Rush Limbaugh Blames The Left For Forcing Him To Make Crude, Disgusting Comments

You didn't think it was over, did you?

After Saturday’s apology, there was plenty of speculation about what Rush Limbaugh might say regarding his comments last week about Sarah Fluke that created a political firestorm. Well, it didn’t take long for him to spin the story to his advantage:

Rush Limbaugh on Monday kicked off his afternoon radio show by insisting that his written apology to Sandra Fluke over the weekend was “heartfelt” and “sincere” and the conservative talk host brushed off the continuing withdrawal of advertisers from his program.

“I always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate, they were uncalled for, they distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Miss Fluke for using those two words to describe her,” the conservative radio host said. “I do not think she is either of those two words.”

Explaining that he never really believed that the Georgetown University law student was actually a “slut” or a “prostitute,” Limbaugh, speaking on the air for the first time since extending a rare apology over the weekend, said the message had been heartfelt.

“The apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere,” he said.

Limbaugh also expressed regret for stooping down to the level of Democrats in discussing the issue of contraception coverage.

“In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them. Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them,” he said.

Were this the first time in his 20-odd year career that Limbaugh had something crude, rude, insulting, or inappropriate, he might have a point with that last comment of his. But, of course, it’s not. Last week’s comments aren’t unusual because they’re completely consistent with his entire schtick.

You can all judge that comment yourselves, to me it seems incredibly self-serving and phony. And not at all surprising. In any event, the controversy doesn’t seem to be completely over. As of the last count, twelve national advertisers had suspended their advertising on Limbaugh’s show, and a radio station in Hilo, Hawaii had decide to stop running his show.

Is this the end of Rush Limbaugh? No, I doubt it. He’ll ride this storm out just as he has all the others. The thing that amazes me is that people on the right continue to defend him, and even to attack Sandra Fluke, instead of realizing the extent to which they’ve sold their souls.

On that last point, Ross Douthat, hit the ball out of the park with this :

The best evidence that conservatism has a Limbaugh problem, in this sense, isn’t so much the fact that the nation’s most popular right-wing talk show host sometimes says offensive things that create a backlash against the American right as a whole. Rather, it’s that when the spotlight isn’t on Limbaugh, and when his excesses aren’t front-and-center and thus impossible to deny, too many conservatives — including not just finger-in-the-wind politicians, but some of the country’s most sagacious conservative intellectuals — are weirdly reluctant to acknowledge that there are any valid critiques of him at all.

Indeed. In fact, the reaction that I’ve noticed from the online right to Limbaugh’s apology, such as it is, is to circle the wagons and double down on the personal attacks on Sandra Fluke and anyone else who dares disagree with them. Quite honestly, it strikes me as the reaction one would expect from someone fighting a battle that they cannot possibly win.

FILED UNDER: US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. KansasMom says:
  2. KansasMom says:

    53 examples of Rush calling her a slut or a whore in 3 days. It’s totally the left’s fault though.

  3. Herb says:

    No mention of the usual suspects…..nice.

  4. Drew says:

    And the chances of something just as absurd as Limbaugh:

    http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/103186/talker-mike-malloy-under-fire-for-comments-about-t

    Being covered at OTB are………….about zero.

    Not to mention a dozen other left leaning prominent commenters. Just look at the breitbart death.

  5. Hey Norm says:

    This is totally in line with the cowardice of Republicans. They refuse to accept responsibilty for anything. 9.11…totally Clintons fault. Crash the economy…Obama’s fault.
    Tell me Rushbo…those two words were inappropriate? What about the video comment? Yeah…that’s what I thought.

  6. WR says:

    @Drew: Maybe this is because no one has ever heard of Mike Malloy, whoever the hell he is. Hey, maybe you can find some anonymous commenter at Democratic Underground, if it’s still around, and claim he’s exactly the same as the leader of the Republican party. Oh, then you should feel sorry for yourself for a while.

  7. michael reynolds says:

    @Drew:
    Thanks for proving everyone’s point about conservatives refusing responsibility.

    Rush Limbaugh has 15 million listeners. No one’s ever even heard of Mike Malloy. Why not complain that no one called out your cab driver? Pitiful.

  8. Steve says:

    @Drew- I don’t think he has the number one talk show in the country. That said, I will stipulate that there is no shortage of people on the left as well as the right who say awful things. But people notice Rush because he has such a large audience. No one notices the nobody who has a triple bogey on the 18th. When Tiger or Phil do, it makes the news.

