Zman feels the winds of change rising, as the national division between rural and urban, elite establishment and worthiness widen and deepen.
For generations, the source of conflict in the American political system is that it represents a small slice of the American people. The Yankee elite that rose up in the aftermath of the Civil War, later joined by Jews in the 20th century, represents not only a narrow cultural slice of American society, but a narrow economic slice as well. Since the end of the Cold War this has become acute. In 30 years, there have been three major reformist movements attempting to broaden the ruling coalition.
It seems like a lifetime ago, but Ross Perot was in many respects the prototype for Donald Trump’s 2016 run. Perot ran as an outsider, on the back of his folksy observations about the federal government. Despite being very rich, he was clearly a man of the lower classes. His picaresque presentation was very appealing to a large portion of the population open to populist appeals. If not for his enigmatic personality, he probably would have won the White House in 1992.
Of course, what opened the door for Perot’s 1992 run was the Buchanan challenge to George H. W. Bush in the Republican primary. When asked why he was running against Bush he said, “If the country wants to go in a liberal direction, it doesn’t bother me as long as I’ve made the best case I can. What I can’t stand are the backroom deals. They’re all in on it, the insider game, the establishment game—this is what we’re running against.” That should sound familiar.
Both of those efforts to broaden the establishment coalition to include the majority of white Americans failed, but they set up the 2016 Trump run. …
What we have seen thus far in the 30 years since the end of the Cold War is two of the three ways people can attempt to broaden the ruling coalition. Both are reform efforts that start outside with the desire to end up inside. Perot wanted to bring in new people, who would represent the broader public. Buchanan and Trump both wanted to reform the system by reforming one of the parties. Buchanan wanted a genuine right-wing party, while Trump wanted a populist party.
The third way, of course, is the purely outsider movement. This is when the unrepresented create an alternative outside the ruling coalition. They either peacefully compel the ruling elite to acknowledge their interests or they replace the ruling elite, and the system they rule, with a new elite and a new system. This is exactly what happened with the American Revolution. A new elite replaced the old elite and created a system that worked for them to replace the old system.
This is what makes the current moment so dangerous. Within one generation three efforts to broaden the ruling coalition have failed, while the condition of the unrepresented has declined. Just as important, the number of people feeling threatened by the status quo has increased. In the 1990’s, reformers were speaking for the white working class. Today, it is the broader middle-class that is becoming increasingly radicalized by the intransigence of the ruling class.
Rush Limbaugh, too, is beginning to despair of there being any possibility of national coexistence, let alone unity.
I thought you were asking me something else when you said, “Can we win?” I thought you meant, “Can we win the culture, can we dominate the culture.” I actually think — and I’ve referenced this, I’ve alluded to this a couple of times because I’ve seen others allude to this — I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes.
I see a lot of bloggers — I can’t think of names right now — a lot of bloggers have written extensively about how distant and separated and how much more separated our culture is becoming politically and that it can’t go on this way. There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.
And I know that there’s a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that that is where we’re headed, whether we want to or not — whether we want to go there or not. I myself haven’t made up my mind. I still haven’t given up the idea that we are the majority and that all we have to do is find a way to unite and win, and our problem is the fact that there are just so many RINOs, so many Republicans in the Washington establishment who will do anything to maintain their membership in the establishment because of the perks and the opportunities that are presented for their kids and so forth.
This is great. I have been laughing all morning long. I have been laughing starting with last night. Can we agree that Donald Trump is probably enjoying this more than anybody wants to admit or that anybody knows? So he fires Comey yesterday. Whoâ€™s he meeting with today? (laughing) Heâ€™s meeting with the Soviet, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov! I mean, what an epic troll this is. The Democrat Party is going bananas â€” completely, totally unhinged â€” on the road to literal insanity. …
This has gone beyond mere political posturing. These people on the left â€” led by the media and the Democrat Party and the political apparatus â€” Iâ€™m telling you, are sick. I have never seenâ€¦ I wasnâ€™t thinking about it last night. Iâ€™m 66 years old. I have been following politics honestly since I was 10. Iâ€™m not kidding. I have seen unhinged behavior. I have seen the wild allegations that Democrats make and repeated. I have never seen this degree of collective insanity. I have never seen this degree of so many people literally being out of touch, devoid reality, and unhinged.
