The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke.

with 8 comments

Sandra FlukeSandra Fluke became the center of media attention at the end of February when she appeared before a group of Senators to share her story and feelings about Georgetown University and it’s student insurance which does not provide free contraception.

Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called a slew of names, from a heroine to a “slut” the now infamous word used to describe her by Rush Limbaugh. But the truth is, she may actually just be a fake.  Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, citing a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that says:

“For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.”

Fluke is really 30 years-old and has been a women‘s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend anyway so she could fight against the policy.

The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s policy on contraceptives is now apparently a ruse. In several interviews, especially following Rush Limbaugh’s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of Georgetown’s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown’s insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status and at worse make her a fraud.


I don’t have to agree with a person’s right or reasons to protest and seek changes to policies or laws or whatever they are not happy about, to respect that right.  I just want to know that its genuine and they are who they claim to be and the thing they claim to be an injustice is legitimate, at least in their eyes, and above board.  I can respect that.  What I can’t deal with is a fake.  A liar.  Someone who manipulates and twists the truth in a way to exaggerate their case or try to make their ideas or opinions more consequential.

This is a fairly damning report, especially when combined with the knowledge that Miss Fluke was also being handled and represented by someone at the progressive PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, where Anita Dunn — the former Obama communications director — is a managing director. This was reported last week by Bill O’Reilly on his Fox News program.  O’Reilly flat out says he believes the Sandra Fluke controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from President Obama and his unconstitutional mandate and attack on religious freedom.

While I don’t agree with Rush Limbaugh’s portrayal of Miss Fluke, this new information also makes the attack on Limbaugh by the left and mainstream media look even more hypocritical and more like a witch hunt to silence a very successful and influential conservative voice.

You can read a full report on Fluke and these interesting revelations about her HERE at

Written by DCL

March 12, 2012 at 9:53 pm

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. We’ll see how this story turns out… a lot of your points, such as her real age, don’t really surprise or bother me. You know how often initial details are wrong in today’s journalistic climate, so I don’t really see it as subterfuge.

    But you’re still defending Limbaugh. You don’t even see it, but you are. It’s not a witch hunt when it happens every other week. If you ever wonder why the ship has sailed on ever getting votes from minorities, understand why. Conservatives have defended Rush Limbaugh for years, whether he’s asking black callers to “take the bone out of your nose,” bringing “Barack the Magic Negro” to the masses, claiming Donovan McNabb and all black folk are getting free rides, erroneous claims that women who use birth control regularly are promiscuous, that young African Americans hate America… I could go on.

    You need to understand that every moment Rush Limbaugh remains a “successful and influential voice” in your minds, you pay a huge price. You push all people of nontraditional power further away from conservatism, and by default, you make conservatism a boutique movement that serves a narrower and narrower segment of the population. The worst part is that collectively, republicans seem to be blind to it.

    It is an ill-conceived notion that Barack Obama got a disproportionate amount of the black vote. When blacks vote, they vote Democratic. The party of Rush Limbaugh and the Southern Strategy forces our hand. The Republican party will continue to pay the price whenever blacks vote, which is traditionally not very often.

    But you have to ask yourself who you’re really serving when as a party, you become reliant on certain groups of Americans being disenfranchised and feeling apathetic. I’m hoping that the day comes when this type of malicious voice is no longer welcomed, and conservatism becomes a reasonable option for people of color. That would, in my opinion, make BOTH major parties better and more honest.


    Darnie Kris Glover

    March 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    • I do not and never will defend the kind of actions you describe whether it be Limbaugh or anyone else any more than I believe you would defend the same coming from polarizing figures on the left ie those we’ve discussed in other post exchanges or political figures like Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. They do what they do to get eyeballs. And it does not offend me.

      In fact I live by this idea.

      When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

      I gotta tell you Kris, once I came to that understanding it changed everything for me and made life and all that goes with it so much easier to enjoy.

      Limbaugh is what he is for better or worse. But for every thoughtless and rude comment he makes there are 10 others that are thought provoking and beneficial from the perspective of a conservative thinker. I don’t listen to him often because he’s on when I’m at work and busy with other things. Sometimes I’ll be in the car and listen if he’s on. So I don’t hear all of the negative things he’s said that you’ve shared. But I have heard some and I shake my head and ask why? Was that really necessary?

      I try to see the best in people until they prove the best isn’t in them. Perhaps if I listened to Rush every day for all 3 hours I may see him in a different light. I don’t know.



      March 12, 2012 at 10:53 pm

  2. I’m really not getting how free thinker can make use of Rush Limbaugh’s type of provocation, considering just how far off he usually is on facts. If you’re saying “he says things I like to hear” that’s one thing, that’s his stock and trade. But using the Fluke thing as an example… let’s forget the insult part of what he said… let’s just talk about his incorrect assumptions. He spoke of how using birth control is always about sex. Not the case at all, there are plenty of health reasons so called “birth control pills” normalize certain health issues women have. Apparently, all women understand this, even though I didn’t really know myself. He talked of how she’s having “so much sex” that she can’t afford the pills… and even I knew that birth control is about taking it on a regular schedule, not about how much sperm needs to be blocked. My point is, how can you trust the thought provocation of someone who on a daily basis does not know or care about the facts to support or refute what he’s saying? Once again, this is not about conservatism. This is about Rush Limbaugh, who not only makes hate a part of the political conversation, but rarely has a clue as to what he’s talking about to begin with. Please, conservatives, raise your standards a little.


    Darnie Kris Glover

    March 13, 2012 at 8:24 am

  3. […] Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke. […]


  4. […] Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke. Tweet This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← THE OBAMA BIRTHER CONSPIRACY […]


  5. […] Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke. ( […]


  6. […] Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke. ( […]


  7. […] Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke. ( Share this:ShareDiggTwitterLinkedInRedditStumbleUponFacebookPrintEmailTumblrPinterestLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Posted in contraception, feminism, feminist loons, healthcare, Obamacare, politics, religion, Sandra Fluke, scams, war on women, women's rights and tagged abortion politics, Affordable Healthcare Act, birth control, Contraception, feminism, Fluke slut, Georgetown University, Georgetown University sandra Fluke, Obamacare, Obamacare Sandra Fluke, Politics, promiscious sex, psychopathic behavior, Sandra Fluke, Sandra Fluke Affordable Healthcare Act, Sandra fluke birth control, sandra fluke contraception, Sandra Fluke contraception mandate, Sandra Fluke feminism, Sandra Fluke Rush Limbaugh, sandra fluke slut, war on women […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: