MRC's Philbin Parrots Boss Bozell, Tries to Change Subject From Limbaugh Topic: Media Research Center
Following in the footsteps of his boss Brent Bozell's capitulation to whatever hold Rush Limbaugh has on the Media Research Center is the MRC's resident misogynist, Matt Philbin, trying to change the subject away from Limbaugh's sleazy words just like Bozell did:
Liberals and the media continue to be upset about Rush Limbaugh’s comments, despite his public apology. Limbaugh’s comments, we’re told, were “unforgivable.”
That’s laughable coming from those who’ve ignored or excused attacks from the left against conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Carrie Prejean. Liberals slime conservative women regularly, usually in language far worse than Limbaugh used. And they are seldom, if ever, held to account for sexual, violent misogynistic speech. Conservative women – whether pundits, politicians or even politicians’ wives – are fair game to the left.
Even as he detailed offenses by liberals, Philbin couldn't bring himself to repeat what Limbaugh actually said about Sandra Fluke.
Not that he objects in any way, mind you. Philbin has endorsed Limbaugh's sleazy attacks on Fluke -- he's tweeted that "Rush's prob was semantic. Shoulda said 'Woman of dubious reputation,' 'horizontal laborer' or 'Lincoln Tunnel Hitcher,'" also writing, "Anybody got Fluke's mailing address? I'm gonna send her a big Costco-sized box of condoms."
And Philbin is not done sliming Fluke. He has since tweeted: "Lawschool in your 30s, kvetching on "The View," calls from the prez, free BC so you can sleep around w/impunity. Some #waronwomen."
And this is the person selected by the MRC to lecture liberals on offensive behavior? No wonder Bozell can't bring himself to offer any real criticism of Limbaugh -- the culture inside the MRC headquarters is apparently as anti-woman as it is at Limbaugh's studio.
Like Craig Bannister, whose hateful CNS blog post inspired Limbaugh's three-day flight of misogyny, Philbin's position at the MRC is secure ... woman-bashing and all.
Birther Bribery: Arpaio Rents WND Mailing List Topic: WorldNetDaily
The list of financial ties between Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the "cold case posse" that conducted the birther "investigation," and WorldNetDaily just keeps growing.
Arpaio is running for re-election as Maricopa County sheriff, and his campaign rented out WND's mailing list Monday to send an email soliciting donations. It reads like it was ripped from Jerome Corsi articles--like Corsi, the email complains about how his opponents are "lying about me and my record" and how the Justice Department's investigation of Arpaio's office "is nothing but a political stunt aimed at intimidating me from doing the job I was elected to do."
How much did Arpaio pay to use WND's mailing list? Is it payback for WND's campaign of sucking up to guarantee that his posse's birther "investigation" would return the results it wanted (which it did)?
The web of deceit just keeps getting more and more tangled. Will Arpaio and WND ever tell the truth about their relationship?
Cowardice: Bozell Waits Until After Limbaugh Apology To Issue Tepid Criticism (Then Launches Limbaugh Defense Site) Topic: Media Research Center
It has taken five days, but Media Research Center president Brent Bozell has finally spoken out about Rush Limbaugh's sleazy remarks about contraception hearing witness Sandra Fluke. But it's lame, and he didn't originally publish it at his own website.
Bozell published a column at, of all places, Fox News' website. (It was published a couple hours later at NewsBusters.) Here is all the outrage he can muster over Limbaugh denigrating Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute":
Let’s all agree Limbaugh crossed a line.
He agrees. He posted an apology to Fluke “for the insulting word choices.”
Bozell's tepid remark is the first statement by anyone at the MRC regarding the propriety of Limbaugh's remarks. If we can "all agree Limbaugh crossed a line," why did it take five days for Bozell to decide if he agreed?
Having brusquely dismissed Limbaugh's sleaziness, Bozell then couldn't change the subject soon enough and politicize it on his own right-wing talking points:
The scandal-ette should be over.
So why are the Left and the media still pushing and publicizing a campaign for advertisers to dump the Limbaugh show and end his career?
This is followed by a long string of offenses committed by liberals, citing in particular remarks by Bill Maher about Sarah Palin. Bozell added:
Limbaugh has been singled out and condemned across the national media – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today.
How many of these outlets have condemned Bill Maher with equal vigor for his attacks on Palin?
