Limbaugh v Fluke

[scarfman]

I've read Sandra Fluke's statement now. The assertion that she's demanding taxpayer subsidation of her sex life is the grossest misrepresentation I can ever recall seeing at the moment; and if it's been made by anyone who's actually read her statement, that party is a liar and never to be trusted again.

Comments

[hergrace.livejournal.com]

This is exactly what I was thinking. However, I've been stymied by not being able to find the text of her entire statement. Could you please add the link?

Thanks!

[scarfman]

I don't remember where I found it. If you like, I can upload the PDF to my website somewhere.

[truthmaker]

I've found video of the testimony. But I'm still looking for the transcript.

Video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HealthandC&showFullAbstract=1

Video and text of opening statement: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/what-did-sandra-fluke-really-say/408191

[edit: found the transcript]

[chocolatescifi.livejournal.com]

The problem I have is that someone has been misrepresenting Ms. Fluke, and at the moment, I honestly can't tell whether it was Ms. Fluke herself, or someone doing it on her behalf:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

In either case, I find her credibility diminished.

[scarfman]

I don't have her statement in front of me but I don't think there's anything in it that's factually contradicted by data in this article. And I'm not sure how, if she did enroll at Georgetown only in order to protest this policy of theirs, that makes any difference to her argument. It speaks of an admirable determination to me.

As for the comment in the article that "[u]nsympathetic observers might liken this to James O’Keefe attending a hearing to speak against ACORN on behalf of pimps" - well, essentially, that's what Limbaugh tried, and we see how well the analogy stretched that far for him.

[scarfman]

The more I think about this, the more it makes me mad. How does Fluke having enrolled at Georgetown aware of their policy, and with intent to advocate against it particularly for those who were not aware, invalidate her credibility? Was she accepted on an enrollment application containing false information? Are the statements she made before Congress false? The article you link makes a rhetorical point of stopping just short of calling her a liar ("If Fluke’s stories are real"), which suggests to me both 1) a bias against her, or her position, or her on account of her postion; and 2) an inability to disprove what she said in her statement despite actual attempt.

Even if there is an issue with her, unless her facts are incorrect, then to dispute her argument on the grounds that she did something questionable is an ad hominem argument, an invalid argument form under the rules of logic. This more of exactly what Limbaugh did (and left out of his "apology"): clouding the issue by ranting about something else that seems related but is at best a misapprehension and is at worst a deliberate misdirection.

[chocolatescifi.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with Fluke enrolling at Georgetown with the intent of advocating against their policies. My problem is that she was portrayed -- and again, I have no idea whether she herself did the misrepresentation, or others did it on her behalf -- as some poor innocent coed who had no idea what she was getting into when she enrolled at Georgetown. In other words, she was, in my opinion, trying to elicit a "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" response.

If she enrolled at Georgetown with the intent of advocating against their policies, fine. Just have the cojones to be honest about what you're doing.

[scarfman]

There're no personal details about her in her statement either way; she appeared in order to speak on behalf of others. (This is why Limbaugh's comments and imprecations were so far out of line: the facts in her statement have nothing to do with herself, in addition to having nothing to do with the sex behavior of anyone she discusses.) I haven't seen anything that indicates she might have been aggrandizing herself or attempting to misrepresent herself in this except the unsubstantiated insinuations in the article you linked and your speculations as a result of the insinuations. And speculation is all it is, but you began by stating you've made up your mind on the basis of it.

And, even if you were to get hard supporting data your article wasn't able to produce, it's still an ad hominem argument as far as the issue at large is concerned. It's gossip, it's intended as a distraction, and it seems to have succeeded.