Get on Social Media and Demand Consistency in Outrage
on March 13th, 2012 at 11:45 AMAs noted by several sources this week, advertisers of The Rush Limbaugh Show have been targeted by various leftist organizations. Now is the time to stand up for consistency.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not defending anything that Rush has said over the airwaves, but I do think that to point out Rush’s inappropriate comments while disregarding the likes of Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, and David Letterman is overly hypocritical. What I am suggesting you all do is go to those that are still under attack and call out these hypocrites.
I exchanged comments with these dupes all for a full 24 hours here and here after posting a video courtesy of ShePAC on Lifelock’s Facebook page. It is easy to do, and what we should all be doing. Ultimately, it dives off into personal attacks on Mr. Limbaugh and your humble author.
Let the Andrew Brietbart come out in you! Get online and fight, but use the golden rules.
I couldn’t disagree with you more strongly. One of the greatest problems we have with this sort of thing is the tendency for people of all stripes to jump in with the “well, what about so and so on the other side” stuff. As your mother probably told you many times, two wrongs don’t make a right. The proper thing to do is not to defend Rush Limbaugh. In fact, it would be much more constructive to condemn him for the three days he spent attacking this woman and doubling down on the disgusting remarks he made on the first day. At least until he issues an actual apology. And if you have a shred of objectivity you can hardly call the statement he put up an apology.
In your “well they do it too” argument I think the closest parallel to Limbaugh’s initial remarks (but certainly not the three days he kept haranguing about this) would be Ed Schultz. Schultz used one of the same words Limbaugh used and directed it toward Laura Ingraham. It was a brief remark. It was uncalled for. It crossed the line of decency.
What did Schultz do? He immediately issued an actual apology. You know, where you admit that what you did was wrong and hurtful and you take full responsibility for your actions. As opposed to the modern non apology where you say you’re sorry if “anyone was offended” by your actions as if the fact that someone took offense was the problem rather than your own horrible words or actions. And Schultz called and apologized to Ingraham directly and received her forgiveness and acceptance of his apology. Something that often happens when a person recognizes their own offense and is sincerely contrite for their actions.
And what action did Schultz’s employer take? They suspended him from the air (I believe without pay) for a period of time. I haven’t heard anything about Clear Channel (which I believe owns the company that sells Limbaugh’s show as well as owning a boatload of stations he is broadcast on) suggesting that Rush should be suspended for his disgusting remarks. And Clear Channel is supposed to be all about wholesome programming. Or at least that’s what they tell the public.
I’m not saying I’m a big Ed Schultz fan. I’m just saying your already tenuous argument that people should be defending Rush Limbaugh is weakened considerably when you compare him to someone who acted like an actual human being after he let his mouth get away from him and said something awful and uncalled for about another person.
This is hardly a left right issue. Decent behavior is not political.
“but I do think that to point out Rush’s inappropriate comments while disregarding the likes of Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, and David Letterman is overly hypocritical”
No. It would be hypocritical to bring those others up in order to somehow mitigate Rush’s offense. Doing that only plays into the “that’s how the game is played on all sides” thing. It prevents the full throated condemnation that it deserves. If you want to avoid hypocrisy then condemn every instance of this sort of thing. Condemn the guys on your own team as least as strongly as the other guys when they are the guilty parties.
The “well they do it too” thing is really weak and should have been left behind in elementary school. And the disgusting remarks of Bill Maher are irrelevant to the disgusting remarks of Rush Limbaugh. Both should be condemned independently of the other.
NDC, I’m not sure how you interepted the first sentence of my second paragraph, but just to reiterate – This is not about defending Rush Limbaugh. Okay, did you reread the sentence referenced? Great! Moving along. (BTW, you should have read it, as you copied and pasted what followed that statement in your comment…) What Schultz’s employer decided to do to him is their business, none of ours, neither is it ours to go after The Ed Show’s sponsors. If Clear Channel, or the multitude of Rush Limbaugh’s affiliates want to play polka music for three hours, I’m fine with it. I don’t often get a chance to listen to Rush Limbaugh live-on-air anyway. It is wrong to go after a man’s livilhood for making a mistake. What we are trying to do here is point out the blatant hyprocisy that exists on the Left. We want MORE speech, not less, as the mindless drones who continue their assault of Lifelocks(c)’ Facebook bandwith. As far as I know, there was no organized attempt to boycott Ed Schultz, or Bill Maher, or David Letterman, or Mike Mallory (none of those fans of Rush Limbaugh by the way). I did notice that Carbonite remained one of Ed Schultz’s sponsors after her dressed down Laura Ingraham, while the same company bailed on The Rush Limbaugh Show.
You have fallen into the same trappings, you try to use a moral relevance argument while condemning me for not condemning Rush. I suppose since I’m only “not defending,” I am therefore “not condemning.” I’ll give you that … BUT WAIT!!! ” the disgusting remarks of Bill Maher are irrelevant” – hypocrite. Are you serious? Lets condemn all misogynistic comments. I invite you to go first since it seems “your team” has a lot of self-condemning to do.