Obama wants us to judge him by his deeds, not his words. Let’s do so.


President Obama today explained that he telephoned Sandra Fluke in response to Rush Limbaugh’s controversial comments because

“I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to be able to do is speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens.”

Yesterday, in a different context, Obama gave a speech stating that he should be judged based on his actions and not his words:

“I’m also mindful of the proverb, ‘A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.’  So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done.”

So let’s look:  Last Thursday, Obama’s super PAC accepted a check for One Million Dollars from Bill Maher.  That would be the same Bill Maher who

called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” and a “cunt” (“there’s just no other word for her”);

called Palin and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos”; and

made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator.

In short, Limbaugh called a woman a “slut” after she announced in a public forum that she requires $1,000 for birth control every year and wants the taxpayers to pay for it.  Limbaugh later apologized.  Maher routinely calls conservative female elected officials who have never discussed their sex lives in public “cunt,” “twat,” “boobs,” and “bimbos” on numerous occasions with no apology.

So, let’s accept Obama’s invitation to judge him by his deeds and not his words and look at what he has done:  What he has said is that those who speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way ought not to be attacked or called horrible names.  What he has done is accepted One Million Dollars from a man who has made a career out of attacking conservative women and calling them vile names merely for expressing a conservative point of view.

We can judge Obama by his deeds and not his words.  Unfortunately, Sasha and Malia will have to learn to do as their father says and not as he does.

  • Craig

    I’m a “leftist” and I certainly don’t use such terms for any women, regardless of the political preferences. While I don’t disagree that Bill Maher shouldn’t use such terms, there a difference between what he’s said an what Limbaugh said. Palin, Bachmann, and Santorum’s wife are all public figures, who do a fair amount of name calling in their own right. Sandra Fluke is a private citizen speaking to a congressional panel. She never once talked about needing birth control so that she could have sex. What I really don’t understand is where the idea that the taxpayer is supposed to pay for this is coming from – the panel’s investigation centered on whether or not a religious institutions are able to pick and choose what they will and will not cover. You can disagree, but don’t be dishonest.

    • Craig, a legal argument can be made that Ms. Fluke is indeed a public figure, too. She was not subpoenaed; she volunteered–inserting herself at the forefront of a public controversy to seek its resolution.

  • Are you arguing that Obama is right to condemn Limbaugh while simultaneously accepting $1,000,000 from Maher?

  • reality

    deed: ignoring question on Bill Maher and his $1mil donation.

    Rush should have just used the synonom “lawyer” to describe ms. fluke. Maybe she should improve her negotiation skills to require her partner to fund the protection instead of the taxpayers. Sounds like she needs another class in the art of negotiation.

  • reality

    and was already an activist on the topic.

  • Craig, you lose me in your reasoning. It is typical the Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats. You don’t hear media outrage of Maxine Waters calling Republicans demons. Obama calls Fluke to give support and accepts a million dollars from a misogynist who especially hates Republican women. And no, Obama will not give the money back nor will he or any other “progressive” hold Mayer accountable over how he hates and disrespects conservative women.

    It’s a shame the media isn’t looking past their own agenda of encroachment of government control of our religious liberties. I’m not Jesuit nor Roman Catholic but for Fluke to target Georgetown University to change their by-laws, her motives are no different than Obama’s.


    Obama on abortion:

  • Craig

    @Ken: Legally speaking, Obama did not accept money from Bill Maher – his super PAC did. And that’s why Super PACs are awful, but that’s another argument. I’m not saying that Obama is right to condemn one and not the other – but Bill Maher hasn’t been in the news for saying those things. I imagine the blame will laid on the door step of the “liberal media” for not reporting it, but I would posit it’s because thousands watch Maher while millions listen to Limbaugh. When Maher says things like this no one hears it anyway.

    @Andrew Schwartz: Why would this be a legal argument? And I totally disagree – a politician is a public figure, someone who volunteers to give testimony on a subject with which they are familiar shouldn’t open them up to the abuse. And even if it did, do you really think it was deserved?

    @Reality: Again, this is most frustrating to me – other than Rush saying it, where do you see anything that states she was arguing that this be taxpayer funded?

    @Everyone – I understand that you don’t like Obama and where you see a conflict of his words and actions – it’s fun to point it out. If the situation was reversed, I’d do the same thing. There will be plenty opportunities to point out similar conflicts for any of the current candidates on the right.

    I never post to boards like this because I know it’s a waste of time, but what I’m really bothered by is that fact that what Rush was saying and what you’re repeating here is just not true. You write “after she announced in a public forum that she requires $1,000 for birth control every year and wants the taxpayers to pay for it.” Here’s the full text of her statement: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf Please show me where she says that. The argument she is making is that insurance policies should include access to birth control for women. Furthermore, universal access to birth control will save us money as it’s cheaper than paying for unwanted pregnancies (not to mention the social costs). http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/03_unplanned_pregnancy_thomas.aspx?p=1

    So, I just ask that you be honest about what you are writing.

  • Let’s Be Free

    Another laugher, each and every expansion of the socialist agenda is an investment that is supposed to reduce cost, yet the march to the nanny state actually burdens us with skyrocketing expense. Don’t chide people for being dishonest, not at least until you can learn to be honest yourself.

  • Tim J

    And then Carbonite stock fell off a cliff after dropping Rush because of the Fluke comments. The same is happening for the other advertisers who dropped him. Advisors last Thursday were recommending dumping all companies who reacted to this as soon as possible, and now those companies are having frantic boardroom meetings to figure out how they are going to get through this. Pandering to leftist hypocrisy isn’t good business.

  • reality

    tooth fairy funded……

  • Tim J

    Finally, at 9:00 PM on Hannity tonight, the Breitbart “Obama” tape.

  • Len Rothman

    Ken, with all due respect, Ms Fluke never said “…that she requires $1,000 for birth control every year…”.

    That has been the excuse for calling her promiscuous and supposedly providing a reason to call her a slut, a prostitute and demanding sex videos.

    She did say that a law student like her could spend as much as $3000 on contraceptive prescriptions. And the bulk of the testimony was about women who needed those prescriptions for other than contraception.

    She never mentioned her sex life nor should she have to.

    You may dispute the idea that contraception should be paid for by health insurance, in this case private, totally, in part, or not at all.

    But the outrage that spawned the advertising withdrawal from sponsoring Limbaugh was not about policy.

    It was about Ms. Fluke’s supposed promiscuity and the assumption by many of her opponents that her sex life was any of their business.

    And women are tired of being unable to voice an opinion in a public forum about birth control or any other issue of women’s health that revolves around her sexuality without being smeared as immoral.

    Sorry you missed that part and jumped on the band wagon with all of the other folks who thought she was testifying about her sex life.

  • joe squared

    Racist! I’m sorry but you people try so very hard to mask your true intent! To get this Black Man out of the Highest Office in the Country. You want your Country back! Back to what?? Jim Crow! You have no real problems with his Policys…no more than you have had with any other President. It’s his Skin Color you can’t Palate.The World is changing and White Supremacy is Fading and you don’t know how to handle it. You were threatend by the Civil Rights Movement because it meant having to compete with Blacks on a Fair stage. Most can’t do that so you ran to the Republican Party even though the vast majority of Racist in this Country are Poor White People and it was against your financial interest. But at least you could still say you were White and it meant something. SMH! How is that working out for you now. Now you wan’t to find someone else to blame. Lets see, the Mexican maybe. Ridiculous. Just admit your a Racist and get it over with. Just try doing it without a Sheet over your head this time!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.