even if she is one. It’s poor manners and he knows better. “Slut” is just one of those words you don’t use in polite company. And Rush knows he was wrong. We know this because he apologized and he did it on a Saturday morning (the ultimate “Friday night drop”), which tells me he was embarrassed by the whole thing. Conservatives should not have defended his initial conduct.

Secondly, Rush also should be condemned for handing the Democrats a victory. Putting aside Santorum’s anti-woman jihad, the Democrats were in trouble on this whole sex issue. Not only had they just tried to force religious organizations to provide birth control in violation of their beliefs, but they doubled-down on stupid with this Fluke idiot whining how a Georgetown law student couldn’t afford all the birth control she needs for her vast travels through the male population. This also followed Obama’s humiliating retreat from his plan to make the morning after pill available without a prescription (meaning angry boyfriends, husbands or just plain sickos could buy it and slip it to women). Things were looking pretty grim for the Donks. But along came Rush and wiped all that out. He turned this issue from one of religious freedom and the Democrats demanding money so rich kids could have sex into an issue about Rush “unfairly attacking some defenseless girl.” If the Democrats had left it at that, this would have ended poorly for our side.

Round Two: It would have ended poorly for Rush too because his sponsors began pulling out. To understand why this was a real danger, you need to understand that the sponsors weren’t pulling out because they thought this was unforgivable. To the contrary, events like this are a good time to dump people you already want to dump. My guess is that several of his sponsors felt Rush was no longer providing the returns they’d hoped and they saw this as a great chance to break a costly long term relationship that was no longer worth the money. In other words, the danger to Rush wasn’t outrage, it was the excuse that would allow them to end their contracts with him. What’s worse, there were enough of these that their exodus was creating an appearance of momentum, which made it more likely that others would flee as well to avoid looking bad. Make no mistake, this kind of exodus could very well have ruined Rush and led to his being dropped all around the country.

Round Three: But, sensing blood in the water, the Democrats got greedy, and they lost everything. Observe. . .
One: First, Fluke blew any sympathy she won by refusing to accept Rush’s apology. Everybody accepts verbal apologies for verbal insults. That’s the way you have to play it. She didn’t. That made her petty as well as being a slut. Then she made it worse by pimping Media Matters’ website. Then it came out she’s got connections to various Democratic operatives. So she went from victim to opportunistic, deceptive petty slut who pimps for the left. Way to squander all your goodwill.

Two: Then we learned Obama’s administration has been coordinating the increasingly fake outrage. Whoops. The public will accept lies, but they won’t accept faked-outrage, and they won’t look kindly upon Obama interfering in a private dispute to exploit it for political purposes. . . did the ridiculous beer summit teach Obama nothing?

Three: Then the Democrats’ hypocrisy exploded in their faces because the new conservative media proved very good at using the same tactics the left has employed against them: they shifted the debate and made it about Bill Maher. Suddenly, everyone was demanding to know why the left didn’t condemn Bill Maher for all the vile things he’s called Sarah Palin (and every other Republican woman or black). Maher, who recently gave $1,000,000 to Obama is so vile he makes Andrew Dice Clay sound like the Pope.

The Democrats tried to talk their way out of this by claiming Bill Maher isn’t on the radio, he’s on a pay-channel, so he’s immune from criticism. Except, this is laughable. How can something be racist and sexist unless it’s said on pay television? And if that’s true, then why have the Democrats repeatedly attacked people for things they said on pay television like Fox. No one was buying this. So the Democrats came up with a new theory: Rush is the de facto voice of the Republican Party and Bill Maher is just some comedian. Nope, that doesn’t wash either. No one has ever appointed Rush as head of anything, and the Democrats have never accepted that distinction in the past in any event. No sale.

Now they’re trying the “but Fluke isn’t a public figure, Palin is!” argument. Only, when Fluke went before Congress with the intention of getting her idiotic views heard by Congress on the record, she made herself a public figure. When she pimped for Media Matters, she confirmed it. Keep trying.

With no real justification, the Democrats are slowly impaling themselves on their own hypocrisy. And if they keep this up, some conservative comedian needs to drop a few n-words on that big-assed b*tch Michelle Obama because she’s a public figure and none of us are on the radio or run the Republican Party. And when the Democrats get upset, we’ll just invoke the Maher Hypocrisy Doctrine.

