Monday, November 10, 2014


I don't really believe Rush Limbaugh is planning to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; announcing with great fanfare that you might sue seems like a publicity stunt or an attempt at intimidation, but no more. Then again, who knows? Here's what the Daily Caller says:
... Limbaugh retained the services of lawyer Patty Glaser and demanded that the DCCC "preserve all records in anticipation of a lawsuit for defamation and interference" after the Democratic Party group led a campaign against Limbaugh based on out-of-context statements the host made about sexual assault. Limbaugh’s legal team delivered a letter to DCCC representatives Monday informing them of the legal threat. Limbaugh has also demanded a public retraction and apology.

The Limbaugh team is currently proceeding from the standpoint of litigating and has not yet made a decision as to whether the DCCC could make any concessions at this point to prevent the lawsuit.

The DCCC "has intentionally disseminated demonstrably false statements concerning Rush Limbaugh in a concerted effort to harm Mr. Limbaugh, and with reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program" according to the GlaserWeil law firm's letter to the DCCC, which was obtained by TheDC. "Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically condemned the notion that 'no' means 'yes.'"
Well, no -- Limbaugh did not "clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically" [condemn] the notion that 'no' means 'yes.'" Listen to the audio clip of the September 15 broadcast that was quoted in DCCC emails. Or read the transcript at Limbaugh's own site.

The Washington Post quotes the relevant passages:
In his commentary, Limbaugh attacked the step-by-step nature of Ohio State [University]'s [sexual assault] policy, asserting it imposed a legalistic regime on male "seduction" of women. He said that sexual consent was often more subtle than Ohio State's policy suggested.

"Seduction used to be an art. Now, of course, it's 'brutish' and it's 'predatory' and it's bad," he said on the air. Quoting the Ohio State policy, he said, "'consent must be freely given, and can be withdrawn anytime, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.'"

He then commented, "How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it? I'm probably.... Let me tell you something, in this modern [world], that is simply, that's not tolerated. People aren't even going to try to understand that one. It used to be said as a cliche, it used to be part of the advice young boys were given." He added, apparently facetiously, "See, that's what we've got to change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men...."
Limbaugh simply believes that sexual assault is part of the normal course of male-female interaction. A couple of weeks before this broadcast, a feminist complained that a newly developed nail polish able to detect a date-rape drug in a drink is just another way of putting the onus of preventing date rape on women. Limbaugh went ballistic:
There was a story it seems like last week, but it had to be longer ago than that, where... Maybe it was Stephen A. Smith, and maybe it was a woman who said, "Well, you know, women have to realize that that certain ways they dress can be provocative and inviting and all."

Remember, the feminazis went batty over that. The sad thing is... It's not sad. The reality is that boys chase girls. I mean, there's nothing the feminazis are ever going to be able to do about that. They call it sexual objectification, demeaning, not taking women seriously, but it's just the way of the world. Boys chase girls. They always have. There's a great line in a song: "A boy chases a girl until she catches him." I've always loved that line.

And, yeah, some of the guys chasing the girls are not chivalrous and they're not moral and they're not nice. In fact, there are guys that commit sex crimes. I don't know what... That's always been the case, too. The fact that some women have come up with a nail polish product that can identify an adult beverage that's laced with the date rape drug offends the feminazis by claiming that it promotes a rape culture?

Who put these nut jobs in charge of new products, anyway?

... I mean, this feminazi reaction, really, to me, is the left exposed, raw, and unfiltered. Because in the end they insist on the right to tell everybody to shut up and sit down.

This is why, by the way, I created the word "feminazi."

I mean, how else would you describe these people?
If this really does go to court, find that clip and play it. Or read some passages from Limbaugh's book See, I Told You So:

A former listener to the radio show Limbaugh had at Sacramento's KFBK before he went national recalls a nasty rant about date rape:
The last time I called in, Rush had just announced he was leaving Sacramento for a national radio show. This was one of his last local shows, and astonishingly he decided to spend the final hour defining date rape as something distinguishable from "real rape." He kept repeating that date rape was different because there was a "reason" for the rape. The date and the expectations it creates was Limbaugh's "reason."

It was over the top, even for Rush. I got through to producer Kitty O’Neal, who was screening the calls. "I want you to know," Kitty said, "that there are some women at this radio station who are very upset with Rush right now."

She then put me through to the big guy.

"So, Rush, now you’ve become an apologist for rapists?" I asked. "Is that how you toughen up for New York and your national audience?"

That's as far as I got, because Rush went ballistic. He yelled for the last minute of the show, over his exit music, right up to the top of the hour.

Some locate the emergence of Rush's ugly vitriolic side to that "date rape" show....
But would I put it past a Republican judge or majority-Republican panel of judges to rule that Limbaugh's opinions on this subject were deliberately distorted in the DCCC's emails? No. I don't think we can expect any standard of honesty or fail dealing from Republican judges now. Limbaugh may not sue, but I would never say he couldn't win. Not now.


(I have a follow-up post here.)


Vixen Strangely said...

Misogyny has been, for a long time, a huge part of the Limbaugh persona--I don't see how it exactly defames a man who still has a job dispensing his form of entertainment to say he crossed a line when he spent hours and hours calling one reproductive rights activist a "slut" as a part of his grouse against uppity women who think their lady parts are worthy of being treated to medical care. He has established a pattern.

Did any possible accusation against Limbaugh that he might just be a rape apologist cost him zip in the long run? Did it damage his particular brand? (Why no--he appeals to people who...shoot. The awfulest thing I can say is he appeals to the kind of people who would like that sort of thing.)

Seems to me that the worst thing anyone could use against the guy is to quote him verbatim. That is certainly not the nicest thing you could say of someone. Sure seems to fit him, though.

Roger said...

The only things that prevent Rush Limbaugh from being a repist are his morbid obesity and lack of a dick.