Iâ€™ve never seen this degree of hate. I understand it because of whatâ€™s happened. Trump has totally embarrassed every one of these people inside the Washington Beltway, and heâ€™s taunting them, meeting with the Soviet (chuckling) Russian ambassador today, after the Democrats are convinced the Russians stole the election! They have repeated it so many times; they actually believe it now. The only way this rage can exist is if they really believe this election was stolen, and if the really believe the Russians colluded with Trump.
Nine months and not a shred of evidence, and most recently this was acknowledged by Clapper and Sally Yates. Itâ€™s been acknowledged by Comey himself in recent congressional testimony. Itâ€™s been acknowledged by Dianne Feinstein. There isnâ€™t any! It was acknowledged by Maxine Waters yesterday. There isnâ€™t any. And yet they believe it. Thatâ€™s all theyâ€™ve got. They cannot, will not blame themselves. So they literally believe that the Russians somehow colluded with Trump, even though thereâ€™s no evidence for it.
They really believe Trump fired Comey because he might have been getting close, under the assinine belief that firing Comeyâ€™s gonna stop the investigation? How many investigations are there? The House has one. The Senate has one. The FBIâ€™s got their own. Do you know whoâ€™s running the FBI today? McCabe, a Democrat! His wife ran for the Senate or ran for governor of Virginia. Heâ€™s very close to The Punk, Terry McAuliffe. The guy is a hardened Democrat. Heâ€™s now running the FBI. Heâ€™s in charge of the investigation to get Trump.
Nothing comes to a screeching halt here just because Comeyâ€™s been let go. But the hysteria and the panic and the outrage is rooted in raw hate. The Democrats, wherever you find â€™em â€” in the media, think tanks, donâ€™t care where you find â€™em â€” theyâ€™re being consumed by it, folks. Theyâ€™re literally being eaten alive with an irrational, raw hatred literally absorbing them. Nothing good for them can come of this kind of hate and resulting derangement. Nothing good. This is not how you put together winning movements.
This is not how you build or grow anything, this kind of raw, unfettered hate that they now have lost total control over â€” and Trump is just taunting them. Trump is just feeding it. Heâ€™s doing everything he can to drive them even crazier, and theyâ€™re falling for it each and every occasion. Now, nobodyâ€™s focusing on the detail that Comey has told Trump three times thereâ€™s nothing there. Three times Comey has told Trump, â€œIâ€™m not investigating you.â€ Theyâ€™re looking past that. Theyâ€™re not even seeing that.
All theyâ€™re seeing is that Trump put it in the letter, and that must mean that Trumpâ€™s got something to hide or heâ€™s trying to put Comey on the spot or thereâ€™s some kind of power play going on. Theyâ€™re incapable of rationality. They are incapable of reason. They are incapable of just taking a moment to absorb things. They are into knee-jerk reactions based on whatever triggers set them off, and they have stopped thinking, they have stopped pondering, they have stopped considering, and theyâ€™re just reacting like spoiled brat little kids.
Rush Limbaugh has the legal argument in hand that should allow North Carolina to defeat the Department of Justice lawsuit overturning that state’s law banning transgendered use of ladies’ public bathrooms.
The solution here might be that the North Carolina governor could say that we don’t identify as North Carolina anymore, and therefore your lawsuit against us is irrelevant. We’re not North Carolina. We don’t identify that way, as long as your lawsuit — I mean, it’s absurd here! What do you mean, the way I want to present one day? So North Carolina, I say just turn it right around, “You know what, we do not identify as North Carolina for the length of your suit.”