Four: Just when things seemed like they couldn’t get worse for the Democrats, attention whore Gloria Allred arrived to wipe out any last vestiges of a Democratic victory by whining that Rush should be “prosecuted” for crimes against a liberal. She really suggested that in Rush’s case, the use of the word “slut” should be a criminal offense. This is Orwellian, where noncriminal conduct is considered criminal because you don’t like the person who did it. It also exposes the hate-filled, totalitarian mindset of the left. Anyone who has ever doubted just how vile, evil and abusive the left is need look no further. Don’t ever tell me again that any Democrat believes in free speech, because that’s a lie.
That’s how the Democrats squandered a tremendous victory. But even more ironically, in their zeal to destroy Rush, they actually saved him from himself. They turned him from villain to victim. And there’s a good lesson there -- when life hands you a victory, take it, don’t get greedy.

So who you got in the tournament?

Also, can someone please tell me why we need a Facebook page? Specifically, what would it do that the blog doesn’t already do? Seriously.


Joel Farnham said...

You forgot two things that I think should be added to the Democrat pile.


An organization that is designed to bring together all the sluts in the US.


Access Denied Sex Strike on Facebook.

An organization to deny sex to men. This strike is set for Apr 28, 2012 to May 5, 2012. The goal is to coerce men into liberal thinking by denying sex to men.

If you go to these sites, you will find I am not making this up.

These two sites, I think, are at cross-purposes. I could be wrong though.

Tennessee Jed said...

I still see this as a net loss for the Republicans, but will have to wait and see where the polls go for women who call themselves "moderate" democrats or "independants." Obama was plling significantly wose with that group than he hade in 2008. As you point out, the liberal side was not doing very well trying to make social conservative issues the front burner issue. It has become obvious Dick Morris correctly analyzed the incestuous relationship between the white house re-election campaign and the media. George Stephanopoulis asked his stupid question about whether states had a right to ban birth control.

I didn't hear the "Rush" monolgoue on the subject, but know him well enough to know that he was probably being facetious; e.g. being over the top to make his point. Regardless, the opposition jumped on it, and for once, Limbaugh found himself back peddling. It was one more piece of fuel to play into the Dem.'s "war on women" meme.

I saw our local paper go twice to the well on op/eds and called them out on it. I've seen people I know who are reasonably smart talk about rather voting for Obama than a "theocracy" under Santorum. These people are probably democrats anyway, but are the DEmocrats who are not at all enchanted with Obama. This is why I so did not want Santorum to be in the picture. It makes it easy. My hope is, once Rick is shut down, Romney will be able to shift the debate back to the economy. Again, the real test is to see where the moderate or independent female numbers end up as to how damaging this all is.

CrisD said...

I agree with your evaluation that the victory goes to who scores/loses votes (as oppossed to fleeting political points.

I think this happened early in the cycle and that unless it has more "legs" the story is over. I think most people would have to admit that Fluke's testimony was bizarre reasoning. So I agree with Andrew's final analysis.

As to anyone who would vote for Obama compared to any other candidate--especially if I suspected they were a Democrat (even a disaffected Democrat), these are people who would never ever have pulled the lever for Republicans. At least the ones I know. But maybe I got you wrong on your point.

StanH said...

Rush did indeed step in the poo on this one. However, as the week progressed he recovered quite well. As he said in his apology, he stooped to the level of the left, to illustrate absurdity with absurdity. His importance cannot be underplayed, on the right, we need him with his head in the game, as we approach 2012. For good or ill, he’s without question the biggest voice in the media giving a conservative prospective, after all, we can be certain that, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, LAT, and even FOX etc. will not defend conservatives principles.

BevfromNYC said...

Yes, and Allred admitted that she has never spoken to Fluke nor does she represent her, but she's waiting.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Thanks for the links. I'm not surprised. A big section of the feminist "movement" (pretty much defunk except for stragglers) can't make up their mind if they want to define themselves by sex or if they want to use sex as a women. Good luck on the banning sex thing though. As millions of others have found before them, that's never gonna happen.

StanH said...

