Mark Corallo defends Rush Limbaugh. Great stuff. Please read.
He also takes a shot at my friend (or, rather, longtime friendly acquaintance) Jack DeGioia, president of Georgetown University, which happens to be the alma mater that Corallo and I share:
To Georgetown University's president who found time in his busy schedule to publicly attack Rush, but seemingly didn't have time to explain to the Obama advance people in April 2009 that covering the Jesuit symbol IHS (Iesus Hominem Salvator - Jesus Savior of Mankind) when President Obama spoke at Georgetown would be an insult to the University and the Catholic Church - that the lesson of our first Pope denying our Lord three times still rings true 2,000 years later - how about acting like the leader of a Catholic university and telling the young woman that her public whining was an embarrassment to the university she claims to represent?
Now let it be said that Jack is a good guy and his appeals for civility are well crafted and well intentioned. And let's look past his gratuitous swipe at conservative comments as being "misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation (????) of the position of our student." Funny how Jack never writes a letter to the university defending conservatives from vitriol -- to which, as I can well attest, conservatives are subjected to all the time on Georgetown's campus. My point is not that DeGioia is a hypocrite, but rather that those on one side of the debate can be amazingly blind to transgressions by their side or to the damage done to the victims thereof. I certainly don't remember DeGioia coming to the defense of my friend Deroy Murdock (a great columnist now, beloved of libertarian conservatives) when he was subject to horrid verbal abuse for taking conservative stances on campus in the mid-1980s, when DeGioia was dean of student affairs.....
The fact is that Limbaugh went overboard. But it is also a fact that Ms. Fluke, whom DeGioia defends, grossly exaggerated her case. It was such an exaggeration that it was virtually a self-parody. Limbaugh picked up on the absurdity of her claims ($3,000 for contraceptives?!? Really? Classmates going broke because of contraceptives?!?) and, as Limbaugh often does, he further advanced the parody. I didn't think what he said was funny -- but as a southern gentleman, I just don't like calling women sluts (unless they act in public like Madonna or Britney Spears). I thought it was unfortunate and counterproductive commentary. But it was hardly as grave a sin as, say, covering crucifixes. It was an unfunny attempt to be funny. It was hardly worthy of a call from the president of the United States, and probably not worth a tut-tutting letter from the president of Georgetown University.
I just noticed that Kathryn Lopez has some good commentary too. Very thoughtful.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article