Rush yesterday described a futile attempt by Ted Cruz in Indiana to reason with a “brain-dead” Trump supporter.
I cringed when I saw Cruz cross the street, ’cause I knew exactly what was gonna happen. And the reason I called the guy brain-dead is cause that’s how he acted. “Trump! Trump! Trump! Lyin’ Ted! Lyin’ Ted!”
He had no desire to engage Cruz. Cruz was being polite. He crossed the street, wanted to engage the guy in conversation about issues. I literally was cringing when it happened; I cringed when it was over. Because it wasn’t gonna work. And the audio was such that even if Cruz was trying to create something viral that could be on social media that would show him politely and graciously encountering a Trump supporter and explaining the issues (and hoping that that would go viral), it didn’t have much of a chance ’cause the audio wasn’t good enough for that to happen.
All the Trump people were shouting this or that, encouraging this guy. “Trump! Trump! Trump! Lyin’ Ted! Lyin’ Ted!” You know, Cruz was polite. He was everything that you would want somebody to be, and he’s being mocked and laughed at and made fun of as a square, as a nerd, as a loser or what have you, which is exactly right in line with what’s happening in our culture today. It is the renegades, and it’s been this way for a long time. The renegades and the — well, however you want to characterize them.
The people that do not stay within the guard rails of reality, they’re the ones that are celebrated and praised. They get rich. They’re made heroes. We’ve made celebrities out of them, and people that don’t do that are just dull and boring and dryballs and usually tagged as conservatives or what have you. So I was not calling all Trump supporters brain-dead. You’ve heard me talk about the Trump people. You’ve heard me lionize the Trump people. You’ve heard me, on this program, celebrate the Trump people and explain to people why certain people behind Trump support him.
This guy was no different than a Code Pink protester, and so that’s that. I’m sorry. I wasn’t able to separate the personal experiences I’ve had just like that over the course of my career, and I knew it was gonna work when I watched it happening and I watched the replay. I knew it wasn’t gonna work, and frankly there’s a part of me that still — even though I know the drill and I know the lay of the land and I know the reality and I’m the mayor of Realville.
It still bugs me when doofuses like that end up the winner in a circumstance like that. But welcome to America 2016, or whatever it is.
CALLER: Yes. The question is, Rush, you’ve been analyzing the Trump phenomenon for months — you know, giving it real full thought — and just to close the circle, I have a question here. Assuming Trump becomes the nominee and he wins the general election and things don’t go so well on trade or other things he promised, are his supporters gonna keep on cheering him on or are they gonna start bitching and saying, “You know, he’s not doing what he said he was gonna do”? …
RUSH: Trump gets elected, and everything he stands for, many of the things bomb, nothing happens on trade, no changes. What will his supporters do then?
CALLER: Start blaming the ChiComs. That’s why we voted him in, that’s why these people voted him in, to seal the deal. This is what he is.
RUSH: No, wait a minute now, you’re kind of jumping the gun. If the trade deals don’t happen, if his people blame the ChiComs, they’ll eventually be saying that the ChiComs outsmarted Trump and Trump was gonna be the one to outsmart them. … Let’s take something Trump has said that is going to happen, that he’s gonna do, and let’s assume it doesn’t happen, and you want to know what his crowd’s gonna do. Let’s take the iPhone. Trump has said on at least two different occasions that I’ve heard that he’s gonna, quote, make Apple make their phones in America. I’m gonna make Apple make their phones and their computers in America. And audiences cheered wildly.
Now, I can tell you here, Levin, it’s impossible. The iPhone cannot be made in America. Not as it is currently assembled. You would not believe, people would not believe what all is involved in manufacturing, assembling, designing the iPhone. Just the final assembly takes place in factories where three to five hundred thousand people work. But the supply chain, the parts that go into an iPhone, or any other smartphone, is impossible to even know, it is so extensive, it’s so detailed, it’s so deep.