Bozell ignores the crucial difference between Palin and Fluke. Palin is a nationally known political figure, while Fluke's testimony was her very first appearance in a major political forum. Also, Maher made his "c-word" attack on Palin in a stand-up comedy appearance in Dallas; Limbaugh ranted for three days about Fluke's sex life on a nationally syndicated radio show.
Bozell also fails to mention that one of his employees, Craig Bannister, inspired Limbaugh to go on his three-day tirade of insults against Fluke by smearing Fluke as a "sex-crazed co-ed." Is Limbaugh proud of that? He has to be.
I stand with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the massive contribution that he has made to the conservative movement and our nation over the last 25 years. Rush has apologized. But the radical left will never accept it because they despise him and want him off the air. I condemn attempts by radical left-wing organizations and the media to censor Rush and his commonsense conservative message.
Wow. If Sean Hannity or Mark Levin viciously insults someone, will the MRC build websites praising them, too?
In an accompanying video, Bozell repeats his tepid "let's all agree" comment, falsely asserts that Limbaugh has "profusely apologized," and reads from his column about liberal offenses. Bozell concluded: "It isn’t about what Rush said last week. It’s about roaring hypocrisy and about censorship."
Bozell is wrong. Claiming the controversy "isn’t about what Rush said" is a lame copout made by someone who knows very well that it's precisely about what Rush said. But it is about roaring hypocrisy too -- Bozell's.
Bozell is not a stupid man. He knows what Limbaugh said was offensive. Yet this self-proclaimed moral arbiter couldn't be moved to criticize Limbaugh in public until five days had passed and Limbaugh himself had issued a so-called apology -- and even then, that criticism was so milquetoast as to be meaningless.
It's true that for Bozell, this "isn’t about what Rush said," because he would rather talk about anything else. Bozell has an right-wing agenda to push, and it certainly doesn't involve explaining why three days of slut-shaming by Limbaugh received not only the most tepid criticism possible but earned Limbaugh a website to praise him, while a single instance of the word out of Ed Schultz's mouth drew howls of protest.
Bozell and the MRC has alwaysprotected Limbaugh, failing to hold him accountable for his words no matter how offensive. Bozell's selective outrage and situational morality is just one reason why nobody takes him or the MRC seriously.
Terry Jeffrey's Weird Obsession With John Holdren Continues Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey apparently has nothing better to do with his life than cherry-pick polls and scour 40-year-old textbooks for statements he can take out of context.
For the second time in the past week, Jeffrey does the latter regarding Obama adviser John Holdren. From Jeffrey's March 1 article:
John P. Holdren, the White House science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that “ways must be found to control advertising” and that possible means for doing so would be banning utility companies from promoting increased use of energy and prohibiting “references to size, power or sexual potency” in automobile advertising.
Yes, Jeffrey somehow believes that this warrants an article. It's not until the fourth paragraph that Jeffrey gets around to noting that this appears in a book Holdren co-wrote in 1973. As before, at no point does J effrey make any effortto contact Holdren to explain what he wrote nearly four decades ago or ask if he holds that belief now, or if he actually held it then.
As we've documented, CNS under Jeffrey is not a "news" organization but, rather, a Republican opposition research group trying to keep President Obama from being re-elected.
Pat Boone's Pack of Lies About Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Pat Boone writes in his March 2 WorldNetDaily column:
In 2007, America thought it was electing a president. We never dreamed we were electing an emperor.
Are you among the many who’ve noticed, for a long time now, how many times Mr. Obama uses the word “I” in every speech, every press conference, every White House release? In ever imperious ways, he states what “I have notified Senate leaders,” whom “I have appointed” both to traditional posts and to his own newly created “czarships” over previously less regulated pursuits? How many times in his State of the Union addresses has he told Congress and the Supreme Court what “I will do in the coming months,” what “I‘m directing” various departments to do and even “what I will not allow while I‘m president”?
In fact, social psychologist James W. Pennebaker found that Obama uses the word "I" less than any other modern president.
Boone also claims that Obama "unilaterally made the decision that Catholic charities, schools and public ministries must make abortion services available, regardless of their long-established religious opposition." In fact, the mandate covers only contraception and sterilization, not "abortion services."
But Boone is not done lying; he asserts that Obama's "first 'executive order' after he sat down in the Oval Office was to provide $250 million to Planned Parenthood worldwide." In fact, Obama's first executive order as president was to revoke an executive order by President Bush enabling former presidents and vice presidents to limit public access to their records.