    Steve

  9. Hey Norm says:

    The worlds most accomplished corporate financier equates someone no one has ever heard of with the de facto leader of the Republican party. Outstanding argument Mr. Genius Businessman!!!

  10. anjin-san says:

    @ Drew

    Mike Malloy… really?

    I hear there are kids at some of the grade schools in San Francisco that say mean things about conservatives at recess. You should probably jump on that one too.

  11. Hey Norm says:

    Hey…I usually refer to kids on powerful rice-rockets without helmets as grease spots on the road waiting to happen. Does that make me the leader of the rich old white guys party???

  12. Jenos Idanian says:

    Let’s see… Bill Maher drops the C-Bomb on conservative women.

    Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.”

    Geraldo Rivera said he wanted to spit in Malkin’s face.

    Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are routinely slammed.

    Playboy published an article entitled “10 Conservative Women I’d Like To Hate-F-ck.”

    Yeah, Limbaugh should apologize… for being an amateur.

  13. Hey Norm says:

    Jenos…can you read?

  14. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Hey Norm: …can you think? I mean, for yourself?

  15. DMan says:

    @Drew: @Jenos Idanian:

    The tribal instincts are strong in you guys. Is it so hard to call a jackass a jackass? Why so much deflection?

  16. Hey Norm says:

    Oh Snap. Strong comeback. You slayed me with that one. Did you just make it up? Or have you been waiting for just the right moment to use it?

  17. Brummagem Joe says:

    @Drew:

    Oh boy….our financier of genius is back….and who the heck is Mike Malloy?

  18. Kylopod says:

    >some of the country’s most sagacious conservative intellectuals

    This goes back a long way. In 1995, William F. Buckley wrote an article (unfortunately not online) criticizing President Clinton for his attacks on Rush Limbaugh. Buckley conceded that Limbaugh “induces hatred” and that “if I were a liberal, I would hate him,” but he went on to argue that FDR and Truman did the same thing to the other side. Buckley made it sound as if Limbaugh’s worst sin was being mean to liberals. Not a word about his lies or conspiracy theories. This from supposedly the 20th century’s most eminent conservative intellectual.

    I was about 20 when I read this article, and it was an eye-opening experience for me. It brought to my attention the weird good-cop-bad-cop relationship that exists between conservative intellectuals and right-wing provocateurs. The former will occasionally criticize the latter for their tone but never for their substance (or else they’ll have hell to pay from their fellow “high-brow” conservatives). Every decent person, regardless of political orientation, should have recognized long ago that talk-radio commentators are nothing more than ridiculous demagogues. They are not accurate, and they are not civil–but also, equally important, they are not seen as mere “entertainers” to the millions of listeners who come away from their programs parroting their lies and propaganda. That’s how you end up with millions of people certain that President Obama can barely speak without a teleprompter or that global warming is a hoax or that cutting taxes on rich folk increases government revenue. That’s how you end up with millions of people who view the other side not as legitimate Americans with a different, but time-honored perspective, but as traitorous enemies out to destroy the country.

    It’s striking still how few movement conservatives are willing or able to say any of this out loud.

  19. Jenos Idanian says:

    @DMan: I really try to ignore Limbaugh, but the sheer hypocrisy of how traumatized the left gets when they hear this, but ignore far worse from their own side.

    Bill Maher’s given about a million to Obama, and leading Democrats go on his show. Olbermann is still (somehow) considered relevant by many. Geraldo is still inexplicably on Fox. Ed Schultz… well, he’s just vile.

    But Limbaugh does this and it’s The End Of The World.

    Double Standards much?

  20. Tsar Nicholas II says:

    We’ve known for more than two decades that Limbaugh wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but as it turns out we overestimated him. He’s a moron. Literally.

  21. Steve V says:

    When liberal talk radio launched I, being a good liberal, was excited to see what it produced. Mike Malloy was the worst jock they had, just a nasty seething s**t talker who clearly had no audience. (Marc Maron, who I fear could get confused with Malloy because of the similarity of their names, was very good.) Contrast that worthless nobody with Limbaugh, who essentially controls (or channels? It’s a chicken-and-egg conundrum) the conservative base, and the ridiculousness of Drew’s comparison becomes apparent. Mike Malloy says crap like that every day, but it doesn’t matter because no one listens to him. Rush Limbaugh is at the center of conservative politics. The only reason Malloy exists is for conservatives trot out false comparisons when someone like Limbaugh goes off the rails.