All the different parts in that phone come from everywhere on this planet. And a system has been developed of transportation and distribution where all those parts happen to be available in China or Japan, just a day away, should something be needed. To move all of that, not just the assembly, but all of that to the United States is not possible, and specifically if you want to keep the iPhone priced as it is. Okay. So let’s just take that as an example. He has said he’s gonna make Apple bring the iPhone home. Apple will not do that. Question, what do Trump supporters think when it doesn’t happen?
CALLER: Oh, he was just saying as a negotiating thing to bring pressure on China or —
RUSH: No, your question is specifically what are Trump supporters gonna do. That may be too complicated, but I’m just telling you, iPhone is not gonna be made in America.
RUSH: It can’t be. Unless you want to pay a couple thousand dollars for one. And wait. We just don’t have the infrastructure here to do it. It’s not a cut on the country, it’s not a criticism of the country. Let’s take the wall. Let’s say the wall doesn’t get built, Levin.
CALLER: That’s a good example.
RUSH: What if the wall doesn’t get built? What happens? I mean, that’s a signature deal, right?
RUSH: If that wall doesn’t get built and the Mexicans obviously don’t pay for it, then what will Trump fans — that’s what your question is, right — what are they gonna do?
RUSH: Well, the correct answer is at that point, it doesn’t matter what they do, because Trump’s already elected.
CALLER: Well, he wants to get elected again.
RUSH: Maybe. Would assume so. But it still might —
CALLER: For Trump, the winner to be a one-term president? I mean, that’s almost worse than not winning the presidency at all.
RUSH: No, it’s not. No, no, no. No, no, no, no. …
RUSH: That’s not true. Being president for four years — Jimmy Carter wouldn’t trade — he was the worst ever, he wouldn’t trade it, he’d do it again. If everything was exactly the same, he’d do it again. Even having to go to the Nixon funeral and listen to people praise Nixon, that was the worst day of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Don’t doubt me out there.
The 30+% of the Republican base’s enthusiasm for Donald Trump is, by any standard, an extraordinary national political development. A lot of people have tried to explain what’s going on here. Rush Limbaugh, who is always an intelligent commentator, I think, yesterday did a better job than most.
I’ll just tell you, the ones I know who are for Trump, some of them are reluctantly for Trump. Some of them are adamantly for Trump. … The first reason — and not in any priority here — but they just have had it with the Republican Party, call it the establishment or whatever. They just lost total confidence. The last seven years there has been no opposition to the things the Democrat Party has done that have wrought, tremendous, real, measurable, demonstrable damage and change, for the worse, to this country.
The cultural depravity that’s going on and being normalized is one thing. The economic destruction. There’s no economic growth. There can’t be. The government is taking all of the growth and absorbing it. It’s getting bigger. The private sector cannot create enough growth to keep up because it’s getting smaller and smaller, and 94 million Americans in it are not even working. So there is no GDP gain of any substance, and that is maddening. It is frustratrating. These people all have kids and grandkids. And government is not where fortunes are made. Well, see, if you’re Solyndra, if you’re GE, if you’re a corporation engaging in corporate cronyism with government, you can make a fortune, and even some individuals can do it.
But for the most part the way it’s always been done is the tried-and-true way defined as the American dream. That’s getting more and more limited as time goes on because the economy is shrinking because the government’s taking. This worries people tremendously. And it’s not, by the way, folks, it’s not that they think Trump — I want to be very clear about this — it’s not that they think Trump is eminently qualified.
They just have had it with these so-called experts trying to run everything and screwing everything up, from the economic system to the health care system to targeting private sector industries as the enemies of America, they’ve had it, they’re fed up with it. Not to mention immigration and what’s happening to the demographic makeup of the country. It’d be one thing if this were happening with controlled assimilation and the definitive American culture that there’s always been was being maintained and sponsored and grown. But it’s not. It’s being eroded, on purpose and by design. And the Republican Party’s not lifting a finger to stop it and, in fact, in many ways wants to join in it when it comes to immigration.
