Vox News

Julianne Moore portrays Sarah Palin (l.) and Ed Harris portrays Arizona Sen. John McCain in a scene from 'Game Change,' a film premiering Saturday at 9 p.m. on HBO. (Phil Caruso/HBO/AP)

'Game Change’: Could Sarah Palin portrayal affect the 2012 election?

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 03.10.12

The HBO movie “Game Change,” detailing the private anguish and very public failures in the 2008 GOP presidential campaign, may not change many viewers’ minds about the film’s central character, Sarah Palin. But, say some observers, the two-hour docudrama has the potential to affect both the 2012 election and our larger political culture – from the way a vice-presidential candidate is chosen to President Obama’s reelection chances and the way young women view running for political office.

As is usually the case with media portrayals, particularly with controversial figures such as Ms. Palin, viewers will see the film through their own lenses, says John Pitney, professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College in California. “To Palin haters, it confirms that she’s a dolt. To Palin supporters, it confirms that Hollywood is biased against Republicans in general, conservative Republicans in particular, and Sarah Palin most of all,” he says via e-mail.

Still, he outlines a way in which the film could have an impact. He writes, “It serves as a reminder of the trouble that Palin encountered in 2008. So when the eventual GOP nominee – probably Mitt Romney – picks his running mate, he’s going to be extra careful to find someone who is fluent in public policy issues.”

If he considers someone with only limited experience, such as Gov. Susana Martinez (R) of New Mexico, or Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida, he says, “his team will subject that person to the political version of ‘Jeopardy.’ ”

The devastating grilling over issues like Palin’s wardrobe and verbal gaffes sends a chilling message to the next generation, says Barbara O’Connor, director emeritus of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. “This absolutely sends the message, ‘Do not run,’ to young women,” she says, adding, “This shows them they will be treated differently.”

The professor says she has noticed a growing reluctance among her female students “to even consider” political involvement. They see many women politicians subjected to a double standard when it comes to family and clothing issues, she says.

A film like “Game Change,” portraying the behind-the-scenes pain the then-governor went through as she moved from the wilds of Alaska into the national spotlight, will only serve to reinforce young women’s doubts and misgivings about participating in the body politic, she adds.

But perhaps the most unexpected potential result of replaying the 2008 campaign is the message it could send to the independent, undecided voter in the current presidential election. This is the group that both Republicans and Democrats most desire to sway as the election nears.

A film like this, detailing the inner workings of the GOP campaign that helped usher Barack Obama into office four years ago, “could serve to remind some voters who cast their ballot for him back then that they made the right decision,” says Republican strategist David Johnson, who worked on Sen. Bob Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign.

“Game Change” reveals, in particular, the doubts that GOP candidate John McCain had during the campaign – not to mention the conflicts and disarray within his ranks over the growing problems ushered in by Palin’s spot on the ticket.

“They may well realize that they made a choice for the safer candidate back then,” says Mr. Johnson, “and in some slight but important way, that could serve to reinforce the idea that continuing with Obama is still the safer choice.”

Read entire post | Comments

Ed Harris portrays Arizona Sen. John McCain and Julianne Moore portrays Sarah Palin in a scene from "Game Change," a film about the 2008 presidential race that premieres Saturday on HBO. (Phil Caruso/HBO/AP)

'Game Change': How accurate is the movie about Sarah Palin?

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 03.09.12

When HBO’s film “Game Change,” about the 2008 election and specifically about Sarah Palin, airs on Saturday, many will wonder: How accurate is all that crazy behind-the-scenes dialogue?

As seems to happen with virtually every political docudrama, questions about accuracy and political agenda have arisen around the project. Words have been flying back and forth between supporters of Ms. Palin, who charge the filmmakers with a smear job, and the producers, who insist they’re committed to historical accuracy.

At the same time, filmmakers say, the purpose of drama is to create a meaningful narrative, not a history lesson.