Oh, just heard an interview on the Neal Boortz Show of Rick Santorum, Neal is no fan for many of the same reasons we’ve discussed on Commentarama. I must say, I was impressed, as was Neal. He was certain he could trip him up, on abortion, contraception, his liberal record etc. …he did not. I know it’s anecdotal, but worth a mention, he’s getting better as a candidate, or his BS, we’ll see. I still believe it’s Romney’s to lose.

Tennessee Jed said...

BTW, Andrew-- as to your other questions: 1) why do we need a facebook page? Here are my thoughts. Reason for doing is it gives your articles potentially massive exposure. Do you remember the old commercial "and he told 2 friends, and she told 2 friends and so on, and so onm?" Of course, not you are too young, but it is a geometric explosion. The reason not to do this? I work hard to avoid politics on facebook. I use it to send pictures to people who give a particular rat's ass about them. Second, I've chosen to adopt a username for political blogging, although am considering whether that should change. For now, render under Jed things political and to family/friends what is family friens.

2) Who di I like in the tournament? I think Rory McElroy, Phil Mickelson, Keegan Bradly, and Adam Scott will all contend in the Masters. Oh, are you talking a different tournament?

BevfromNYC said...

Well Andrew at least they are learning. For a while there they were getting naked as a punishment to stop war and all the other bad stuff in the world. Like "if you don't stop your war, we're gonna strip right here. That will show you!".

I never understood the logic mainly because, well, I always thought men would do just about anything including not stopping war, if there is a promise that women will get naked.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Overall, you are correct, this has been a net loss for the Republicans. The Democrats were on the ropes and floundering, they looked like idiots. But then Santorum came along to make our side look even stupider. Then Rush cemented that view with his comments and all the negatives on the Democrats disappeared.

We were literally at a point where groups like Catholics were ready to abandon the Democrats wholesale (which would have been a disaster for them) until Rick scared the hell out of people and Rush gave the perfect distraction. Now all anyone remember is Rush and Rick.

So at best, for us, this is a net zero. But it's definitely a loss because if our side had shut the heck up, then the Democrats would be standing knee deep in a mess right now. Instead, we're re-fighting the "Republicans hate women" garbage of the 1990s.

Romney does very well among women voters and he's not poisonous like Rick, so I do expect once Rick is finished things will get better for us on that front again. The problem is that the longer conservatives pretend they support Rick and his jihad of hate, the more damage it will do to the conservative brand (rather than the Republican brand), because no moderate woman will want to join a bunch of who profess to believe the things Rick does. And in that regard, just keep in mind that Rick lost women in Penn by 19% and keeps losing among conservative women by 9%. Is that really someone conservatives want to claim is their representative?

BevfromNYC said...

As for the Facebook page - I am kind of with TennJ on this one. I have many friends who are very political on Facebook and it is a great way to kill a friendship. Like TennJ, I avoid it like the plague. I use my Facebook page to stay in touch with old friends, share photos, and share funny anecdotes and cute kitten videos. However, as the year progresses, I may not care what my many liberal friends think of me.

AndrewPrice said...

Cris, The good thing about stories like this is that they tend to play out quickly and be forgotten. So unless Rick wins the nomination, this issue will not affect the general election negatively for either side.

But that's also bad because Obama really had angered Catholics to such a degree that they might have jumped ship from the Democrats to the Republicans, which would have made a huge difference in many Rust-Belt and Northeastern states. That's blown over now because or Rick/Rush, who have shifted the focus to themselves.

I also do think there is another problem for conservatives specifically, and that's that this issue plays into the idea that conservatives don't like women. It's the same thing with blacks and Hispanics and gays. There's a very big PR push by the left to keep these memes going. By and large they aren't true. But among conservative leaders they often are. And when you get conservatives following a guy like Rick or defending Rush (who was only joking, but who played right into the meme in his choice of joke) as they did initially, you simply re-enforce the idea to moderates that conservatives are not a bunch they want to join. So while there may not be an immediate negative effect on the Republicans, I do see a longer term continuing damage to conservatism.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, Very true. And in that regard, I'm glad of two things. First, the overreaction by the Democrats really saved Rush. At this point, it's impossible not to see him as the victim here. Secondly, I hope this woke Rush up and got his head back into the game because his voice is needed in this election more than any I've ever seen in my life. He's probably the guy who will be most able to heal any rift within the party.