So they’re fed up. They’ve been told one too many times to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
I’d say myself that no one expected George W. Bush to fritter away his own, the Republican Party’s, and the Conservative Movement’s national prestige and good name by taking far too long to win a decisive victory in the Middle East while sitting there passively and letting all his (and America’s) domestic adversaries make mincemeat of both his credibility and the American Cause. No one expected the democrats to successfully manufacture and run an international Pop Star for the presidency, and no one expected the bottom to drop out of the real estate and securities markets just over a month before the election. No one expected either that Barack Obama would intransigently insist on taking a couple of large steps toward European-style Socialism even at the cost of prolonging recession.
Everyone blames the GOP “Establishment” for failing to stop all of this, but everyone obviously fails to recognize that Republican senators and congressmen tend to be either idealistic theorists of political philosophy or down-home Rotarians and Elks. Democrats, OTOH, tend to be demoniacal revolutionary fanatics or mutant alien carnivorous life-forms bent on clawing their way to wealth and power at any cost. Republicans tend to behave honorably and respect customs, rules, and precedents. Democrats treat every significant contest as a no-holds-barred, total war, damn-everything-but-winning! struggle between the forces of Light and Eternal Darkness. They fight harder and much more professionally, uninhibited by honor, rules, consistency, or decency. It’s difficult for normal and decent people to behave the way they do, and we consequently tend to lose more often.
Everyone blaming the “Establishment” also fails to recognize that the democrats are backed up every inch of the way by the Iron Triangle of Academia, Media and Entertainment, and (generally) the Courts. If Republicans try fighting on the budget, the press will scream that those Republican bastards are shutting down the government, denying the veteran his healthcare, granny her Social Security check, and our children their vacation trip to Yosemite Park. If Republicans take some kind of stand against public recognition and celebration of perversion, they will be vilified as monsters of intolerance the length and breadth of the land by the liberal press, their teachers will turn their children against them, and –before very long– the courts will overturn anything they did.
The truth of the matter is that we have skilled and effective enemies with tremendous resources who are fully and totally in control of Academia; the high ground of fashion, culture, and communication; and commonly the Judicial System as well. When our Establishment has one house of Congress, and they have all that they have plus the Executive Branch in the hands of a determined and ethically-uninhibited adversary, we are not going to have a lot of power. Even adding the Senate but lacking a veto-proof majority in the upper house still leaves us in no position to do all the things those angry voters wish Republicans had done.
The anger is understandable, but it rests ultimately on the foundation of a lack of understanding, on low-information.
Earlier this month Media Matters launched its most ferocious boycott effort ever to force Rush Limbaugh off the air by intimidating advertisers. …
The biggest damage has been to Media Matters, which put its reputation for intimidating advertisers on the line, and failed.
Media Matters wasnâ€™t defeated by Limbaugh. Media Matters was defeated by tens of thousands of conservatives who recognized that this was not about Limbaugh or what Limbaugh said.
Those of us who criticized the use of those two words were among the most vociferous defenders against Media Mattersâ€™ advertiser intimidation tactics, and the double-standard employed by advertisers such as Carbonite who pandered to the crowd.
The campaign to force Limbaugh off the air was but part of a larger war in which Media Matters and others liberal groups seek to force numerous conservative voices off of the one media outlet dominated by conservatives, talk radio.
Novelist Paul Theroux is a typical member of the community of fashion elite. He is no conservative, and decidedly no fan of Rush Limbaugh’s, but even he finds the left’s attacks on Limbaugh resulting from his criticism of Sandra Fluke hypocritical.
The defense of Sandra Fluke is so shrill that it is almost as though many of her defenders actually believe there is a vicious taint of self-indulgence, if not sluttiness, in a female studentâ€™s clamoring for a federal mandate of subsidized contraceptives. How else to interpret such a welter of special pleading? They believe she actually needs defending.
It occurred to me that in this fairly illiterate, irony-challenged country we have no notion of what satire actually is. Satire is merciless, unsparing, savage. It is not the genial teasing comedy of The Daily Show, or the fooling of Saturday Night Live. It is destructive and cruel. It is Jonathan Swift in â€œA Modest Proposalâ€ writing of cooking and eating babies. It is Daniel Defoe in â€œThe Shortest Way With Dissentersâ€ speaking of killing members of a religious sect. It is Thomas Nast drawing pictures of hideous cannibalistic Catholic priests, or Horace making rhymes about buggery. It is John Collier mocking suffragettes by writing a whole novel about a man who marries an actual ape from the Congo in â€œHis Monkey Wife,â€ and nearer to the present, it is Hunter Thompsonâ€™s â€œHe was a Crookâ€â€”â€œ If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles â€¦â€ …
This whole Limbaugh business epitomizes our confusion and our hypocrisy. The folks who depicted George Bush as a chimp, and Sarah Palin as a skank, are indignant when these same words are used against their people in the virtue industry, and that includes the troopers in the Reproductive Rights Activist Service Corps. The trouble with Limbaugh is that he is not a satiristâ€”hasnâ€™t the brains or the humor for itâ€”and his earnestness, and his vanity, always gets in the way. He seems to believe that he is an opinion leader, but even as a gas bag on the sidelines he has a role to play, because not many other people are playing that role. If only he knew more about the power of satire, how it can do more than mere mockery. But, as a mockerâ€”the Fluke affair is proofâ€”he has an effect, and I think it uncovered one of our greatest weaknesses and our weirdest tendencies.
You have to give Limbaugh a pass, otherwise you lose the right to go on calling Gingrich and Eric Cantor pimps for Israel, and Rick Santorum a mental midget, and if you foreswear colorful, if not robust or wicked language altogether you might as well shut up.
Dan Greenfield explains how the left turns a political vulnerability into an electoral asset: they frame the narrative.
A debate on the availability of contraception, no matter how well handled, only served the narrative of one side. No matter how well the debate was conducted, it meant that the right was now fighting on the battlefield that had been chosen by the left. All it took was a few sexual insults lobbed Fluke’s way for the diversion to be complete. The right was now either retreating from sexism charges or engaging in it. The social issue was framed in exactly the terms that fit the left’s narrative.
Limbaugh’s apology was nearly as bad of an idea as his original statement. The only time you advance into an enemy’s choice of terrain is when you are confident of being able to fight there and win. You do not give up the high ground just to take a few potshots at the enemy. After a temporary satisfaction, you end up losing the battlefield and being drawn into a battle that you never meant to fight. When that happens, you circle around and take back the high ground, you do not surrender because then there is nothing left to fight for.
The left’s coalitions depend on portraying the other side as engaging in a war on their protected groups. Without that war, their whole feudal lordships suddenly become unnecessary. That means it is in their vital interest to define each policy conflict as a Republican war on a protected class. While it’s advantageous at times to confront them on this when their position is weakest and ridicule it, it wasn’t worth surrendering the coalition of religious freedom to take a few potshots at the absurdity of Fluke’s testimony. Fluke, like every organizer from a protected class, is there to represent an entire group. Attacking her quickly becomes a diversion into the left’s narrative of a war on women.
Religious institutions imposed the terms of the battle by rebelling against the mandate. That forced Obama and his cronies to try and dismiss the battle, refusing to fight on that terrain. But Republicans and even some Democrats insisted on rallying on the field anyway, calling for a battle. So Team Obama diverted the battle to the terrain of their choice. They set new terms of battle, an effort which initially failed, until Limbaugh gave them the talking point they needed.
It is now an uphill battle to return to the original battlefield. It’s possible, but the initial skirmish has gone to the left which was successfully able to dictate the terms of the engagement. Their narrative has no life though, until the right breathes life into it. The larger lesson though is about the terms of battle. It is about the strategy of political warfare.