“We have to learn to see movies as representations that are made rather than simple reflections,” says Peter Lehman, director of the Center for Film, Media and Popular Culture at Arizona State University, in an e-mail. Their relationship to real people and events is always more complex than the words "accuracy" or "fair" suggest, he adds.

The “Game Change” filmmakers have indeed acknowledged the impossibility of compressing months of recent history into two hours without engaging in creative license. Still, they robustly defend the reliability of their research.

“I interviewed all of those people that were in those [back] rooms” where campaign decisions were made, “Gang Change” writer Danny Strong said at a Television Critics Association press conference in January. These interviews were in addition to what he calls a careful reliance on the book on which the film is based. The book’s authors also talked to dozens of participants in the actual events.

“So, a combination of the book and the interviews – I feel that it’s very accurate to what actually happened,” Mr. Strong said.

Actress Julianne Moore, who portrays Palin, also defends the authenticity of her process. “I did a tremendous amount of research,” she told reporters at the same conference. “I read her book. I read ‘Game Change.’ I read her assistant’s book. I read absolutely everything I could get my hands on,” she says, adding, “It’s a daunting task to play somebody who is not only a living figure, but a hugely well-known one.”

The most important thing, she said, “was accuracy.”

But what about those “private” exchanges in the movie, such as one between Palin (Moore) and Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), as he coaches her on US foreign policy with Britain? He asks how she would handle the relationship, now that support for the war in Iraq is “at an all-time low in that country.” Palin responds, “The United States has always maintained a great relationship with the queen.” Mr. Schmidt responds that the queen is not the head of the government, but rather the head of state, to which Palin says, “Who is the head of government?”

The producers of the film maintain that the scene is historically accurate, but conservative filmmaker John Ziegler doubts this. While making the film “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted,” he interviewed Palin and became what he calls an informal adviser for her subsequent media appearances.

Contrary to what he calls the liberal media’s orthodoxy about Palin, “she is not dumb; she is incredibly smart.”

However, he says, there are only a few inaccuracies in the film that he would point out.

First, he maintains, she never said that the US was in Iraq “because Saddam Hussein attacked America.” He suggests this is a deliberate twisting of a comment she made to her son as he prepared to deploy to Iraq, noting that he was going to fight Al Qaeda in that country.

On the question of Britain’s head of government, he does not claim to know whether she actually made that comment. But he asks with a laugh, “Who do you think said that they had just finished campaigning in 57 states and only had one left to go? That’s a pretty big gaffe, don’t you think?” But, he notes, the media didn’t say a word. “That was Barack Obama who said that,” so don’t talk about goofs on the campaign trail, he says.

The media, he adds, gave Palin a raw deal back in 2008. “I know the way Sarah Palin thinks, and I’m pretty sure she didn’t mean that she really didn’t know who the head of the British government was.”

This debate over political and historical films will no doubt continue, says Syracuse University popular-culture expert Robert Thompson, because the stakes are high. If you put a movie up against a history book, he says, “which one do you think people will remember?”

Read entire post | Comments

Last year, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, shown here in 2010, criticized President Obama's decision to send 100 elite US troops to kill or capture Joseph Kony, a Ugandan rebel leader whose guerilla group, the Lord's Resistance Army, has been accused of widespread human rights violations. (Chris Carlson/AP/File)

Why did Rush Limbaugh defend Joseph Kony and Lord's Resistance Army (+video)?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.09.12

Last October, Rush Limbaugh on his radio show defended Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army, the Uganda guerilla group that is now infamous around the world thanks to a viral video from the Invisible Children organization that has exposed Kony’s cruel and murderous ways.

Why in the world would Limbaugh do that? One reason is that he was not so much promoting the LRA as questioning the Obama administration’s decision to send 100 elite US troops to the area to help quell fighting.

“Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them,” Limbaugh said last Oct. 14, according to a show transcript.

Limbaugh then went on to read from what he said were the group’s self-described objectives, which included “to remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.”

“Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting,” said Limbaugh, implying that the US had taken the wrong side in the battle.

What Limbaugh did not say was that the list of LRA objectives appeared to have come straight off Wikipedia, according to a contemporaneous New York Times account. Nor did Limbaugh mention that for years the group had been widely accused of torture, murder, looting, and wanton destruction.

Perhaps the other major reason Limbaugh made this faux pas was that he was just talking too fast about stuff of which he knew little. Today over 50 million people have seen the Invisible Children video, which documents such LRA abuses as its kidnapping of children for use as soldiers. But Limbaugh’s discussion of the group occurred long before it became so well known.

In fact, as his broadcast progressed last October, Limbaugh obviously began receiving reports from listeners of the LRA’s real nature.

Near the end of the show he said, “Is that right? The Lord’s Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? ... Well, we just found out about this today. We’re gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys – and they claim to be Christians.”

At the time, the broadcast created an uproar among those who knew of the LRA’s actions. The next day conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma went on the Senate floor to set the record straight, noting that Joseph Kony was in no way a Christian, and that he had been disavowed by the Ugandan Catholic Church.

“I stand behind the president in his decision ... Josephy Kony and the LRA are responsible for one of the longest, most violent, and costly conflicts ever on the continent of Africa,” Senator Inhofe said.

Even Stephen Colbert took after Limbaugh for his maladroit move. On his Oct. 19 Colbert Report, the comedian picked up on the talk show host’s “due diligence” comment, saying, “Of course due diligence always comes after accusing the president of killing Christians.”

“That’s why it’s called re-search,” said Colbert, drawing out the last word. “If you do it before, it’s called pre-search.”

Limbaugh vs. Maher: This composite image shows conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh (l.) and liberal comedian Bill Maher. ((L.-r.) Chris Carlson/AP/File, Damian Dovarganes/AP/File)

Rush Limbaugh vs. Bill Maher: Which one's words were worse?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.09.12

Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has landed in big trouble for calling Georgetown University Law School student Sandra Fluke harsh names. But has liberal comedian Bill Maher escaped unscathed despite doing pretty much the same thing to other women?

That’s the charge some conservatives are making as the Limbaugh-Fluke flap enters its second week. They’re demanding that President Obama call on the "super PAC" that supports him to refuse a $1 million donation from Maher.

“Mr. Obama needs to publicly disassociate himself from Priorities USA [super political action committee] and cease all further fundraising in support of the organization, until they [super PAC officials] return Mr. Maher’s contribution immediately,” wrote conservative activist Penny Nance, executive director of Concerned Women for America, in a letter sent Thursday to White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew.

Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin seconded this call, writing in her column that the White House has set a standard about ties with misogynistic entertainers it now must live up to itself. Obama has noted that he has no direct control over what Priorities USA does, as it is an organization that’s separate from his campaign. But administration officials such as David Plouffe have (legally) appeared at Priorities USA fundraisers.

“The White House, I am quite certain, never expected this issue to come back to bite the president and his campaign. But in the New Media era with energetic grassroots conservative activists, it is not as easy as it once was to apply civility rules only to the right,” wrote Ms. Rubin on Friday in her Right Turn blog.

That’s tough language right there. Is Maher really that bad? Well, we’ll note that he has said some very bad things about Sarah Palin and other Republican women. He’s started with "bimbo,” and then moved on into derogatory gynecological references that are too obscene for us to repeat.

Maher himself has defended Limbaugh, saying that the political left looks ”bad” for refusing to accept Limbaugh’s apology. (Shouldn’t it be Ms. Fluke who accepts or rejects an apology?)

Maher told his followers on Twitter this week that what Limbaugh said was “vile,” but that he doesn’t like “fatwas.”

“Ur beating a dead pig,” he tweeted.

But if Maher’s language was vulgar, too, does he have the same position in the political firmament as does Limbaugh?