Can we really expect anything but a pack of filthy lies from a rabid Obama-hater like Boone?
CNS Misleadingly Attacks Critics of Blunt Amendment Topic: CNSNews.com
In a March 1 CNSNews.com article defending an since-defeated amendment by Republican Sen. Roy Blunt to a transportation funding bill that would have allowed employers or health insurers to deny coverage for services they say violate their moral or religious beliefs, Matt Cover writes:
Also misleading is the charge that “any corporation could deny any preventive health service to employees on the basis of religious or moral objections.” The legislation does not say that.
Instead, it states plainly that its purpose is to ensure that employers can offer insurance coverage to their employees that conforms to the employer’s religious beliefs, without being penalized by the government under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the legislation also known as ObamaCare.
“The purposes of this Act are – (1) to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA; and (2) to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from health plans or other programs under PPACA,” it states.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that corporations are allowed to deny anyone any type of health care service, as the Democrats’ video claims.
Cover's defense, however, doesn't contradict what critics of the amendment haveclaimed -- that it was so broadly written that it would have allowed any employer to deny coverage for a given health care service by claiming religious or moral objections.
Cover is simply misleading about the bill by cherry-picking criticism to distort it.
Even After So-Called Apology, MRC Still Won't Criticize Limbaugh Topic: Media Research Center
Well, Rush Limbaugh has finally decided to offer a so-called apology for his denigrating attack on contraception hearing witness Sandra Fluke, made only after advertisers fled in horror from Limbaugh's radio show. Limbaugh's claim that "I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke" is utterly laughable; he apparently wants us to believe that calling Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" was not a personal attack.
How is the Media Research Center -- which has defendedandechoed Limbaugh's insults of Fluke for committing the offense of speaking in public about birth control -- taking this? Pretty much the way you'd expect.
NewsBusters' initial post on Limbaugh's statement regurgitated his insistence that his real concern is "over the contraceptive mandate and the larger erosion of personal responsibility and accountability through federal mandates that social costs for personal expenses onto taxpayers or employers.
NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard went on a tirade after the Huffington Post's story on Limbaugh's statement used the headline "Rush Caves," never mind that a half-hearted apology buried on the weekend after three days of impugning Fluk, coming in the face of a successful advertiser boycott, really can't be described as anything other than a "cave."
Sheppard huffed that HuffPo criticized Limbaugh for "doing what it believed was the right thing to do." Note that Sheppard narrowly described Limbaugh's statement as only what HuffPo "believed was the right thing to do," not that it simply was the right thing to do, which strongly suggests that Sheppard doesn't agree with that sentiment.Sheppard goes on to whine:
This is so typical of liberal media outlets.
They bash conservatives for everything they do, think, say, or advocate, and when one actually reconsiders his behavior, they ridicule him for "caving."
Remember that at no point until Limbaugh's statement did Sheppard or any other MRC employee express the opinion that Limbaugh's behavior needed to be reconsidered.
And, really, they still haven't. Sheppard went on to highlight Newt Gingrich criticizing NBC "Meet the Press" host David Gregory for beginning their interview "by asking him about contraceptives and Rush Limbaugh." Sheppard touted how Gingrich "correctly" pivoted the issue from Limbaugh to the right-wing talking point that the question of contraception is not a women's health issue but a religious freedom issue.
Sheppard also promoted a FoxNews.com column by Kristen Powers, "one of the many intelligent, reasonable, liberal contributors to Fox News," claiming that Limbaugh isn't the only "media misogynist." In neither post does Sheppard criticize Limbaugh's behavior -- rather, Sheppard praises Limbaugh's apology, which he claims "should diminish accusations of his misogyny."
Sheppard went on to complain about Penn Jillette saying that "I think it would be a nice gesture if [Limbaugh] were to send Sandra Fluke one of his sex tapes," ignoring the fact that Limbaugh himself opened this line of inquiry by demanding that Fluke post sex videos of herself online.
In another NewsBusters post, Brent Baker conceded that Limbaiugh "didn’t have any defenders ... not even amongst the conservatives." Still, Baker wasn't about to offer criticism of his own, because he has talking points to deliver: "Of course, Limbaugh’s comment only deflected attention from Obama’s antagonism to religious liberty because the news media eagerly pounced to push liberals efforts to make Limbaugh the issue."