To win in 2012, the left needs to mobilize its coalition. To do that it doesn’t necessarily need to win battles, it needs to successfully position them on its choice of terrain. It needs to be seen as the feudal lords protecting the rainbow peasantry from the hordes of the right. The purpose of the whole thing is to convince the peasants to support King Hussein, despite the disastrous economy and the general malaise, the abuses of power and all the other problems with his rule.
Both sides exploit a sense of vulnerability in the population during troubled times. The left excels at cross-sectioning the population into specific groups, dividing them up, and making them feel vulnerable as a class, as a group, as a gender, as a race. Organizers emphasize that victimization and offer them a sense of empowerment through the coalition. Or as Obama puts it, “Better Together.”
The path to victory lies in either gathering the largest coalition or in fragmenting the coalition of the other side. The left is not very good at the former, its own habits and tactics limit its scope, but it is quite good at the second. It gains power through disruption, through terror and intimidation, it plays on fears, pits groups against each other and then steps in as the mediator.
It would not be nearly as effective at this if it did not also control the culture’s narrative through the media, popular culture and academia, giving it control of highbrow and lowbrow narratives at the same time. This makes it more difficult to counter its narrative or to choose the field of battle and makes it that much more dangerous to abandon a strategic position for a target of opportunity.
Sandra Fluke testifying to Congress that society needs to pay for her contraceptives
The organized left has mounted a petition drive to persuade Rush Limbaugh’s radio program’s sponsors to drop advertising on the most popular program on AM radio. Their pretext is the claim that El Rushbo crossed a line by using words like “slut” and “prostitute” in connection with a sweet young thing like Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, but what all this really amounts to is the left taking the most pejorative terms in Rush Limbaugh’s lengthy and profoundly sarcastic response to Ms. Fluke’s Congressional testimony and attempting to personalize them in order to feign outrage and indignation.
All the “What he said!” games are just another hypocritical liberal exercise in dramaturgy, playing for the sympathy of the independent and ill-informed.
The real outrage, as Bryan Preston observed earlier this week, is the attempt by leftists like Barack Obama and Sarah Fluke to attempt to promote a personal choice into a right and an entitlement capable of trumping the barrier between state and church. Obama and Fluke proposing turning the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom into a dead letter essentially over what people used to call a French letter.
It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.
â€œWithout insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,â€ Fluke told the hearing.
Georgetown University Law School is not cheap. It costs more than $70,000 per year without scholarships or other financial aid. Miss Fluke would have us believe that someone who can afford to attend Georgetown can not afford to pay for his or her own lifestyle.
Fluke claims they canâ€™t afford to pay to, as the president so eloquently phrased it, avoid being punished with a baby before they graduate into extremely lucrative careers, in Flukeâ€™s case most likely in a future Democratic administration.
The math derived from Flukeâ€™s $3,000 price tag suggests that Georgetown is one swinginâ€™ Catholic campus.
At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacyâ€™s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms â€“ or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)
Assuming itâ€™s not a leap year, thatâ€™s 1,000 divided by 365 â€“ or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesnâ€™t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).
And, thatâ€™s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical.
With all due respect, Miss Fluke, your evidently very active amorous life is your business and should remain that way. It isnâ€™t worth wrecking the Constitution.
Rush Limbaugh only, in his typical witty and eloquent fashion, proceeded to respond to Ms. Fluke’s testimony with highly effective mockery and analysis, contemplating aloud the various moral implications of society being required to fund the where-with-all ingredients of Ms. Fluke’s sex life. “If we’re paying for your sex life, Ms. Fluke and other subscribers to her point of view, what does that make you?” Rush wondered out loud.
We saw this week just how much delicacy, decorum, and decency the left subscribes to, when Andrew Breitbart suddenly passed away, and lefties loudly exchanged public self-congratulations and heaped abuse on the fallen rightist blogger.
The left wanted to shut Limbaugh up long before Sandra Fluke and the current contraception-as-entitlement religious freedom issue ever came along. All the noise you hear is just more left-wing opportunism.