That’s the way Bill Burton, the head of Priorities USA, is responding to this issue. On Thursday, he noted that Maher is an out-and-out performing comic, while Limbaugh is something different: a quasi-pundit with ties to a political party who discusses politics on his show in an attempt to sway voters.

“The notion that there is an equivalence between what a comedian has said over the course of his career and what the de facto leader of the Republican Party said to sexually degrade a woman ... in a political debate of our time, is crazy,” said Mr. Burton in an MSNBC appearance.

We guess that means that at the moment they’re not giving Maher his million bucks back.

President Obama speaks during a visit to the Daimler Trucks North America Mount Holly Truck Manufacturing Plant in Mount Holly, N.C., Wednesday, March 7. Audience members held up four fingers indicating four more years. (Gerry Broome/AP)

New Obama campaign video: what it may say about his reelection strategy

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.08.12

President Obama’s reelection campaign released a two-minute trailer Thursday for “The Road We’ve Traveled,” an upcoming short film about the Obama presidency. If the trailer is any guide, the full movie will depict a determined chief executive handling big problems during difficult times.

Narrated by Tom Hanks and directed by the Academy Award-winning Davis Guggenheim, the trailer is also a reminder of the resources that incumbent presidents command. Sure, Ron Paul’s campaign videos are snappy, with quick-cutting computer animation, but can he get the voice of Woody from “Toy Story” to read them? No he can’t.

Of course, Republicans will point out that Mr. Guggenheim won his Academy Award for “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s climate change documentary, but that’s unlikely to bother Mr. Obama’s Democratic base.

The trailer attempts to come across as urgent, but restrained. Think of it as a Hollywood-produced teaser for a Ken Burns docudrama on the Great Recession. But here’s our question: What does it say about the way the Obama team appears to be approaching the coming campaign? Here’s our take:

They're selling the long view

The first words out of Hank’s mouth in the trailer deal with how to judge the Obama presidency: “Do we look at the day’s headlines or do we remember what we as a country have been through?”

The Obama team is pushing the latter approach there. They want voters to look beyond unemployment numbers that will remain high through November and remember how bad the economy was when Obama took office.

Thus top adviser David Axelrod, recalling a pre-inauguration meeting of the president-elect’s economic team, says “what was described in that meeting was an economic crisis beyond what anybody had imagined.”

We remember that at that point it was pretty obvious the economy was so far down the toilet it had reached the septic tank. But as Greg Sargent writes on his liberal Plum Line blog at the Washington Post, the Obama campaign is trying to convince Americans about how difficult and dangerous it was just to get the economy back to where it is today.

“If Americans cast their vote as a referendum on the conditions of the economy on Election Day 2012 – on ‘the day’s headlines’ – Obama could be denied a second term,” writes Sargent.

They still think Romney's the opponent

Most of the trailer focuses on economic issues. That’s Mitt Romney’s big issue, of course – that’s better equipped to bring back American jobs. The Obama campaign is choosing to address that fight, rather than the social issues they might raise if Rick Santorum was the more likely Republican opponent.

Plus, Obama’s biggest legislative achievement, his health-care reforms, gets mentioned only once, briefly. That’s either because Obama officials believe health care won’t be an issue in a campaign against Romney, who passed a similar effort when governor of Massachusetts; or they’re so worried about its political effects that they’re trying to ignore it.

Their slogan is 'GM's alive and bin Laden's dead'

That’s been a joke in DC political circles for months, and it appears it’s coming true.

The auto bailout gets big play in the trailer. It has former administration consumer official Elizabeth Warren saying, “If the auto industry goes down, what happens to America’s manufacturing base, what happens to jobs in America, what happens to the whole Midwest?”

Then, suddenly, it is years later, and VP Joe Biden is talking about the bin Laden raid. “We had to make a decision, go or not go,” says Biden, over a shot of Obama framed alone against a White House window.

Got an opinion on the trailer? Tell us what you think in comments. The full movie comes out on March 15.