Unknown said...

Well-analyzed, all the way around. The Republicans don't want this to go on, and now the Democrats are going to have to fire their parting shots and hope this whole thing dies before the Republicans settle on a candidate. More trash for the ash heap of history.

As for Facebook--I hate it. It's silly. I feel like it's lonely people trying to communicate without actually having to talk to anyone. A former colleague of mine convinced me to sign up for it awhile back. I find it hard to navigate, and then find there's nothing worthwhile on it anyway. And worst of all, I now get messages that say "you have notifications pending." Half the time, it's from somebody who's a "friend of a friend of an acquaintance" who is giving me the news that she's now wearing a different dress size. Or a notice that says: "You haven't visited Facebook lately," when in reality I visited it the day before and got the earth-shattering news about the new dress size. I feel like I'm being constantly goaded into communicating with people I don't know and occasionally don't even like.

I cringe every time somebody on TV says "like us on Facebook." Like, schmike. What the hell does that even mean? For those reasons, and a great many more, I consider Facebook totally unserious and intrusive, and a waste of time and energy for anyone who really has something valuable to say or is looking for something valuable to read. If I want to talk to my "friends," I have a telephone, and if I want to get my news from ignorant strangers, I have The New York Times.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, She's an amazingly despicable creature. She absolutely defines "attention whore" and "ambulance chaser" all in one. I have honestly never had a more negative view of any attorney than her.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, My negative view of Santorum goes way beyond anything one interview with a conservative radio host can cure. Rick's record speaks volumes as do Rick's continuing words. Rick spent the weekend name calling and whining that he could still win somehow if the delegates all decided to vote for him instead of who they were supposed to vote for. The man is a loser, a liar, a crony, and a flake.

This weekend also pretty much proved that Santorum can't win it. He only won 52% in Kansas -- where the Bible is the law, and where Newt, Paul and Romney didn't even campaign. Put a fork in him.

rlaWTX said...

so, Hawk, how do you REALLY feel??? :)

I think that this Fluke is a zero sum game - no winners. Rush should have heeded the end of "War Games" and chosen to play chess instead.

Facebook: I enjoy fb. I don't avoid politics on mine, and I already link articles there. I like it because I can keep in contact with people who go in very different directions (kids, night-shifts, Australia) without invading their lives.
But I don't think that FB will inherently enhance Commentarama.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, "render unto Jed"... LOL! Nice! :)

We keep getting requests for a Facebook page and I'm trying to solve the riddle of why (or why not). Right now, I'm not sure what it really gets us? And you are certainly right about the potential negatives for people who don't do politics on their Facebook pages.

I guess the big question is, who would see it would doesn't already visit this blog? We get linked to Facebook all the time already? I know that.

Yeah, I meant the other tournament. I thought you might be pulling for Vandy, since Tenn isn't in it? I get to pull for Colorado for a change -- very rare.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's somewhat true, but it's a supply/demand problem. You can't choke off supply when there are other suppliers. That's Sexonomics 101! ;)

Plus, call me crazy, but it seems that most of the people who tend to sign up for these groups are people who weren't having a lot of sex in the first place. It's like vegetarians threatening to boycott a steakhouse.

BevfromNYC said...

But LawHawk where do you go to see the adorable kitties-doing-fun-things videos?

Actually, I agree 99% percent with you about Facebook. It give people the illusion that they are popular and have lots of friends. I have "friends" I had no idea I had. But, I am facinated with what people will actually do and say and write on Facebook. It's as if they have no idea that it's a public forum! We expect that from innocent kids, but adults who should know better!

But, there is a plus side - I have reconnected with dear old friends from around the world that I had lost touch with. Just last week, one of the exchange students that lived with my family from Brazil contacted me after 30 years.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, My bigger question is this, what would we gain from joining Facebook? I've scoured the site and I don't see it anything more than just another place to put links to our articles? Is there something I'm missing?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I have similar feelings. I particular hate the stupid way it communicates... "moleturd like this." "Moleturd's friend liked that moleturd liked this." Ahhh! South Park did a brilliant job of tearing this apart.

