Is the media turning on Obama?

At least in Reno, it might be.

After announcing that its endorsement of Obama in 2008 was a mistake, and endorsing Romney in 2012, the Reno Gazette-Journal offers this about Leftist/Democrat heroine's stirring up the base in Reno:

Fluke takes center stage in Reno

Sandra Fluke, the woman at the center of a media firestorm earlier this year after Rush Limbaugh called her a 'slut,' spoke Saturday in front of about 10 people at the Sak 'N Save in north Reno.

Wow! "Center stage"? 10 People?

Is that an exercise in sarcasm or what?

Surprise! The advertising boycott against Rush Limbaugh...

...was really an "astroturfing" - fake grass roots - campaign by Media Mattes.

Joseph Goebbels couldn't have handled it any better.

Hey, who won the "the Great Contraception War of 2012?"

Answer: it wasn't Obama.

Left-leaning Mickey Kaus writes:

Caught cocooning in public: Here’s what the NYT‘s story on its latest poll told readers:

In recent weeks, there has been much debate over the government’s role in guaranteeing insurance coverage for contraception, including for those who work for religious organizations. The poll found that women were split as to whether health insurance plans should cover the costs of birth control and whether employers with religious objections should be able to opt out. [E.A.]

If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38 for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”

That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25 points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors allowing an opt-out–increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated institutions are involved.

These are not close results. It’s hard to read this poll and not conclude that, contrary to some accounts, Obama wasn’t such a genius to pick a fight over mandated contraception coverage–because he appears to be losing the public debate on the question. That’s a conclusion the Times story effectively hides from readers.

It’s also one possible explanation for Obama’s otherwise somewhat mystifying overall drop in approval during the period–March 7-11–when the poll was in the field. But not an approved explanation.

Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas prices.

P.S.: I’ve noticed that even solid NYT reporters–in this case, Jim Rutenberg–have their bylines over wildly misleading copy when the subject is the NYT/CBS poll. My working theory is that these stories are the most heavily rewritten by the Times‘ fabled meddling mid-level liberal editors. Can’t trust the cocoon to anyone else.

Let's be honest - the Democrats selected contraception as a "wedge issue" that was designed to divide mainstream secular America from Catholics and other pro-institutional religious Americans. This strategy surfaced when George Stephanopolous ambushed Santorum with his non sequitur about "banning contraception."

At the time, everyone went, "Jeez, George, get back on your meds."

But over the next few weeks, the Obama administration rolled out its campaign to isolate Catholics from America, and the Catholic Church from Catholics, by focusing on the one issue that it thought could make Catholics look like snake-handlers.

It didn't dare mention on sterilization or abortion; instead it trotted out an unmarried, middle-aged, abortion-rights activits, law school co-ed with an over-developed sense of entitlement in order to make the "Daddy is so unfair because he won't pay for me to screw whoever and whenever I want to" argument.

And - surprise, surprise - the whole thing backfired because Americans have been raised on the idea that "mind your own business" means "mind your own business."

However, look how sleazy and evil the Obama plan was. It relied on taking a section of the American community and shining a light on it in order to play a game that is no different than "Jew-baiting" or any other kind of fascist strategy designed to get the majority united against a convenient scape-goat minority.

He who laughs last, laughs..

...etc.

Limbaugh rebuffs attempts by advertisers to get him back.

And for real OCD types...

...here is a Planned Parenthood site saying that birth control pills cost $15 to $50 per month.

I did the hard work - less than a minute - of researching the issue, which, apparently, highly paid professional journalists are unable to to perform for themselves.

$15 to $50 per month works out to $180 to $600 per year.

Since beggars can't be choosers, we'll go with the low end of $180 per year.

This is substantially - to put it mildly - below Fluke's testimony under oath that contraception costs $1,000 per year.

So, Fluke is not only a publicity slut, she's a perjurer.

The benefits of the Limbaugh-Fluke Kerfuffle...

First, it let's us play spot the idiot, which in this case happens to be the college administrator who criticizes a colleague for daring - daring! - to have an independent thought.

Second, it forces us to contemplate the ability of the left to dive into a wooden humorlessness when they need to (as in long unfunny anti-catholic screeds are to liberals "funny," but biting satire of an adult's overweening sense of entitlement are to liberals "not funny" because it used a "bad word.")

This is from Ann Althouse:

We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination." Where's the character assassination? Landsburg disagreed with the policy Sandra Fluke promoted. In Congress. Professors have the obligation to "nurture" and "inspire" her from afar by refraining from taking on her ideas? Is that some special kid-gloves treatment for women? Ironically, that would be sexist. Should we be patting the female political activist on the head and murmuring good for you for speaking up? That is dismissive. It's better feminism to react to what a woman in politics says and to respond to her with full force the way you would to a man. And that's what Landsburg did:

[W]hile Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty....

To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy: If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself.