Read entire post | Comments

Georgetown University law student and activist Sandra Fluke (c.) speaks to co-hosts Joy Behar (l.) and Sherri Shepherd during an appearance on the daytime talk show, 'The View,' Monday in New York. Fluke talked about conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who insulted her on his radio program. (Lou Rocco/ABC/AP)

For Rush Limbaugh advertisers, backlash could hit hard in social media age

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 03.07.12

Let’s call it old media versus new media.

On one side, there is conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh doing what made him famous on the airwaves – throwing incendiary word bombs. This time, he dubbed a Georgetown University law student a “slut” and a "prostitute” after she said at a congressional hearing that insurance should cover contraceptives.   

On the other side, a one-two punch: social media amplifying the concerns of a wave of protesters – particularly women – railing against what they saw as outdated misogyny.

In recent days, more than three dozen companies, including such big names as Sears, JCPenney, AOL, and Netflix have pulled their support for Mr. Limbaugh's show.

Did the social media campaigns force companies' hands? That's debatable. What is more certain is that as corporate America reaches out into social media more aggressively to market itself and tell its stories, that action opens it up to an occasional opposite reaction: vulnerability to having the medium turned against itself.

Social media sites such as BoycottRush.org and Limbaugh boycott pages on Facebook and Reddit have provided readers with step-by-step instructions for how to vent their displeasure at advertisers. And with companies striving to use the interconnectedness of social media to their advantage, they have to act more quickly and decisively than in the past to counter negative associations.

So, for example, if you are the online data backup provider Carbonite, and you also invest heavily in online media, the Limbaugh controversy increases the risk that you will get pulled in, says Olivier Rubel, a professor of marketing at the Graduate School of Management at the University of California at Davis.

“Customers will hear or read 'Limbaugh' when the brand of the company is mentioned,” he says.

Some firms have gone out of their way to distance themselves from Limbaugh, explaining their ads aired on Limbaugh’s show without their knowledge. A spokesperson for Goodwill Industries said in an e-mail to Politico: “A PSA about Goodwill was aired on a D.C.-area station that airs the 'Rush Limbaugh Show' and was done without our permission, knowledge, or consent. We asked them to remove it because this was done without our prior approval.”

The communications director for the Girl Scouts of Oregon and Southwest Washington also said in an e-mail to Politico: “Our decision to pull our advertising is due to the fact that current programming does not align with the Girl Scout mission. We were unaware at the time of purchase that our commercials would air during the program.”  

Women’s voices have fueled the pushback. Author and activist Gloria Feldt also noted on Politico: “If Don Imus lost his job over his 'nappy headed ho' comment, then surely, as Rachel Larris at the Women's Media Center put it, Rush Limbaugh's latest insults to women are 'finally too much to bear.' ”

The depth and  breadth of the reaction is something new for Limbaugh,” says Richard Goedkoop, professor of communication at La Salle University in Philadelphia. “It was never anything close to this when he criticized the NFL and Donovan McNabb, although he did lose his gig at 'Monday Night Football,' ” he notes via e-mail. 

Limbaugh’s statements on the law student, Sandra Fluke, “have touched a nerve beyond some of his previous outrageous statements,” he says. Since most women have used birth control at some point in their lives, and men are also affected by these decisions, “this has led to a broader target of offended parties,” he says.

Limbaugh dismissed the controversy on his show Wednesday. “Everything is fine on the business side. Everything’s cool. There is not a thing to worry about.”

He also brushed  aside the growing defection of advertisers, saying the double digit numbers are “out of 18,000. That’s like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it’s delivered to you in the drive thru. You don’t even notice it.”

In this Jan. 13, 2009 file photo, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh talks with guests in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (Ron Edmonds/AP/File)

Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke flap: Is it time to move on?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.07.12

It’s been only seven days since Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” but it seems like the ensuing controversy has been raging for much longer than that. Attitudes about the talk show host’s treatment of the Georgetown University Law student have begun to calcify into a partisan divide. Is it time for liberals to just get over it, move on, and accept the apology Limbaugh has offered?