BUT people do keep asking for a Facebook page, so I want to see what people think and if I'm missing something here. My biggest issue right now is that I don't know what adding a Facebook page would give us which we don't already have?

Tennessee Jed said...

I was just kidding about golf. My father-in-law is a Vandy grad so I'm fine with them. My brother is a Duke grad and I've liked them since I was about 4. I was always a big Villanova fan since I grew up near their campus and loved the old Big Five Basketball in Philly. I don't like Kentucky and really don't like Calipari. Drexel got screwed. Otherwise, I have no real dog in the fight. I am a huge fan of women's ball and have tickets to the Lady Vols even though they have not been as strong the last couple years.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Thanks! That was the key to my question -- whether or not it adds anything to create a Facebook page for our blog. I'm not seeing a benefit. I know people already link to our articles. I'm not sure posting links to them there would help? To the contrary, it would probably split the comments and make it harder for people to communicate with each other?

On Fluke, I think ultimately, the Fluke thing gets forgotten by the voters and means nothing for this election. If either side had been smart enough to shut up, things would have been different... but they weren't. So it end up just being another minor political skirmish.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Before I get accused of hating Facebook (which I do) let me point out that I do understand that Facebook has some uses. It's good for sharing kitten pictures and keeping in touch with people you haven't seen in a while.

I guess it's also necessary for businesses and for people who don't have blogs, it's a good way to speak their minds.

That said, I'm not sure it offers much to Commentarama.

Tennessee Jed said...

Oh, and I think if people facebook, they learn how to hide posts and email reminders as well as get past the stupid names. If you post a comment it is called a status which is kind of lame. "liking" a picture is a fairly easy way to say, saw the picture you posted and am not ignoring you, but don't have anything other to add. The term is stupid, however. The problem is that FB went commercial. Businesses want you to like them so they can spam you and all your friends. If you choose your friends carefully, avoid applications or games, and learn how to set privacy settings, it actually is not a bad forum for keeping in touch or re-connecting with old friends.

Unknown said...

Bev: I just got a notice that (Name) has just updated her Facebook page. That's great. If I had a clue who she is, I might care. It's the goading and pushing that bothers me more than anything else. I always check things from my actual friends and real relatives. I don't mind getting fluff from people I actually know. But Facebook wants me to be "friends" with the entire world, and that's a waste of time and an intrusion on my privacy. And relative to blogs, Facebook is the last place I'd look for anything important. They call it the social network, but I find it to be more antisocial, with people hiding behind pretty pictures and meaningless chatter (real friends and relatives excepted) rather than truly communicating their thoughts to people they care about.

A sage friend and mentor of mine told me years ago that if you have three or four true friends during your entire lifetime, you're a lucky man. Now I have millions. LOL

As for using Facebook to tout our blog, I think we're much more likely to be inviting trolls than serious readers. Our real friends already know where we are.

Tennessee Jed said...

and yes, it doesn't really add much to Commentarama.

Individualist said...


Orwellian is right about the Alred debacle. The law she cites is evidently an archaic law banning the defaming of a woman by accusing her of not being chaste. You know that ahs to be a law over 100 years old.. (you know like when the Washigton Post thinks the constitution was written).

What makes this so hillarious is that a woman demanding the state pay for her birth control is arguing that this can't be used to assume she isn't chaste.

It reminds me of that last Casanova film where in exchange for helping the bishop "get" Casanova the church was going to reinstate a woman's virginity. The woman asked "can you do that?" He responded "Madam we are the Church we can do anything we want."

I guess the leftist elite now have the same doctrinaire control over all matters physical and spiritual just like the 16th century church they like to vilify.

Unknown said...

Indi: And it can all be done to the tune of "Like a Virgin" by that famous virgin, Madonna.

Joel Farnham said...


I think you are not thinking this thing through.

First - Isn't "Free Love" one of the Main tenets of liberal thought and doctrine is the "Free Love" aspect? "MAKE LOVE NOT WAR" I believe is the main slogan.

Second - With holding sex from men actually assumes that men will DIE if they don't get it. It pre-supposes that MAN is an unprincipled rapist willing to kill for sex. This is another liberal tenet.

