Gay Patriot Header Image

Democrats have a responsibility to repudiate BIll Maher

Even after Rush Limbaugh apologized for the harsh language he used to describe a law student flacking for Obamacare’s mandates, a good number of liberals just can’t let the story go.  Just check your own Facebook page.   Or click on over to some left-wing blogs — or left-of-center editorial pages.

While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments,” inveigh the editors of the Washington Post in highest dudgeon, “they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.”   Just as soon as the pro-Obama SuperPAC, Priorities USA Action, returns the one-million dollar check Bill Maher sent them — and as soon as Democrats, including the president himself, repudiate this mean-spirited former funny man.

As Dan Riehl reminds us, “in March of 2011, Maher called Palin a “dumb tw*t,” as reported here by the Daily Caller. On March 29, 2011, the Caller also reported that Maher called Palin the “C-word.”

Offering further examples of left-wing slurs against conservatives, Jennifer Rubin finds

. . . it a bit impractical for politicians to survey all the rude, extreme and untoward comments made by their media allies and renounce them individually. (There are not enough hours in the day to get a fraction of the miscreants on the left and right). And I don’t much like the idea of elevating and rebroadcasting crude remarks. (President Obama insured that everyone in America knew that Sandra Fluke had been called a “slut.”)

Indeed.

RELATED:  “Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

Share

17 Comments

  1. Republican leaders have a duty to repudiate comments made by a private citizen? Remember what happened when Harry Reid used his office and letterhead to try to get Rush fired?

    Comment by TGC — March 4, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - March 4, 2012

  2. And Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut,” and not only still has a show on MSDNC, but is apparently quite welcome in the Obama White House.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - March 4, 2012

  3. Dan, I totally agree with your point. However, this is all about posturing, which typically means hypocrisy is at play. Maher should also apologize for these remarks. For my part, I’m appalled at such remarks, and have no place in any discourse today. The c-word is my least favorite slur.

    Comment by Pat — March 4, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - March 4, 2012

  4. [...] Democrats have a responsibility to repudiate Bill Maher Posted by B. Daniel Blatt Share this:TwitterStumbleUponDiggFacebookRedditLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

    Pingback by Indeed they do, BUT not going to happen.. « et cetera* — March 4, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - March 4, 2012

  5. Why should the Dems repudiate Bill Maher? He gave one-MILLION-dollars to the PAC that Obama said he’d never authorize or accept aid from…

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 4, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - March 4, 2012

  6. BTW, are we going to get an apology from every liberal who ever used the word “Tea-bagger?”

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - March 4, 2012

  7. This explanation was emailed to me from an old, liberal friend (who will grasp at any straw):

    What Rush and other right-wingers don’t understand about humor is this: if you attack the rich and powerful, it’s funny; if you attack the poor and the oppressed, it’s just disgusting.

    I post it here as fodder for desperate trolls.

    Letterman, 62, went after Willow Palin, 14, with this: “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”

    Then the libs came out and said Letterman meant to attack Bristol, 18, who was “knocked up” and therefore, a ….. what? ….. slut?

    Neither girl could be called rich and powerful, nor could Sarah Palin, their mother, be considered rich and powerful at the time. However, Sarah Palin was a clear threat to the moral relevancy crowd.

    Sandra Fluke is a 2003 graduate with two degrees from Cornell. She is a law student at the prestigious Georgetown Law School. I do not know her financial status, but she has enough power to have met with the President of Georgetown University over the contraception issue and to have been “discovered” by Nancy Pelosi and showcased at a staged hearing in the House of Representatives.

    Georgetown University President, John DeGioia, issued a statement that included these words:

    In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

    I totally agree with St. Augustine and his vision of a perfect world. I doubt that we will see his admonition come to fruition in our dealings with radical Islam, Obamacare, Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, SEIU, the UN, the Occupiers, The New York Times, or your typical liberal professor.

    I am underwhelmed by President DeGioia’s use of the fallacy of logic commonly known as circumstantial ad hominem. The ideal field of discourse laid out by St. Augustine was breeched when Fluke went around President DeGioia and joined in the political farce orchestrated by Pelosi. Furthermore, Fluke cooked the data and made personal and absurd claims to the public in general by her testimony. In the process, she made herself semi-powerful as a witness and open to dispute.

    However, her claims were absurd, therefore, she opened herself to ridicule. Because she did not play according to the ideal set down my St. Augustine, it is not incumbent on the “other side” to be handicapped by those ideals.