Bill Maher thinks so. At first glance that’s surprising – comedian Maher announced the other day that he’ll give $1 million to a super PAC that backs President Obama. But he’s got his reasons as to why he thinks it’s time to let go of the Fluke controversy.

“Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout,” wrote Maher on his Twitter feed Wednesday.

Of course, Maher’s been accused of saying some pretty crass gynecological things about Sarah Palin and other conservative women, so he might have a vested interest in damping down the fire here.

Former Obama administration economist (and frequent talk show guest) Austan Goolsbee noted this Wednesday, tweeting that “palin is right to point out that bill maher has said some pretty disgusing things about women, comedian or not. They are rush like.”

And as to sponsor pullouts, those could hit Maher and other controversial entertainment figures where it hurts – their wallets.

Talkers.com, which bills itself as the Bible of the talk show industry, noted Wednesday that one outcome of the Limbaugh uproar has been sponsor nervousness about the possibility of controversial statements from any edgy host.

“Major advertisers are issuing yet another round of ‘no controversial programming’ dictates,” writes Talkers in its industry news column. “This is not a new problem for talk radio, and the recent Limbaugh case is likely only to add fuel to a fire that’s been simmering for the past 20 years.”

Plus, isn’t it up to Ms. Fluke to decide whether Limbaugh’s apology should be accepted? She’s the one Limbaugh insulted, and she’s the person at whom he directed his words when he said he was wrong to use the harsh language he did.

And she’s not buying it.

“I don’t think that a statement like [Limbaugh] issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he’s under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support,” Fluke said earlier this week in an appearance on ABC’s "The View."

Many of Fluke’s defenders have pointed out that Limbaugh apologized for calling her a “slut,” but not for saying that women who want contraceptives from their health insurance are trying to get “American taxpayers” to fund their “personal sexual recreational activities,” and so forth. Given that, many liberals say they’ll continue with their outrage and attempts to get more sponsors to pull ads from Limbaugh’s show, thank you very much.

Still, at this point, is there a diminishing return to the personally-directed anger?

“Sure, it’s funny to dissect all the ways in which [Limbaugh’s] apology falls short, but it’s also a waste of breath,” writes Slate’s Katy Waldman on the web site’s XX Factor blog.

The initial anger contributed to advertiser desertions, but now it may just help Limbaugh make news, according to Waldman.

“Isn’t our shock a little disingenuous?” she writes. “Can’t we just allow his predictably crass and unrepentant star to flicker out? Expecting Rush Limbaugh to change his mind, especially in response to censure from the mainstream, makes no sense.”

Radio show host Rush Limbaugh speaks at a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, in this June 2006 file photo. Limbaugh didn't much like President Obama’s comments on Tuesday about the Sandra Fluke 'slut' controversy. (Micah Walter/Reuters/File)

Rush Limbaugh rips Obama 'hypocrisy' on Sandra Fluke (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.07.12

Rush Limbaugh ripped into President Obama on Tuesday for Mr. Obama’s comments about the Sandra Fluke “slut” controversy. He called Obama a hypocrite for criticizing his harsh words about Ms. Fluke, saying the president gives a free pass to similar language from liberals.

Mr. Limbaugh mentioned in particular an incident from Labor Day 2011 when, prior to an Obama address to a rally in Detroit, Teamsters President James Hoffa said of the tea party, “Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”

Obama only chuckled at that incident, said Limbaugh.

“It just goes to show the rules don’t apply to Democrats.... The double standard is alive and well,” said Limbaugh on his show, according to a transcript posted on his website.

To recap, at a White House press conference Tuesday, Obama said that Limbaugh’s verbal attacks on Fluke disturbed him as a father. He added that the reason he telephoned the Georgetown University law student to see if she was doing OK was because the incident brought his own young daughters, Sasha and Malia, to mind.