Both tenets are false and damaging to society as a whole, however it is interesting that liberals buy into these ideas.

If we are to believe both groups, we will have a tremendous bloodbath starting from April 28th to May 5th of this year...... of all liberal men. We also have the added bonus that liberal women will be responsible for it.

I don't see a real problem arising from this "Fluke Problem". Either liberal men will go crazy and kill the liberal women for no sex or the supposed power that feminists think they have will be for naught. Win, win, I say.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I rarely have a team I get to cheer for the home team because they never make it. Air Force made it a couple years ago but didn't go far and Colorado has made it a couple times recently, but not before that. So I'm happy to finally have a home team in the tournament! Usually I just go for whoever strikes me fancy.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That's what got me wondering actually: the number of businesses on Facebook suddenly exploded and everyone has a page. It's the same way all businesses now have homepages, only I can't see what adding the Facebook page adds?

I'm also concerned that some people will just stick with Facebook and not come comment here. I like having people be able to speak to each other directly here and don't people to start skipping the discussions.

But it seems that everyone has such a page now so I am trying to figure out if that would be good for us or not?

tryanmax said...

I only disagree with the interpretation of Round One. At the time Rush spoke, the GOP and the conservative movement were being heartily shellacked on so-called "women's issues." I've been highly critical of Rush lately, but I think he set the ball rolling right on the Fluke fluke. Without Rush's words, everyone agrees that the event would have gone away. That would have been the worst possible outcome.

Yes, the debate should have been couched in religious freedom. But it wasn't. The left brought it up and kept it up as a "women's health" issue and the right was gaining no traction in putting things where they belonged. No, the story would not have stayed alive until November, but it's not that kind of issue. This issue sets attitudes, and it was setting them against the GOP.

Yes, the religious aspect of the freedom debate got lost somewhere within SlutGate. But what came to the fore is that freedom does not include freedom from consequences--a sentiment most Americans still believe in. It also brought to the fore that freedom does not let the government bossing folks around (duh). That's the same thing.

The religious argument wasn't working because it was the wrong argument. The government cannot force the hand of the church, not because they are the church, but because the government cannot force the hand of anyone. Religious freedom was making the topic too narrow. This is simply about freedom. Period.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew, in a word, NO, Facebook would not add anything to this blog. It would be like putting a booth up in the middle of Times Square. And, as Lawhawk points out, it would only invite in trolls more than serious bloggers.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, "If I had a clue who she is, I might care." LOL! Nice.

Yeah, I guess there is the troll factor to consider?

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That seems to be the general consensus.

Joel Farnham said...

On the subject of Facebook. If this place joins Facebook, I for one will say a very sad goodbye to you guys. It stems really from something that happened really close to me. My wife's cousin and his girlfriend were murdered over Facebook postings last month. Too many people take it seriously enough to kill. I can't have that. Please don't.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Brilliant and hilarious point. But don't forget, the left is all about contradiction. Thus, gay should be seen as normal, yet they use gay slurs. Free speech must be tightly regulated. Discrimination is necessary to cure discrimination. And so on. I don't think it enters their minds at all that they are pushing two contradictory ideas -- that someone would have so much sex they need a Congressional bailout to by condoms and yet it's wrong to question their virginity.

Nice quote about the Church by the way. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have no problem with it either if liberals want to kill each other. ;)

I think you're right about the nasty assumptions they make. And that is part of feminist thinking. They do believe that males are seething sex creatures who will turn violent or die if they don't get sex regularly. This is a pretty stupid idea, fed by a laughable stereotype in teen films, but which feminists take seriously because they can score point out of it. For example, this underpins the "all men are rapists" idea of various feminist writers, which they use to demand rape funding and anti-rape indoctrination.

What strikes me as funny about the idea of a boycott is that the only men who would be effected by that are the men who would already be sympathetic to this idea. It's like beating your own family to punish your neighbor! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's the feeling I'm getting, that this wouldn't be a good idea.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Wow! Sorry to hear that. People are crazy and unfortunately, the web makes that more pronounced.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think the religious argument was working with Catholics. I don't think the rest of the country cared. But Catholics (even bad Catholics) didn't like the idea that the government would come in and tell them what to do. This was blowing up on Obama (just like the morning-after-pill issue blew up on him).