  22. Herb says:

    @Drew: Weak sauce…..scan the radio all day, write down every offensive thing you hear, call the FCC. Do all that….and Rush Limbaugh would still be the windbag who stepped in it with the slut remark. Nice try.

    @Jenos Idanian: There’s the usual suspects! Can’t point a finger at Rush without pointing one at Bill Maher, Olbemann, and whoever else….. (Geraldo? He’s a new one….)

    Lame.

  23. An Interested Party says:

    “In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them. Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them,” he said.

    Even for the vile cyst on the collective ass of American politics, this is a pathetic new low…and to think he propagandizes for the party that claims to be all about personal responsibility…unbelievable…once again, it is hard to expect shame out of the shameless…meanwhile we have the World’s Greatest Businessman ™ drop by to share with us, “Hey, look over there!” Can it get any more amusing…

  24. michael reynolds says:

    From Don Imus:

    “It was a vile personal attack on this woman and it was sustained,” Imus noted on Monday. “It was Wednesday and then come back and double down on Thursday and then come back and double down on Friday. And then, issue a lame apology on your website.”

    “So were it me and I ran a radio station or whatever, I would make him go down there and apologize to her face to face. He owns a Gulfstream IV (jet). Get on it, go to Washington, take her to lunch and say, ‘Look, I’m sorry I said this stuff and I’ll never do it again. Period.’ Now, he’s an insincere pig. Pill-popping pinhead.”

    Imus continued: “I mean it’s disgraceful. You got to show some guts. He has no guts. Look what I did. And what I did was a lame attempt to be funny. And it was three words and I went and met with these people after I’d been fired! You got to show guts. He has no guts. He’s a punk.”

  25. An Interested Party says:

    Double Standards much?

    Oh look, another member of the “Hey, look over there!” Brigade…

  26. bains says:

    You can all judge that comment yourselves, to me it seems incredibly self-serving and phony…

    We will, and of course you do. It is why your commentary is more convincing to like-minded “inside the beltway” types. Cocooned, many of this site can not conceive that similar comments from Wasserman-Schlutz, Durbin, Rodham-Cinton, Dean, Schultz, Maher, Dowd, Olbermann, etc are, and have been worthy of similar condemnation. When this site starts condemning those comments with as much outrage and regularity, I’ll start listening to your complaints about Rush.

  27. michael reynolds says:

    From conservative David Frum:

    But look (they continue) at all the liberal/lefty broadcasters who have also said obnoxious things! No one calls Democratic politicians to account for them. Why us?
    It’s a question that will be aired often in the week ahead. Here’s the answer, in four points.
    Point 1: Even by the rough standards of cable/talk radio/digital talk, Limbaugh’s verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. I can’t recall anything as brutal, ugly and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. This was not a case of a bad “word choice.” It was a brutally sexualized accusation, against a specific person, prolonged over three days.

    Point 2: The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh’s tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors.
    After David Letterman for example made an ugly joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter, he delivered an abject seven-minute apology on air. (To which Palin responded by refusing the apology and insinuating that David Letterman was a child molester.)

    When liberal talker Ed Schultz nastily called my dear friend Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show, MSNBC responded by suspending Schultz for a week without pay from his TV show. Schultz likewise apologized in person on air. (Ingraham accepted the apology with grace and humor.)

    The exception to the general rule is Bill Maher, who never apologized for calling Palin by a demeaning sexual epithet. But now see point 3:

    Point 3: Limbaugh’s place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz.

    Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I’m sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher’s million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling.

  28. rodney dill says:
  29. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Herb: I’ve disliked Geraldo for a while. He’s just loathsome.

    You’re calling on “all conservatives” to repudiate “one of their own” for going over the line. I’m just wondering why, if such things are so important to you, why you don’t practice it yourself.

    After you, Alphonse.

  30. DMan says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    And yet you still sound like a child to me, or at least one lacking basic maturity. You haven’t made a comment yet that doesn’t boil down to “they do it too” or “they are worse.” Would you accept your own arguments if they were coming from “the left” or would you laugh in their face? Because honestly, besides those here who are feeling bad for your reasoning skills or lack thereof, your arguments come across as laughably pathetic.

  31. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: Ah, David Frum, the liberals’ favorite conservative. I pay even less attention to him than I do Limbaugh, but I have two questions:

    1) When was the last time he was quoted approvingly by liberals for something besides bashing conservatives?