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way,” said Obama.

At the press conference, Obama also said he “did not know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart” and so would not comment on the sincerity of the talk-show host/provocateur’s apology for his actions.

Limbaugh reacted strongly to this assertion, saying, “He doesn’t know what’s in my heart. I’ll bet he knows what’s in Jeremiah Wright’s heart. He was in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years.”

The Rev. Mr. Wright, a longtime Chicago-area pastor, has made comments widely criticized as racially and religiously divisive. At one point he said of the 9/11 attacks that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

In May 2008, while running for president, Obama said he was “outraged” by some of Wright’s statements and resigned from his church.

As to what is in his own heart, Limbaugh said that anyone who listened to his show would know that.

“Everybody knows what kind of person I am. All of this is trumped up for political purposes, pure and simple,” said Limbaugh on his show.

Meanwhile, in defense of Limbaugh some conservative commentators have begun charging that Democrats are simply trying to silence conservatives on the question of whether the government should mandate that employer-provided health insurance provide contraceptives to women. That’s the issue that Fluke was discussing in her appearance before an informal congressional panel.

“What is happening here is an organized campaign by the left to shut down opposing views from the right,” wrote Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative RedState blog.

In this January 2009 file photo, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh talks with guests in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Limbaugh apologized on Saturday, to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a 'slut' and 'prostitute' after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program. (Ron Edmonds/AP)

Rush Limbaugh: Do Democrats want uproar to continue?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.06.12

Rush Limbaugh remains in big trouble. Advertisers – 11 at last count – are pulling spots off his radio talk show because of the reaction to his calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Opponents are mobilizing on social media for a long campaign to try to convince even more sponsors to drop his program. Ms. Fluke herself has rejected as insufficient Mr. Limbaugh’s attempts at apology.

But here’s our question: At this point, is it even within Limbaugh’s power to apologize enough? Has the political uproar reached a state where Democratic officials just want it to continue?

That’s certainly possible. Over at the liberal Plum Line blog, Greg Sargent writes that it’s hard to overstate what a huge gift Limbaugh has handed the Democratic Party.

“Dems will do all they can to ensure that Limbaugh continues to loom large over the presidential race,” writes Sargent.

He points out an interview Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod gave CNN in which Axelrod accused Mitt Romney of not showing enough outrage over Limbaugh’s comments.

“I was kind of shocked when Governor Romney, all he had to say was, ‘Well, that isn’t language I would have used’.... I thought that was a cowardly answer,” Mr. Axelrod said on camera.

Republicans and Democrats were already fighting a bitter battle over the Obama administration’s move to mandate that employer-provided health insurance cover women’s contraception. By throwing gasoline on an existing propane fire, Limbaugh got himself into even deeper trouble than normal, according to Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo editor and publisher.

“It’s because this lined up so closely to a party political gambit that Limbaugh’s been far harder pressed to handle this controversy than he has with ones in the past,” writes Mr. Marshall Tuesday.

Meanwhile, conservatives are beginning to hammer at what they see as the hypocrisy of the left’s shaming of Limbaugh.

Sure, Limbaugh used words he should not have, in this view. But some on the right are asking this: Where’s the outrage when liberals do something similar?

“Excuse me for being fed up with the media-generated histrionics,” writes Mark Corallo Tuesday on National Review Online.

Mr. Corallo notes that after conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart died recently, Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi wrote, “I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.” This comment did not attract nearly as much attention as did Limbaugh’s words.

Comedian Bill Maher, who recently said he would give $1 million to the "super political action committee" associated with President Obama, has repeatedly used obscene gynecological references to refer to Sarah Palin, writes L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center, in a Fox News opinion piece.

“Limbaugh has been singled out and condemned across the national media.... How many of these outlets have condemned Bill Maher with equal vigor for his attacks on Palin?” writes Mr. Bozell.