Meanwhile, MRC employee Matt Philbin -- who had previously said he wanted to send Fluke " a big Costco-sized box of condoms" -- keeps up Limbaugh's slander by tweeting, "Rush's prob was semantic. Shoulda said 'Woman of dubious reputation,' 'horizontal laborer' or 'Lincoln Tunnel Hitcher.'"
If the MRC won't criticize Limbaugh's misogynism, Philbin certainly won't face any sanction from his employer. Sexists of a feather and all...
Birther Bribery: WND's Corsi Cashing In With Insta-Book on Birther Posse Probe Written With Posse Member Topic: WorldNetDaily
How closely did WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi work with the supposedly independent "cold case posse" that looked into President Obama's "eligibility"? He has co-written an e-book on the investigation with a member of the posse.
An Arizona TV station reports (h/t Dr. Conspiracy) that Corsi, along with posse member Mike Zullo, issued a e-book on the investigation, on sale for $9.95, the same day the investigation results were announced. Corsi and Zullo will split the proceeds from the book, for which Sheriff Joe Arpaio wrote the introduction.
According to Corsi, he and Zullo get to keep the money because neither of them are paid members of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. However, the posse operates under a nonprofit 501(c)3 structure for which WND has been soliciting donations. Corsi didn't explain why the book's proceeds shouldn't go toward the nonprofit group instead of the authors -- after all, the posse structure made this money-making opportunity possible for Zullo and Corsi.
Of course the book is for sale at the WND online store. Interestingly, the book shares the same title -- "A Question of Eligibility" -- as a wildly inaccurate video WND produced a couple years ago compling its birther conspiracies. As of this writing, WND is trying to dump the video for 99 cents.
If Corsi's presence at the March 1 press conference announcing the posse's results (which essentially channeled WND's conspiratorial work) didn't set off alarm bells, the fact that he was writing the book with a member of the posse as the posse was conducting its investigation should set them off. This further demonstrates the highly inappropriate relationship between WND and the posse, which appears to have tainted the results.
The fact that Corsi is now trying to cash in on his unusually close relationship with the posse provides further evidence that the posse is nothing more than a WND-controlled proxy whose sole purpose is to give the air of legitimacy to WND's birther conspiracies and to make money for WND and Corsi.
Meanwhile, as the posse's so-called results collapse under actualresearch, Dr. Conspiracy asks some important questions about this relationship that WND and the posse need to answer. Among them:
Was Jerome Corsi deputized by Maricopa County, or did he sign an affidavit under oath and penalty of perjury as to his examination of files at the National Archives? If not, why not?
Did WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi, or Joseph Farah contribute funds to the CCP?
John Woodman, the author of a book analyzing claims about Obama birth certificate images, offered on two occasions to assist the CCP. Why was he ignored?
What exactly was the role of Mara Zebest in the production of the CCP report?
What exactly was the role of Jerome Corsi in the production of the CCP report?
Why was Mark Gillar, a well-known anti-Obama partisan, chosen to narrate the six short videos that constituted most of the posse’s presentation? Why were the videos posted to Gillar’s “TeaPartyPowerHour” YouTube account, the links to which were included in the sheriff’s press release? And did Gillar help make the videos as well?
We add another question: How much money has WND raised for the posse, and how much of it has WND skimmed off for its own use? (WND has stated that "A portion of all contributions will go to support WND’s efforts.")
In short: This thing stinks to high heaven, and the smell starts at the top: Joe Arpaio, Joseph Farah, and Jerome Corsi.
UPDATE: Phoenix New Times reports that the posse's report is, for all practical purposes, the same thing "nationally recognized computer expert" Mara Zebest claimed eight months ago about the PDF of Obama's birth certificate released by the White House. WND's Corsi, of course, promoted Zebest's claims then. Zebest was in attendance at Thursday's posse press conference.
MRC Keeps Defending Limbaugh's Sleazy Remarks Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center keeps finding new ways to avoidcriticizing Rush Limbaugh for his denigrating attacks on contraception hearing withness Sandra Fluke.
A March 2 MRC item by Scott Whitlock repeated a theme by insisting that criticism of Limbaugh's hateful remarks was a "left-wing attack on Rush Limbaugh."Whitlock claimed with NBC "Today" co-host Robin Roberts "could barely contain her contempt" over Limbaugh's remarks, while avoiding any non-transcript mention of the words that earned that contempt.