    Fluke talked about her vagina in a nationally important venue on a nationally hyped up “problem” concerning contraception. In doing so, she publicly placed her vagina as exhibit “A” in her testimony. She gave her vagina “victim” status and she asked for publicly mandated relief for her vagina.

    Rush Limbaugh saw this as farce and in the spirit of Jonathan Swift, he set forth some “modest proposals” in words that would be understood by even the average ACORN activist.

    The idea that Sandra Fluke is “poor and oppressed” is at least a desperate reach, if not a calculated lie.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 4, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - March 4, 2012

  8. What Rush and other right-wingers don’t understand about humor is this: if you attack the rich and powerful, it’s funny; if you attack the poor and the oppressed, it’s just disgusting.

    In other words, it is justified to malign hard-working and successful people, but not lazy and dependant people. (Of course, that wouldn’t include liberal rich people, because they have good intentions or something). And I laugh at the idea that Sandra Fluke is “poor and oppressed.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 4, 2012 @ 2:45 pm - March 4, 2012

  9. Liberals’ nervous breakdown over Rush’s “slur” at what’s-her-name just confirms what I’ve long suspected: for liberals, “civil discourse” means agreeing with them, in which case my discourse will never be “civil”.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 4, 2012 @ 3:15 pm - March 4, 2012

  10. All this nonsense from the left-liberals is about one thing: The death of their project.

    Their project *is* dead. The U.S. can’t afford it. They have driven U.S. finances to the edge of a cliff. Socialism has never been so close to their grasp – and, correspondingly, so impossible of achievement (because it is the very thing that has driven us to the cliff’s edge, and the next phases of its achievement of it will push us over the cliff).

    But they don’t want to believe it, and they don’t want anyone else talking about it. Hence, the side-shows.

    Hey speaking of sideshows… Can we get Cinesnatch in here to start pitying his own persecution at our hands, thus making the thread all about him again? :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 5:24 pm - March 4, 2012

  11. I know this is a dumb question, but how has Sandra Fluke suffered from the insult Rush Limbaugh leveled at her? She’s become a feminist hero, she’s on all the major news shows, the president called her, and she will doubtless receive a job offer that will put her solidly in the 1% if she isn’t there already. There may even be a book deal.

    How has she been hurt by this?

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 5:41 pm - March 4, 2012

  12. Rush is in trouble because his point is that this woman is a slut, and that’s the best he can do as far as piecing together an argument for his position. What he’s saying there is that any woman that supports the contraception coverage mandate is a slut, which is what differentiates this from the other examples. David Letterman and Bill Maher making jokes about individuals is not the same as making broad generalizations about everyone who supports a certain political issue.

    I’ve seen the same sentiment expressed here and it seems to be the Republican position on this issue generally – ‘Why should I have to pay for these women to have sex all over town?’ The conservative assumption is that all liberal women are reckless hedonists that refuse to take responsibility for themselves and want the government to pay for their abortions and STD treatments. Conservatives think they’re the best thing going and that everyone else is a lazy, helpless bottom-feeder that doesn’t contribute and just wants to leech off of their productivity. This is the most common of conservative errors, just give NDT a few minutes and he’ll come running in here to tell everyone how I’m on welfare and sell my food stamps for heroin money and how I abort fetuses recreationally.

    And so when Rush calls a random supporter of contraception coverage a slut, he’s calling them all sluts, because that’s the only thing he knows about her. He certainly doesn’t know anything about her sex life, all he knows is that she thinks contraception should be covered. Lots of women think this, including my girlfriend of 8 years, including my mother, including my grandmothers, including my sister, including my friends – all these women are sluts because they see the value and social benefit of covering contraception?

    Like it or not, that’s completely different than a few late night comedians making jokes about individuals. A man calling a woman a slut, whore, etc, is one thing, a man calling millions of women sluts is another.

    But please, continue circling the wagons around this dumbass who does nothing but create problems for your side. And we haven’t even gotten to the part where he offered his support for contraception coverage so long as women filmed themselves having sex and posting it to the internet – what do any of you have to say to that?

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 1:23 am - March 5, 2012

  13. Rush is in trouble because his point is that this woman is a slut, and that’s the best he can do as far as piecing together an argument for his position. What he’s saying there is that any woman that supports the contraception coverage mandate is a slut, which is what differentiates this from the other examples.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 1:23 am – March 5, 2012

    Nope. Lie. That’s what you and your liar Fluke are trying to make it.