The problem was that the Republicans waded into this when they should have let it go. If they had done nothing, Catholics would have turned against Obama. But by wading it and trying to make this a bigger issue, it stopped being "Obama's war on religion" and instead because "the Republicans v. Obama on religion." Then Santorum started his thing and really made it unpalatable to moderates. Then Rush sealed the deal.

By jumping in, the right saved Obama from his mistake. Then the left saved Rush.

tryanmax said...

We agree that well before Rush jumped in, the Republicans had already done their part to foul up the religious angle. So we can't say that Rush handed the left anything. If it any one, it was Ricky and his camp who did that.

I just don't go in for the notion that things would be better if Sandra Fluke had just gone away. The right ultimately deciding to just leave it alone is how this argument always ends.
The Dems are expert at landing a blow just before saying, "Let's stop fighting." Ms. Fluke was meant to be the last word. And she almost was...

Thunder stolen! Maybe you don't like what Rush said--and I'm not saying it was well-calculated--but he kept this battle from ending on the same down note yet again. The result is that the Dems are now stepping in it, wallowing in it, slapping it around on each other, and they are still going! This is where Republicans and conservatives should leave it alone.

rlaWTX said...

Saw this and thought of y'all: zombies!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I do agree that Rick is the real problem here. He took the bait and then went about proudly beating his chest over having fallen into the Democratic-diversion trap.

But I do think Rush made the problem worse. In the public's mind, Rick speaks for the Religious Right, Rush speaks for conservatives and Republicans. And when Rush jumped into this, he took our brand with him.

Moreover, if you put Rick and Rush aside, this would have been a disaster for the Democrats. The Catholics were angry, the religious right was angry and moderate saw this as an example of the Democrats being way out of touch. They were desperately dragging out discredited rhetoric from the 1990s about a war on women and then this idiot Fluke came along to say that coal miners in Kentucky should pay taxes so a privileged Georgetown girl could sleep around. That's a big time loss with the public.

If that's how the debate ended, then the Republicans would have been winners because the Democrats would have lost voters and the feminists would have been demoralized.

But when Rush jumped in, he completely reset the score entirely. Everything else was erased and it became Rush v. the left, with Rush suddenly being a proxy for the Republicans/conservatives and with Rush starting at a major disadvantage. If the left hadn't overplayed their hand, I can guarantee you Rush would be in serious, serious trouble right now as the Republicans would have repudiated him, sponsors would have abandoned him and radio stations would have dropped him. Only the circle-the-wagons effect has saved him.

In the end, I think Rush helped erase this scar from the Democrats. I also think he helped Santorum in the process by diverting the attention Rick's views were getting. But he did it at the cost of reinforcing the idea of the Republican/conservative war on women.

I would call those things a loss.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Who you got in the tournament?

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's fantastic! Here's the link: LINK

Jocelyn said...

I vote no on making a FB page...

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jocelyn. That seems to be the consensus, so I think we're going to forget about the idea.

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, Excellent breakdown. I think the big reason this is a win for the democrats is that everybody I know what the whole thing just to go away. So if the democrats can turn a question of religious liberty into an issue they want to go away, that's a win.

Doc Whoa said...

I also vote no on the FB page. C-rama is doing fine without it!

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I think it's a win in the sense that all of this combined has allowed the Democrats to dig out of a hole their overreach created.

Joel Farnham said...


This IS a net win for Republicans. Rush apologized two Saturdays ago. Since then, we have been seeing Gloria Alred, Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Slut-r-us, We-wont-give-out-sex, S Fluke getting PRed and countless others getting all wee-weed up. And PEOPLE laughing at them. Not only that, Kirsten Powers backing Rush, Maher asking people to lay off Rush, a disgusting comic kicked off a LIBERAL jerks-r-us meeting where Rush at one time was called racist by Clinton no less.

This is all brought to you by RUSH calling a slut a slut. Now, I call that a win.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's true, there's been some fascinating collateral damage to the Democrats. I do think in the end, this will all be forgotten, but for now it's fun to watch.