A March 2 NewsBusters post by Geoffrey Dickens complained that MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell "actually had his production team make up a graphic of Rush Limbaugh’s sex life, adding "Of course, O’Donnell and [Alex] Wagner completely ignored the point that Limbaugh, unlike Fluke, has never demanded that the American taxpayers should pay for his or any other person’s birth control."
Of course, Dickens completely ignored the fact that Limbaugh cast aspersions on Fluke's personal life by calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute," thus creating an opening to criticize Limbaugh's own sex life.
Kyle Drennen, meanwhile, huffed that Fluke was allowed to appear on the "Today show, where co-host Matt Lauer did not pose "any challenging questions to Fluke" and gave Fluke a platform to slam the conservative radio host and urged her to denounce 'what seems to be a deafening silence coming from the right in standing up for you.'" Drennen didn't mention that some of that "deafening silence" about Limbaugh was coming from his own employer.
Drennen weirdly declared that "Today" host Matt Lauer's description of Limbaugh as someone whose "business model" is to make comments "that he hopes will get more people to talk about him, more people to listen to his radio show or buy his books" was "contemptuous." Drennenn made no effort to disprove that analysis.
Drennen proudly added that "Limbaugh's initial comments regarding Fluke were based on a CNS News report." That "report" -- actually a blog post by CNS director of communications Craig Bannister -- slimed Fluke as a "sex-crazed co-ed" who is having sex nearly three times a day.
Iin that sleazy vein, MRC employee Matt Philbin tweeted: "Anybody got Fluke's mailing address? I'm gonna send her a big Costco-sized box of condoms."
Then again, one might argue that Philbin himself is likely not making use of them.
That retweeter of Philbin's tweet, by the way, is former MRC employee and current Daily Caller reporter Jeff Poor.
NewsBusters' Misleading Posthumous Defense of Breitbart on Sherrod Video Topic: NewsBusters
The death of right-wing activist Andrew Breitbart has sent NewsBusters into a frenzy of posthumous defense that ignores the facts.
In a March 1 post, Matthew Sheffield declares that "Breitbart did not falsely represent Shirley Sherrod, former U.S. Department of Agriculture director of Rural Development in Georgia in relaying a video of her discrimination against white applicants for a farm subsidy program in 2010," and that there is no evidence that Bfreitbart "selectively edited her remarks to take her out of context." Sheffield went on to lament that "Breitbart has been blamed for people not reading his work."
In fact, Breitbart did misrepresent Sherrod, and he did post edited clips of a Sherrod speech. The point of Breitbart posting the clips was not to exonerate Sherrod for, in Sheffield's words, "realizing that discrimination was wrong." Breitbart himself said that "The way she's talking about white people ... is conveying a present tense racism in my opinion." In other words, Breitbart's own declared intent was to present Sherrod as holding racist views.
Breitbart later insisted that the real point of the clips was to show that Sherrod's audience expressed "nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement" -- which is also false.
Further, whether Breitbart himself personally did the selective editing of Sherrod's speech is irrelevent; the fact remains that Breitbart posted the edited clips and made no apparent effort to find out the full and proper context of those remarks before posting them.
Hilariously, NewsBusters itself couldn't get that misleading talking point straight. A March 1 post by Matt Hadro stated that "Sherrod was hastily fired before it was discovered that the video of her was doctored and in fact she was speaking out against racism." This statement now has a strike-through line through it, followed by a correction appended that states: "We apologize for Mr. Hadro's error. The video was not doctored as we have previously noted and chastised the media for getting wrong. Our deepest apologies."
Yes, NewsBusters is so upset that one of its own writers botched a right-wing talking point.
Meanwhile, Tom Blumer also stepped on the message in a March 1 post, declaring that "The sentiment uttered in the Breitbart video was racist, and the African-American audience clearly enjoyed it," adding: "I believe that Sherrod made a political calculation that she couldn't get away with what she was thinking about doing to the white farmer, and later decided to put her change of heart into a pretty outfit. Given the rest of her record and that of her husband, it's hard to see how I can be proven wrong."
Blumer went on to further denigrate Sherrod, claiming that "she could have avoided playing the martyr had she wished" and that her husband "was caught on video in a university speech advocating bizarre and clearly separatist ideas and racist whines."
