Sunday, March 04, 2012

Republicans Take The Bait, Again...

Sigh.  It's like watching a never-ending reel of Lucy snatching away the football away from a charging Charlie Brown, causing an anguished "Aauugh!", followed by a "Whump!", and a sage Lucy tut-tutting Charlie Brown's naivety.

Once again, the mainstream media has created a controversy, and has goaded Republicans into taking sides, with the inevitable (but expected) result of making them, and the party, plead guilty for the sins of another.

I'm talking about the Rush Limbaugh "slut" remarks pointed at one Sandra Fluke, a woman (not a girl) who testified before Congress saying she needed taxpayer assistance to afford her $1K/year sex addiction.   The media went straight to top Republicans for comment, and on cue, fools like John Boehner do.  And of course, once the media smells conservative blood, well, that only whets their appetite:

While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.... Mr. Boehner and others of his stature need to say unequivocally that such gutter rhetoric has no place in their party or in American politics.

Just like Democrats repudiated the hateful words of Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, and David Frum after the death of Andrew Breitbart, right?

Jen Rubin, again blasting the idiocy of her employer:

But if we are going down the road, I’ve got my list for Democrats. Let’s start with Paul Krugman, who repeatedly blamed Republicans for the shooting of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords and the slaying of other innocents. (Remember, we have to be specific, so Obama’s plea for civility in general really won’t do.) Even more egregious was Tom Friedman’s assertion that Congress had been “bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby.”Where was the White House? Then there is Andrew Sullivan who spent a good deal of the 2008 election accusing Sarah Palin, then governor of Alaska, of faking her pregnancy. That was indicative of a much larger trend of sexualized put-downs by Palin critics, a regrettable trend exhaustively documented by Matt Continetti, then a Right Turn guest blogger and now Washington Free Beacon editor. It would have been nice if Democrats had not been silent while Palin was called everything from a “bimbo” to a “slutty librarian.

Currently, there’s a big flap over certain bloggers at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and at Media Matters who used anti-Israel or anti-Semitic language. It would be great if Obama and members of Congress, again by name, singled out these individuals to make certain that the Democratic Party would distance itself from such discourse. (Hey, AIPAC’s conference starts today so the timing would be great!)

Let us not forget the evening line-up at MSNBC that. . .well, you get my drift. I could go on. And on. I mean, we wouldn’t want to simply single out one talk show host, on one side of the aisle for such treatment, right?

We'd rather apologize than challenge the moral status quo. Or even inform people of the truth about Sandra Fluke - she's no innocent young waif being berated before Congress, she is a 30-year-old graduate of Cornell University, and 3rd year law student at Georgetown University Law Center–a young, white woman of privilege...

Sandra Fluke, buttoning her top after doing...what, exactly?  And will we be paying for it?


It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy...

While she might not be a "slut" she is surely a Democratic plant. And the Republicans fell right into the "apologizing" trap - which serves to keep this non-story alive as a cudgel to be used against them - rather than battling the narrative and exposing who this woman was and what her agenda is.

This will not end, until we refuse to accept the warped moral code of the liberal elite and the MSM. I've quoted this before, and I will again:

The sanction of the victim is the willingness of the victim to accept the moral terms under which he or she is accused. This willingness allows the oppressor to coerce the victim through guilt and obligation. Rational people will withhold their sanction when they do not accept the premise under which they are victimized. If their own moral code is not the code of their oppressors, they are not obligated to participate under the oppressors’ terms or to validate the oppressors’ position by accepting it as rational...

But we do. So here we are one more. Apologizing...

No comments: