Rush Limbaugh: Do Democrats want uproar to continue?

Conservatives see 'media-generated histrionic' over vulgar comments Rush Limbaugh made about law school student Sandra Fluke. Liberals see a ripe opportunity to pin wings of GOP candidates to the wall.

Ron Edmonds/AP
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.

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.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.