    2) When was the last time he wrote something that wasn’t bashing conservatives?

  32. rodney dill says:

    @rodney dill: ….’course it’s sort of like predicting rain for the U.S Northwest.

  33. Latino_in_Boston says:

    People have pointed out this before, but it’s well worth saying it again:

    Allowing Limbaugh to take such a prominent role within the Republican Party was a Faustian bargain. The same logic can be extended to Ailes/Fox News and Talk Radio writ large. It has changed the incentives for the party so that instead of offering conservative solutions to America’s problems, it has become caught up with the daily media victories, which in the end are worthless. This is because policy solutions are not just complex, but frankly boring and hard to follow. That sort of thing is not going to get people to tune in, so instead one has to focus on outrage.

    It’s faux outrage, of course. But it works for the Hannity-Limbaugh-Ailes of the world, while simultaneously diminishing the GOP brand and turning politics into a constant tribal horse race.

    You’re broke and upset? You can’t pay your bills? Don’t have access to health care?

    It’s the illegals!
    It’s the War on Christmas!
    It’s the Feminazis!
    It’s the RINOs!
    It’s the stimulus!
    It’s the deficit!
    It’s the pork barrel spending!
    It’s the spending!

    Be outraged! This strategy can only work so long. Although lots of people are making millions off the resentment. Palin is only the latest one to cash in, but then you have entire sites whose whole purpose is to do this (WND, for example).

  34. Jenos Idanian says:

    @DMan: Try this: I don’t think it’s that big a deal. I don’t care about it, generally. But if your side is going to make a huge deal out of the practice, then you can start by cleaning up your own house. Don’t just get outraged when someone on the right does it, especially when leftists have far more egregious examples.

    Alternately, you can just admit that you don’t like it when conservatives dare to act like they have free speech rights and shoot their mouths off, and come off sounding like leading liberal commentators… but not as well, I’ll admit. Olbermann, in particular, has a remarkable talent for sexist hate speech. Maher’s just vulgar, when he called Sarah Palin a c-nt. But Olbermann… his calling Malkin “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick…” that’s almost poetry.

  35. WR says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Okay, you think Frum is mean to your side — but somehow can’t come up with a single argument to refute a singel thing he said. All you can do is whine.

    For a change.

  36. Herb says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “He’s just loathsome.”

    Well, there’s your problem: too much hate.

    As to everything else, don’t think I’ll be addressing it except to say this: If your “defense” is to list all the horrible people who did the same thing, then you’re not making a defense. You’re making a list.

    Kinda like Bains.

    “similar comments from Wasserman-Schlutz, Durbin, Rodham-Cinton, Dean, Schultz, Maher, Dowd, Olbermann, etc are”

    Not a defense. A list.

  37. DMan says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Obviously you are entrenched deeply in the tribal right, but I do find it funny how much time you spend deflecting and crying about a left that is mostly in your own head.

    And what about those who don’t fit so easily into the left or the right? Can they call Limbaugh an asshole, or do they have to call out an Independent for being worse before doing so?

  38. Tim D. says:

    The interesting thing to me about all this is that both Imus and Rush finally met their match when they went after a civilian. With Imus it was an underdog women’s basketball team, with Rush it’s a sympathetic young woman just trying to participate in the political process. If he had called a female politician the s-word, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    But it is kind of heartening (in a way) to know that there *are* in fact limits to what you can say on talk radio and just have the wider culture shrug it off. For years I thought Rush had a pretty unbeatable racket going: he could say the most offensive things and if anyone complained they were either PC whiners or couldn’t take a joke. It was a built in defense shield, but apparently it doesn’t work forever.

  39. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    You are such an empty suit you could be a Romney.

  40. An Interested Party says:

    Alternately, you can just admit that you don’t like it when conservatives dare to act like they have free speech rights and shoot their mouths off…

    On the contrary, let us strongly advocate free speech, especially for Limbaugh…the more he opens his mouth, the more it hurts him and the GOP…

  41. Hey Norm says:

    Jenos and Drew are just bummed because they thought they were going to watch a free sex tape instead of charging it to their credit cards like they usually do.
    Of course the worlds greatest business man expenses it. Jenos just hopes his mom doesn’t notice the charges.

  42. Drew says:

    You guys are so easy. Suckered you into the ” who is he?” fallacy without even trying. So now, Bill Marr, Ed Schultz etc? How about a certain Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid telling us about killing the children, poisoning the water, our soldiers are maniacal killers blah blah blah. Ever hear of them?