    What is going on is very simple, Levi; you and your fellow rich white liberals don’t want to pay your bills. Fluke doesn’t want to pay her bills, and her loser DC boyfriends like you won’t pay for anything, much less wear condoms or use contraception.

    So she demands that poor and working-class people pay her bills for her and claims that if you don’t, you hate women.

    She is a liar. She is an irresponsible, childish brat with no sense of reality. And since she demands that we pay for her to have promiscuous sex to the tune of thousands of dollars a year, she is a slut.

    Moreover, Levi, she proves that YOU are an irresponsible, selfish brat. If you were half a man, you would take responsibility and pay the contraception bills for the women with which you are having sex. But you won’t. You won’t even wear a condom; you just want Fluke to spread her legs and take your STDs, and then be grateful that you will let her kill the baby afterward.

    And in your case, yes, your mother is a slut, just like Fluke; she is an irresponsible idiot who thinks other people should pay the bills for her sexual choices. So is your grandmother, so is your sister and so are your friends. Not a single one of them is a responsible woman; they’re all mooching sluts who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

    And guess what, Levi? If you and your fellow liberal men were actually taking responsibility and paying your fair share, as you CLAIM you should, your liberal sluts wouldn’t be being bankrupted by contraception.

    But you’re not.

    You’re having sex with these women and sticking them with the bill. Therefore, your father is an irresponsible lazy jerk who won’t even take responsibility enough to wear a condom or pay for it. Your brother, your friends, and you yourself are irresponsible lazy jerks who won’t even take responsibility enough to wear a condom or pay for it.

    Fluke is a slut who is demanding that we pay her bills for recreational sex because a) she is too lazy and irresponsible to do it and b) because the liberal men like you who are having sex with her won’t be responsible for it either.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 1:36 am - March 5, 2012

  14. The conservative assumption is that all liberal women are reckless hedonists that refuse to take responsibility for themselves and want the government to pay for their abortions and STD treatments. Conservatives think they’re the best thing going and that everyone else is a lazy, helpless bottom-feeder that doesn’t contribute and just wants to leech off of their productivity.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 1:23 am – March 5, 2012

    Yup.

    Because conservatives are well aware of the actual cost of birth control pills and condoms.

    “According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills-the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen–for $9 per month,” the Standard writes, which is the cost of the pills without insurance. “Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.”

    So let’s see: $9 per month x 12 months equals a whopping $108 per year.

    And you can avail yourself of 100 condoms for a mere $19.95 – and if you bought two boxes for a total of $40, you wouldn’t even have to pay shipping.

    So Fluke’s claim that she and all of her classmates spend $1,000 per year on pills and condoms — nearly ten times as much as the actual cost for birth control pills alone — struck us as more than odd.

    But it lines up nicely with an average of two abortions per year and change.

    So yes, Fluke is either buying condoms by the truckload, which means she’s promiscuous, or she and her fellow classmates are reckless hedonists who are having sex and then aborting the end results.

    And yes, she is; she doesn’t want to pay her own bills. She whines and cries and demands that other people be forced at gunpoint to pay her bills for her from their productive work and income.

    Furthermore, Levi, as I just pointed out, she insists that her sexual partners — which would be liberal men like you — have not been paying the bills for her abortions. You get the sex, you get her pregnant, but you refuse to pay for it or for contraceptives/protection.

    So your games with Fluke backfired. She is a slut; moreover, she’s a lazy rich white slut who can afford DC townhouses, law school tuition, and fancy clothes for herself, but demands the families struggling to get by, educate their children, and make tough choices on where to spend their money pay her bills so she doesn’t have to.

    And she also makes abundantly clear that liberal males like yourself, the ones who preach and whine the most about “male responsibility”, are in fact NOT taking responsibility or paying their fair share toward their sex partner’s contraception, and are trying to unload the bill onto others.

    So point blank, Levi, why can’t you pay $40 for a damn box of condoms? Why does your slut need to send her thousand-dollar abortion bill to poor families who don’t need another bill to pay?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 2:08 am - March 5, 2012

  15. LOL!

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 2:44 am - March 5, 2012

  16. Shorter Levi: Please bring the Government into my bedroom.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 5:56 am - March 5, 2012

  17. I think the condom example is confusing Levi. When would he ever need a condom? For ballon animals?

    (aside, I actually had a classmate argue on facebook that Georgetown (and employers) have an obligation to make sure that anyone who was admitted/hired matched their belief system. I pointed out she just said that people are too stupid to read their employment requirements.)

    Comment by The Livewire — March 5, 2012 @ 8:15 am - March 5, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.