Friday, June 26, 2009

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Caused Sanford's Affair With His "Concubine"

I usually do not keep up with or make hay out of the Rush Limbaugh's numerous ludicrous antics. I even defended Limbaugh earlier this year when, instead of focusing on the economy, Democrats and the media began a campaign to make him the symbolic face of the Republican Party.

Limbaugh's latest madness, however, proves that his show exists somewhere in a dark corner of the Twilight Zone. Commenting on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's recent disappearance and sordid affair, Limbaugh said that upon hearing the news, he immediately thought that Sanford's behavior resulted from his frustration over the stimulus package and other policies of the Obama administration. Limbaugh said that Sanford's excursion to visit his "concubine" proves that he had decided to "enjoy life" because the "Democrats are destroying the country." Kudos to Media Matters for uncovering the story.

Question: Because Sanford's affair apparently began nearly a year ago, does this mean that it is really President Bush's fault?


Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hutchinson: I don't know whether to groan at yet more fallout from Mark and his unchecked libido, or laugh at Lush Blimpblob digging away in his hole. It's impossible for many of us on the Right to take Blimpblob seriously, and here's a fine example of why. Stick to Hugh Hewitt for serious right side radio.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Anonymous said...

the decline of this blog is pretty sad

i'd rather you not pay attention to defending or critizing jokers like limbaugh and use your considerable expertise to analyze things like this

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Anonymous: Lighten up! As I said, I have defended Limbaugh before, but this is indefensible.

Also, I think it is extremely funny that you encourage me to analyze things like the Washington Post article you linked on Obama's support of indefinite detention and suspicion about GITMO closing. I have written on this issue many times. Multi-tasking is fun. Let me refresh your memory:

Obama on National Security: I Am Doing the Right Things; I Have Not Broken Campaign Promises

When Will Obama Close the Guantanamo Bay Prison?

Et Tu, Olbermann? Some Liberals Finally Realize That for Certain Issues, "Change" Actually Means "More of the Same"

Change Alert: Indefinite Detention in the USA -- Not Guantanamo Bay

So Exactly When Does "Change" Begin, Take 45345234524523452452: Elena Kagan Says Government Can Indefinitely Detain Terrorism Suspects

GITMO: Why Is Obama Closing Such a Professional, Lawfully Run Facility?

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Greg: Just take it in stride. In the long run, this will not mean much.

Anonymous said...

To the grumpy anonymous person who can't take a joke, please get a grip. This is an excellent blog. It criticizes liberals and conservatives. Apparently, you only want to see criticism of liberals. There are a lot of rightwing blogs that already provide that service.

Kansas City said...

I think you guys are not listening closely to what Rush said. He did not say frustration with Obama was the cause of Sanford's behavior or "proved" that he had decided to enjoy life because Obama was destroying the country. Darren's point about Bush also is sloppy, because Rush was referring to disappearing for five days and abandoning his job, not having an affair.

What Rush actually said was that his own "first thought" was that frustration with Obama might have been the cause for such irresponsible behavior.

He did not say what Darren claims he said, but to Darren's credit, he put the link on the post for everyone to listen to.

By the way, Rush's argument was not his best, but he commonly uses current events as analogies to make his points. Regardless of how good his argument was here, Rush is amazing in filling three hours a day with unscripted and often interesting commentary. Even this was interesting.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Kansas- Keep listening to Rush. He says his "first thought," but then as he continues to pontificate, the "thought" becomes an assertion. He even suggests that the economy is bad because Obama has "killed" people's spirit (which would implicate Bush too). Regardless, to even "think" that Obama influenced Sanford's nutty behavior is just as nutty as Sanford's behavior. I'll take "sloppy" over "nutty" any day.

Kansas City said...


Come on. If you are referring to the audio you posted, you were clearly inaccurate in the following assertion in your original post:

"Limbaugh said that Sanford's excursion to visit his "concubine" proves that he had decided to "enjoy life" because the "Democrats are destroying the country."

The "thought" never became an assertion. I think sloppiness is an important shortcoming for someone like you who purports to present, and sometimes succeeds in presenting, a high level of intelligent comment on this site. But when you micharacterize on a minor issue such as what Rush Limbaugh said, it casts doubt on the accuracy of things you say about other issues.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Kansas City: You and I rarely agree. We don't now.

PS: Is Rush's ludicrous thought or assertion (however you want to bill it) worthy of defending? Not at all....Perhaps we can agree on that. Good day!

Kansas City said...


Don't get testy. Get accurate.

Realize that to a discerning eye, fairness and accuracy is a big component in judging the quality of your argument. Also, calling someone's opinion ludicrous normally does not strengthen your argument. Don't you teach these things in class?

Rush's thought was just an effort to emphasize how bad he [apparently -- remember, he is an entertainer] believes Obama's policies are for the country. I consider that fair argument and certainly his underlying argument that Obama's policies are bad for America is worth defending.

Rush, unlike some, did not mischaracterize anything (although he is not above doing that).

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Calling a position ludicrous strengthens an argument when the position is ludicrous.

Again, you have probably agreed with me about 1 time; so I don't think I will use your points as a general measure of my "fairness" "accuracy" and "quality." Otherwise, I would have to close ship.

Aspasia said...

Here's an even better question: "Who caused Rush Limbaugh?" I mean, besides his parents. There's gotta be a greater power behind that.

Anonymous said...

Aspasia, Who do you believe the greater power is?

Real Time Analytics