Now, Landsburg's an economist. Note the references to externalities or other market failures. He goes on to say a little something about prostitution. He goes on find the the analogy to prostitution flawed. Fluke is, he says, more of an "extortionist" — an "extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement." For some reason Seligman thought he needed to throw in his position on prostitution:

I totally disagree with Landsburg that there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex.

Here is the original Professor Steve Landsburg post.

More Liberal Double-standards.

Via Instapundit:

THE POLITICS OF HATE: Dems Incite Death Threats Against Limbaugh. And Limbaugh’s already had to call the bomb squad to his house. That’s their approach. Marginalize, then brutalize.

When will President Obama speak out against this hatred and extremism? Probably never. But since it’s been established that this sort of thing happens via close coordination between the White House and Media Matters, etc., there’s no denying responsibility now. I call upon the President to denounce his supporters’ hateful violent rhetoric, to promise not to engage in or encourage it again, and to apologize to Limbaugh for stirring up this cesspit of hatred among his followers. A President is supposed to lead, not incite violence

Maybe we should start posting Obamicons with “HATE” instead of “HOPE” until he does. . . .

Funny how death threats and bomb scares aren't a sign of incivility when it happens to a conservative.

Great Moments in American Business.

Investors flee Carbonite after Limbaugh announcement:

On Saturday, Carbonite CEO David Friend released a statement on his company’s website declaring that Carbonite had decided to “withdraw” advertising from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in the wake of his controversial remarks involving Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke because it will “ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:

Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.

However, it hasn’t done much to contribute to his company’s stock price. Since the market opened on Monday through its close today, Carbonite stock (NASDAQ:CARB) has plummeted nearly 12 percent, outpacing the drop of the NASDAQ index in that same time period by nine-and-a-half points. It was also one of the biggest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday.

America, You Should be Ashamed.

The horror!

The horror!

Publicity Slut is also a Perjurer.

Someone finally ran the numbers on Sandra Fluke's totally BS claim that she was being bankrupted by having to pay for her own contraceptives:

The crucial lynchpin of the argument for attacking Georgetown’s Catholic religious beliefs is the hypothesis that birth control is too expensive for a student to afford without health insurance paying for it. YET, THAT IS A FLAT-OUT, TOTAL LIE.

Sandra Fluke committed perjury (lying under oath) by claiming that “AS YOU KNOW” birth control costs a student “OVER $3,000″ over the three years of law school.

Note: Some have tried to cover for Fluke by changing this to “UP TO.” No. She said “OVER $3,000.”

To expose this perjury, we need look no farther than Planned Parenthood’s own website.

Of course Sandra Fluke did not identify which type of birth control she had in mind. But it doesn’t matter:

COSTS: (1) Birth Control pills, every single day (with placebos often in the plan for 2 or 3 days): $15 per month, says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (2) the PATCH: $15 per month says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (3) IUD: Good for 12 years, $500 to $1000 up-front, says PP. (4) condoms: 40 cents each in economy packages.

Top name brand, Trojan, condoms cost $13.99 in a 36 count economy pack. That’s 40 cents a condom. So the only way that a Georgetown student could be spending $3,000 over three years is to have sex 7,500 times over three years. That’s 6.84 times a day, every single day, without any days off, for three years.

Could one spend MORE than $15 per month, which Planned Parenthood says is a likely price? Who cares? The discussion is about a student on a limited budget. So we are talking about how little she might spend, not how much she could go on the up side.

It is Sandra Fluke’s claim that a student *MUST* spend “OVER $3,000″ during 3 years. She is claiming that it is NECESSARY (unavoidable) for a woman at Georgetown Law School to spend “OVER $3,000″ a year for birth control.

So, sure — you could pay more than $15 per month. But we are talking about students who are short on money. So obviously we are talking about students paying the minimum, because they are on a limited budget. The argument is that these students cannot afford birth control, so we have to look at the minimum price, not the premium price you could pay if you don’t care about the cost.

But if Georgetown’s students — who are supposed to be studying some of the time — had sex 3 times a week, taking 2 weeks out being with their families for holidays and taking 2 weeks out for exam weeks, that would be 432 times over three years.

COST FOR CONDOMS: $172.80 plus tax over three years. (432 times 40 cents each.)

Let's be honest about this...

...the liberals are pushing contraception as a stalking-horse for other medical costs, such as sterilization, abortion and gender-reassignment surgery.

The Other McCain points out that "publicity slut" Sandra Fluke has argued for mandatory insurance coverage for sex-change surgery.

Remember, as Byron York previously reported, Fluke was rejected as a last-minute substitute witness at a Feb. 16 committee hearing because staffers for Chairman Issa were unable to discover Fluke’s claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Fluke’s background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Here’s one brief quote from the article:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about “heterosexist” policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for “gender reassignment.”
Congratulations, America: You’ve been scammed!