[GeneV]

There is also the matter of, as distasteful as it is, if you are running for office, you are opening yourself up to all the nastiness that goes along with it (Go home you arrogant Kenyan, for example) or using the president's Muslim terrorist sounding middle name to discredit him.
Ms. Fluke is not running for public office, merely stating her case in front of congress. In this instance, attack on the person to discredit the idea is really petty.
I see John has fallen into the same right wing talking points that limbaugh put out there. Interesting coincidence considering he doesn't listen to limbaugh.

True. Running for office volunteers you for a lot of public comment, but I hate to use the abuse heaped on this President as a standard for anything.

[JohnInIndy]

There is also the matter of, as distasteful as it is, if you are running for office, you are opening yourself up to all the nastiness that goes along with it (Go home you arrogant Kenyan, for example) or using the president's Muslim terrorist sounding middle name to discredit him.
Ms. Fluke is not running for public office, merely stating her case in front of congress. In this instance, attack on the person to discredit the idea is really petty.
I see John has fallen into the same right wing talking points that limbaugh put out there. Interesting coincidence considering he doesn't listen to limbaugh.

Actually it was a Democratic Congressional Committee started by Pelosi because her input was irrelevant to the actual congressional meeting she wanted to speak at.

It is worth noting that Ms. Fluke told Schultz that Limbaugh's remarks were "outside the bounds of civil discourse" and I would agree with her. Yet it begs thee questions. Does Ms. Fluke believe that Schultz's remarks about Ingraham were also outside the bounds of civil discourse? Or do these standards not apply to conservative talk show hosts?

He called her a right wing slut btw. So where's the apology?

[Wheatfield]

He called her a right wing slut btw. So where's the apology?

You keep falling into the tired old habit of using one person's bad behaviour to excuse the bad behaviour of someone else. It's gotten really lame, and it shows a complete vacuity of thought.

[GeneV]

Not to mention that Schultz apologized quite nicely (calling his own remarks “vile and inappropriate language” and asking Ingraham for her forgiveness) and was suspended over the other remark. Ed Schultz suspended from MSNBC after calling Laura Ingraham a ‘right wing slut’ - The Washington Post If one reads the comments about Ingraham in context, the word "slut" was used in a very different way--referring to her politics, though still not a good choice of words.

How in the world does the party who called the congressional hearing reflect on a private citizen who testifies?

---

Last edited by GeneV; 03-09-2012 at 07:56 AM.

[Wormtographer]

There is also the matter of, as distasteful as it is, if you are running for office, you are opening yourself up to all the nastiness that goes along with it (Go home you arrogant Kenyan, for example) or using the president's Muslim terrorist sounding middle name to discredit him.
Ms. Fluke is not running for public office, merely stating her case in front of congress. In this instance, attack on the person to discredit the idea is really petty.
I see John has fallen into the same right wing talking points that limbaugh put out there. Interesting coincidence considering he doesn't listen to limbaugh.

Yes, it's an invalid attempt at equating separate issues and therefore confounding the issue at-hand via misdirection. In my day it was called "smoke and mirrors."

The obvious difference is that Maher is a comedian (the extremest kind-- a political comedian)--and as such, this kind of satirical commentary is well established to be biting and often savage (from Will Rogers through H.L. Mencken, Mort Sahl, Mark Russell, and now John Stewart). All around the world comedians are most effective at identifying political mishaps, especially in Countries where political discourse is controlled--all this due to the nature of comedy. Maher's comments linked here are clearly stated within the context of this comedic schtick. Hard to see it any other way.

Vs. Rush Limbaugh who is not a comedian, and was clearly not performing a comedy routine while he made his remarks.

I think this bruhaha has more to do with Religious conservatives targeting Maher for his movie Religulous (which I highly recommend, by the way). I'm surprised conservatives haven't come at Maher even harder.

The other obvious problem is that Super PACs are set-up to insulate a candidate from the money incoming. Until you change the laws on Super PACs--a candidate would actually be in violation if he/she communicated to the Super PAC what to do with any said money.

So the entire argument vis-a-vis Maher and Super PAC money is a red herring (presumably aimed at taking the heat off Limbaugh).

-W

[redrockcoulee]

Actually it was a Democratic Congressional Committee started by Pelosi because her input was irrelevant to the actual congressional meeting she wanted to speak at.


He called her a right wing slut btw. So where's the apology?

I would think that a nine minute televised apology in which Ed stated how wrong he was and how inappropriate that language was to use counts as an apology.The fact that Ed said the term once when he was heated up discussing something compared to Rush going over the same thing for three days is another difference. The apology or at least part of it was played back on TV a little while ago and compared to Rush's piss poor one it was a real one.

So some one on the left says the slut word once, immediately phones the person he slandered to state his regrets, makes a televised apology in which he tells all that watch how he was in the wrong and vows not to ever use that word again is NOT an apology and therefore Rush can call this women whatever he wants for testifying to people in Congress who may have had a relevant input as from my understanding the chair of the committee would hear no witnesses from the Democrats. Be that as it may, a three day tirant with no real apology and showing such an ignorance of how birth control pills work at a time that Republicans at both state and presidental levels are attacking even the right to have access to it makes this totally different from your examples, even including what Bill Maher said, which it too is not acceptable behaviour or language. But it is just as partisan to ignore the differences in these cases as it is to not recognize that all of them are unacceptable. But it is also wrong to clamour for an apology that was already made, twice actually, once right after Ed got off the radio show and then in a TV one.