As the boycott costs Rush Limbaugh’s empire millions, the host claimed that the Sandra Fluke controversy was contrived by Obama to make women miserable.
Here is the audio from Media Matters:
Transcript via Rush Limbaugh:
But if you dig deep, buried in the numbers that the New York Times/CBS doesn’t report, Romney is leading Obama among women 49-43, after the contrived War on Women, after the contrived Sandra Fluke thing, after all of these efforts that have been expended to make Obama look like the first female president, the first gay president, the first Jewish president, and they’re doing all of that, by the way.
The Democrats are actually trying to build on Clinton being the first black president. Now, Obama’s the first every minority president. The Atlantic has a story on this, somewhat of a parody. But it’s because the Democrats are trying to make that case. They look at America, they see groups of people, they see victims, they see oppressed millions. They don’t see people living free, prosperous lives with ambition and desire. They don’t see happiness and contentment. They see people in misery. They see people in poverty. They see people in oppression. They see people being discriminated against. They see people at the risk of dying. They see people at the risk of being injured, and those are the people they’re gunning for in the campaign. They’re trying to make Obama out as the guy who’s gonna save them from their misery, whatever the misery is, and one of the groups that they have attempted to make believe is miserable is women.
Limbaugh’s latest attempt to explain away the advertisers who left and never returned to his show was based around a flawed poll that only the right is giving much credence to that shows Romney in a statistical tie with Obama. (It’s a statistical tie, because the poll had Romney up by three points, but the margin of error was four points). For some interesting insight on why polling samples may be leaning more right, check out the results of a new Pew study which found that participation in telephone polling has dropped from 37% of those called by pollsters to 9%). In short, not as many people are participating in polls.
Limbaugh is parasitically attaching himself to the CBS/New York Times poll that came up with some odd numbers in order to explain away the boycott against him. In Rush Land there is no such thing as the war on women. In fact, women are pleased as punch by the right wing movement to take away their ability to make their own healthcare decisions.
The war on women was all a giant plot by Obama and the Democrats to trick women into thinking that they were unhappy so that they would vote to reelect the president. Rush’s theory completely falls apart scrutinized by nothing more than common sense, which tells us that it isn’t the Democrats who support transvaginal ultrasounds, and are trying to deny women preventive healthcare screenings, contraception, and access to abortions. How is it that Democrats created an imaginary war on women based on laws that the Republican Party actually passed?
Limbaugh’s desperation knows no limits. Not only has the boycott worked, it has also cost radio stations who run his show millions. Limbaugh has tried a PR firm for damage control, blaming Obama, and creating a Facebook page to show how much women support him, but still the advertisers aren’t coming back.
Rush can believe in his heart that the Sandra Fluke controversy was contrived, but it was born out of his own comments. Limbaugh is still making excuses and refusing to take responsibility for what he has done. Even losing millions of dollars can’t teach man-child Rush Limbaugh his lesson. Rush can make all the excuses that he wants, but his business partners’ wallets are reaping what his mouth sowed.
The war on women is as real as the millions missing from Cumulus Media’s bottom line, and there is no gimmick that can make Rush’s former advertisers come home.
Mr. Easley is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.
Awards and Professional Memberships
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association