    The lack of intellectual honesty from the left is typical. No surprise there.

    But let’s get real. This is about deflecting the debate from Obamas pathetic track record.

    Politics over substance anyday for the lightweights.

  43. michael reynolds says:

    @Drew:
    We’re deflecting? Ah hah hah hah. Susan Komen to Catholic Bishops to Santorum to Rush Limbaugh: it’s been all on your side, Drew. But we are very happy to have right wing idiots drive women voters over to our side. The latest poll has us up 18 points with women. Obama is up 6 points over Romney.

    The right dug this hole and God bless Rush he just keeps digging!

  44. Drew says:

    Heh, I guess when you reference a guy who calls Republican women a cxnt, you ought to get his name right. Maher.

    You lefties just have zero credibility. Just zero.

    But I guess that’s a tautology. You are zeros.

  45. Drew says:

    So you are arguing political advantage vs principle, Michael.

    No surprises ever come from the left.

  46. michael reynolds says:

    @Drew:

    18 points among women, Drew.

    6 points over Romney.

    Obama at 50% approval and rising

    GOP brand dropping like a rock.

    Romney with higher negatives than any candidate pretty much ever.

    Yeah, we’re the dummies. You guys are geniuses!

  47. Drew says:

    Like I said. Political advantage first. Principle second.

    Rank whores.

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    kylopod:

    In 1995, William F. Buckley wrote an article (unfortunately not online)

    Great article, thanks. It turns out you can find it here.

    Buckley wrote that article defending Rush about three years after Saint Ronnie himself described Rush as “the Number One voice for conservatism.”

  49. michael reynolds says:

    @Drew:

    I missed the part where you were talking principle. Maybe you could point it out. Seemed to me you were just calling everyone names.

  50. michael reynolds says:

    Oh, wait, I totally forgot about Virginia’s Vaginal Probe McDonnell! He totally scores an assist.

  51. Drew says:

    Nice try, Michael. No cigar.

    Your MO is clear. Polling points rule supreme. 18 from women, eh? Your guiding light. Pretty convincing, and oh, so compelling.

    I’m wondering. Would another five points have you working the local glory hole? And would an additional, oh, 2-4 points get a double shift? Now that we know who you are.

  52. Steve V says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    “I pay even less attention to [Frum] than I do Limbaugh …”

    I’d like to know, who *do* you pay attention to?

  53. michael reynolds says:

    @Drew:
    And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

  54. Herb says:

    @Drew: “Rank whores.”

    Well, Drew, I guess when you act like that, you would be a hypocrite if you criticized Rush, now wouldn’t you?

  55. CCR says:

    We all know Limbaugh has said worst things than this for years, so why the apology now? Most have argued its the advertisers, but he has such a huge following losing 20 of them won’t change things for him. I believe the real reason why he’s apologizing is that Limbaugh is absolutely correct that the liberals and Democrats made him say those things! Don’t forget this started as the Republicans believe this is a freedom of religion and no government intrusion issue while the Democrats have taken the women and contraception side. Limbaugh fell into talking about the Democrats argument and tried to rip it apart using his standard MO, however, this completely forced the Republicans off their message ultimately making them all look like troglodytes. This is one of the few times Limbaugh’s words actually hurt his own cause and his party, that’s why the half-assed apology.

  56. michael reynolds says:

    @Drew:

    Would another five points have you working the local glory hole? And would an additional, oh, 2-4 points get a double shift? Now that we know who you are.

    By the way, this is excellent. It’s you channeling Rush! He suggested the “slut” send him video tapes of her sex life. Now you have me at a glory hole.

    Ahhh, conservatives.

  57. David M says:

    I keep seeing Ed Schultz brought up as a “defense” of Limbaugh. Seems to me if you have to use him as an example of the problem on the left then you have nothing. A quick reminder for everyone: Schultz called Ingraham a slut once, apologized the next day, was suspended without pay for a week and was not defended by Democratic politicians or lefty blogs. Other than that, pretty much exactly the same as Limbaugh.

  58. Scott O. says:

    Kylopod laid out the things I find most disturbing about Limbaugh and every other conservative talk show host, inducing hatred and spreading propaganda to further their political agenda.

  59. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: You are such an empty suit you could be a Romney.