In the end, by the way, I do think the biggest winner is Rush (though it was almost disaster for him). When the Democrats went into attack mode, it got all of conservatism-dom to come to his defense. And that circle-the-wagon aspect, plus the HUGE publicity he got, re-affirmed his stance as the number one conservative in the country, at a time when I honestly think he was fading. So he comes out of this with a stronger, more loyal audience again.

As an aside, I like Powers. She doesn't just spew talking points. That's increasingly rare on television.

Writer X said...

It was amusing to watch the Democrats excuse Maher's behavior. But when Gloria Allred jumped into the fray, it became the theatre of the absurd.

I don't think anyone involved in this situation, from Fluke to Limbaugh to Allred, and everyone in-between, looked like a bunch of imbeciles.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, Theater of the absurd is right! Allred is like an omen that a party has gone off the rails.

And isn't it amazing that our country could literally waste hours of time worrying about an issue like this? How about creating some jobs? How about dealing with terrorism? Nope. . . some guy called some woman a slut, call out the Marines!

Writer X said...

Andrew, it reeks of desperation. From the Democratic perspective, what a great way to get everyone's attention away from 9+% unemployment and $5/gallon gas.

P.S. I vote no to a FB page. I can barely stand to maintain my page for professional purposes. :-)

tryanmax said...

Andrew, we might just have to agree to disagree on this one. Let me make one last case as to why conservatives never had a win in the bag:

I’m trying hard to remember the election where the various pundits were not crowing that the GOP is losing women. The only evidence for this round is that the Dems are attacking on that front. Democrats always retreat to fortified ground to avoid losing on a weaker front. I bet the combined weight of Fluke and Limbaugh didn’t even wiggle the gender-politics needle.

I’m also not sold that Catholics were on the cusp of ditching Obama en masse. When Obama shifted his birth control mandate from the institution to the insurance company, he garnered praise from no fewer than half-a-dozen Catholic groups. I don’t count unrealized gains as losses--that's D.C. math.

Further, I don’t think that conservatism has been dragged back to the 1990s. The only people who believe that are the ones who think we’re stuck in the 1950s. So in those folks’ minds, we’ve suddenly advanced by 40 years!

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, It does reek of desperation. And I think they needed one. The Catholics were furious and they were losing moderates in droves because of the insanity of trying to force taxpayers to pay for contraception and trying to force Church-run hospitals to hand this out.

Yeah, I think the FB page is DOA. I wasn't sure it would add anything except additional work and headache and that seems to be the case.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, We probably will have to agree to disagree. Here are my thoughts.

On point three, the problem is the perception. Among people who are not conservatives, certain things are seen as true about conservatives. And the anti-woman thing has been a problem which was slowly erased by people like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham -- just like the "conservatives are racist" meme was wiped out by conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell. BUT that took years and it's not entirely dead. So when a guy like Rick S starts whining about unclean women, it reminds people of the narratives above. And when conservatives support guys like Rick, they give it credence because they have been told all along "this is what conservatives REALLY believe, they just lie about it and speak in code." Rush very much played into that. It's the same thing as if he'd made a joke about putting Eric Holder "back on the plantation where he belongs." It might be meant as humor and no conservatives really believe it, but it plays right into the idea that this is secretly lurking in the minds of conservatives. That to me, is the real danger of this -- that it keeps alive a meme that our side has worked very hard to kill. And while that may not send too many women packing, it will keep any more from joining our side.

In terms of who was winning, I do think Obama was on the ropes. I base this on his behavior. If he thought his stance was just a tempest in a tea pot, he would have offered soothing words and then kept on going, but he didn't. He realized that he had created a problem for himself and that required him to fix it. Has he fixed it? I don't know. But I do know that once the Republicans tried to jump in, the whole issue lost its potency because that allowed Obama to deflect the focus of the issue. And when Rick and Rush jumped in, that was the end of the original issue and it's now a dead issue.

As for the gender gap, it's very real. Right now Obama is having "a problem" with women. But that doesn't mean he's losing women, it just means his support is down. Women lean left, they always have. This is a function of many things and the Republicans can make it better or worse depending on how they behave. Santorum makes it worse, hence his loss among women by 19%. Romney is rather palatable to women and should do well, but I still expect him to lose by 1-2% among women.

Post a Comment