Will NewsBusters offer its "deepest apologies" for Blumer's undermining of the right-wing narrative as well?
AIM's Irvine: Limbaugh 'Should Have Called' Sandra Fluke 'A Skank' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media chairman Don Irvine gets into the misogynistic spirit of Rush Limbaugh's attacks on contraception hearing witness Sandra Fluke, declaring in a March 2 tweet that Limbaugh "should have called her a skank."
Bozell: Latinos Won't Pick Next President Because 'Whites Are Still 64 Percent of the Population' Topic: Media Research Center
So how "authentic" is Obama when he sidelined this supposed gold mine of a political issue to sell Obamacare, insisting all the way that his health "reform" wouldn't cover illegal aliens?
In fact, he was openly denounced by liberals for abandoning the issue. "He is the deportation president," said "undocumented activist" Daniel Rodriguez in Time magazine. Time's cover carried the words "Yo Decido: Why Latinos Will Pick the Next President."
This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population.
Les Kinsolving Anti-Gay Tirade Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Les Kinsolving has yet another anti-gay freakout in a Feb. 28 WorldNetDaily column, in which he rails against gay marraige being approved in his home state of Maryland:
As a Maryland radio broadcaster and columnist for WND, I strongly suspect that any such referendum – where all registered voters are allowed to vote – would result in the defeat of same-sex marriage. For the AIDS and syphilis rates among homosexuals are perpetually very high – in fact, enormously higher than from numerous other alternative sexual orientations, whom the sodomy lobby refuses either to support or mention (such as polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, klismaphilia, urophilia and zoophilia/bestiality).
Kinsolving seems unusually well-versed in sexual proclivities if he can rattle them off like that. Is there something he would like to tell us?
The MRC's Brent Baker wasn't offended by Limbaugh's remarks; instead, he was offended that they were reported. In a March 1 NewsBusters post, declared that criticism of Limbaugh's remarks was "a left-wing effort to impugn and silence Rush Limbaugh." Baker went on to play the "it was a joke!" card, by saying of a Limbaugh statement demanding pornography be made of Fluke's sexual behavior: "Obviously, a bit of humor which escaped the overly-sensitive left-wing/media axis always looking to be offended."
In answer to online reader outrage over his distasteful column, Doyle responds that it was all a joke. Intelligent readers and the millions of faithful Catholics who come into contact with this piece don’t buy such equivocating nonsense for a minute. Bigots like Doyle think they can hurl the most contemptible insults towards Catholics ("Jesus eaters") and when called out, claim it was just a joke. What cowardice. What a double standard.
Speaking of which, other MRC employees are playing the equivocation card. Scott Whitlock responded to Chris Matthews' criticism of Limbaugh by retorting, "MSNBC, of course, is no stranger to contorversial comments. One anchor on the network recently compared Rick Santorum to mass murderer Joseph Stalin."
Over at CNSNews.com, Craig Bannister -- who had previously slimed Fluke -- reproduced a statement by Nancy Pelosi criticizing Limbaugh, then tried to change the subject by adding, "Does any one remember if Pelosi put out a similar statement when her colleague, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the 'Tea Party can go straight to hell' or, reportedly, called Republicans 'demons?'"
But Bannister, his boss Brent Bozell, and the rest of the MRC are too cowardly to hold Limbaugh accountable. So much for having the courage of its convictions.
If people shouldn't "buy such equivocating nonsense" when it comes to the Huffington Post, why should they buy the MRC's equivocating nonsense on Limbaugh?
CNS Continues to Slime Woman for Talking About Contraception Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is taking its sliming of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who testified about contraception, to a new level.
A Feb. 27 CNS blog post by CNS director of communications Craig Bannister carries the headline "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate." Bannister continues:
A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.
Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.
Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows.
Bannister's smear continues:
So, she earns enough money in just one summer to pays for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.
At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)
Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn't cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).
And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical.
Besides, maybe, these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who's got time for cable?
And, let's not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke's going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys?
On top of his immature sense of sexuality which causes him to see this issue only through the lens of "sex-crazed co-edds," Bannister seems to have weirdly decided that the only possible form of contraception is condoms, which are less effective than oral contraception, which is what Fluke was talking about. Why doesn't Bannister want women to have access to the most effective birth control methods available?
Then again, Bannister appears to be a sexist jerk, and at CNS parent the Media Research Center, jerkiness does start at the top.