    Someone puffed up with his own importance but really having little effect on the lives of others. It is often used as an insult to disparage others who really don’t deserve the title. The true empty suit, which conjures up the image of a business suit of clothing without a person, really doesn’t know what he or she is doing. He or she is ineffectual, perhaps a phony, and is about as relevant or helpful as a suit hanging on a rack.

    To call someone an empty suit implies that you think they are a complete waste of time. Editorials on politicians love to use the term empty suit to describe people seeking presidential office. This or that politician is just “an empty suit,” to quote the words of numerous political critics, and is thus undeserving of our attention.

    Some politicians do deserve the title. A senator with a very poor voting record, or failure to attend senate sessions could clearly be called an empty suit because he is not really performing the job for which he was elected. On the other hand, some politicians may advertise themselves as “not just an empty suit” in order to distinguish themselves from their implied empty suit peers.

    I think you misspelled “Obama” there, sport… Romney’s been very effective as an executive. Did you forget the “Corporate Raider” line of attack on him? Or are you getting so worked up, you’re forgetting your talking points and marching orders?

  60. Brummagem Joe says:

    @Drew:

    Nice try, Michael. No cigar.

    Your MO is clear. Polling points rule supreme. 18 from women, eh? Your guiding light. Pretty convincing, and oh, so compelling.

    I’m wondering. Would another five points have you working the local glory hole? And would an additional, oh, 2-4 points get a double shift? Now that we know who you are.

    Another example of top businessman speak from Drew?

  61. Brummagem Joe says:

    @CCR:

    I believe the real reason why he’s apologizing is that Limbaugh is absolutely correct that the liberals and Democrats made him say those things!

    Yep he was probably waterboarded by Boxer and Pelosi and forced to speak. Honestly it’s really hard to make these people up isn’t it?

  62. jukeboxgrad says:

    david:

    A quick reminder for everyone: Schultz called Ingraham a slut once, apologized the next day, was suspended without pay for a week and was not defended by Democratic politicians or lefty blogs.

    I think it’s also helpful to pay attention to the actual apology that Schultz delivered (link). Unlike Rush, he delivered a deep and sincere apology.

  63. Rob in CT says:

    Of course Rush blamed the Left for this. He blames the Left for everything. Why would this be any different?

  64. Tillman says:

    I don’t know what precisely it is about Drew and Jenos that shuts my brain off any time I attempt to form a rational response to what I’m reading.

    I think they’re bots. Are they bots? It’s entirely possible they’re bots.

  65. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Drew:

    But I guess that’s a tautology. You are zeros.

    Pot, calling Mr. Kettle, on line 2.

    And let me just say, that I heard a rumor recently that Drew couldn’t finance a used car loany. Not sure if it is true or not, but it sure would fit with all of his posturing.

  66. WR says:

    @Drew: Drew’s idea of principle: Calling women whores for using birth control. And this he finds morally superior to Democrats somehow.

  67. mantis says:

    The right comes out in force to defend Limbaugh for this any anything else he says. They always have.

    When idiots like Maher and Shultz say stupid shit, no one defends them.

    Therein lies the difference, wingnuts. The left is embarrassed by our blowhards. The right treats theirs as gods.

  68. the Q says:

    To Drew, Jenos and other apologists for Rush drawing attention to Malloy’s comments. Of course you make a good point about the vile liberals and the double standard of the left.

    However, by doing so, you just gave them fresh meat since you boys engaged in your own double standard by decrying Malloy’s offensive remarks, but not the insane rants of Pat Robertson who basically laid the blame on the victims of the hurricanes for lack of prayer,

    Though offensive, you took Malloys remarks out of context, and while protesting them, mentioned naught about the Robertson remarks.

    Hence you both are hypocritical right wing dooshes who rightfully are getting walloped on this thread like the black guy at Altamont at the hands of the Hells Angels. And just like him, you both deserve it.

  69. An Interested Party says:
  70. James Trandel Sr says:

    Rush’s next line. Who are you going to believe, me or what you just saw and heard me say?

  71. Jenos Idanian says:

    @the Q: I never mentioned Malloy (who?), and Pat Robertson’s an asshole who really needs for God to call him home.

    I never cared much about the ranting of the left’s sociopaths, I just dismissed them as a courtesy of theirs to show us how sick they are. But when your side started going after right-wingers for far less offensive things, I felt it was a good time to point out what hypocritical opportunists you were — because it’s obvious not about what is said, but who says it and about who it is said.

    It’s not about principle to you, it’s about finding a new weapon to use. And you don’t have the honesty to admit it.