Limbaugh Brags About His Irrationality

Rush Limbaugh went on a rant on his show about why conservatives won’t defend Chris Christie the way they did Clarence Thomas. He’s not bothered by that a bit, of course, because Thomas was a true conservative while Christie is an “establishment” Republican. And Limbaugh comes right out and brags about the fact that he defended Thomas with no concern whatsoever to evidence or logic:

Clarence Thomas was nominated the Supreme Court by George Bush 41. The moment he was nominated, the left’s long knives came out. That was their seat, Thurgood Marshall. Clarence Thomas, Republican, conservative, traitor, Uncle Tom. When this all happened, I didn’t know Clarence Thomas. I had never met Clarence Thomas. I had to read about Clarence Thomas to find out who he was. From the moment Paul Simon, Democrat senator from Illinois…

His wife, actually, was the one responsible for this, if you want to know the truth. They dragged Anita Hill forward. Snerdley, you’ll remember this because you’ve been here the whole time. I began the biggest, full-throated defense of Clarence Thomas that there was, and I didn’t know him. I’d never met him. I had to read and find out who he was and, you know, about his life, the things he’d done, where he’d worked, gone to school.

Yet I didn’t feel I was taking a risk at all in a full-throated, never-ending, full-fledged not only defense of Clarence Thomas, but an attack, a returned attack on Anita Hill and the Democrats. Now, how was I able to do this with such confidence, not having met the man, not having known the man?…

The reason that I — and I have been fully vindicated, by the way — was able to defend Clarence Thomas with total confidence against this, is I knew he didn’t do it.

I knew he didn’t do it, and I didn’t know him. But I learned about his character. I learned about his family. He was conservative. He was courageous. He was a conservative African-American. You learned that they had tried to destroy him at Yale ’cause he didn’t get in with affirmative action. He betrayed them. He betrayed the civil rights coalitions because he climbed the ladder without them, showing that it could be done.

I learned very quickly that Clarence Thomas became the biggest threat breathing to people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the biggest threat alive to the civil rights coalitions, because Clarence Thomas was living proof that a minority could reach the pinnacle without having to be a liberal or a Democrat or part of that whole civil rights coalition. I also knew that the people attacking him were totally capable of lying and making things up.

The left, the Democrats, take your pick — Biden, take your pick of ’em on that committee. Ted Kennedy. I knew their character, and so without knowing Clarence Thomas, without ever having met Clarence Thomas, I knew he didn’t do it…

What was it that made me do this? I didn’t think I was risking anything. I really didn’t. If I’d had the slightest doubt of his innocence, I woulda never opened my mouth. If I thought that there was just a tiny thread of possibility that what Anita Hill was saying and what the Democrat witnesses were saying was true, I woulda stayed silent. But I didn’t. I went to the equivalent of the mountaintops and started shouting. Now, why? Character, conservatism, and and my knowledge of the left.

This is the kind of simplistic tribal reasoning that we all engage in at times — some more than others, of course — but rarely does anyone admit it and declare pride in it. We usually pretend we’re not doing that and we’re being totally rational when we’re not.

"What...precisely and exactly...was "given"? And to whom?1. No uranium has left the country. Not one ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"Yeah I guess doing deals with Russia are nothingburgers considering the public didn't hear about ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"Actually, an H-bomb does use uranium (or plutonium produced from uranium). The energy from a ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"She was the chief of foreign affairs and this was a foreign deal and we ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • daved

    The fact that Anita Hill was, in fact,telling the truth is completely irrelevant to the fat boy.

  • smrnda

    Actually, it’s factually wrong to suggest that Clarence Thomas achieved what he did without the civil rights coalition. Historically, if they had never existed, there would be *no Black students at Yale Law School.* It’s the same nonsense you get about women who got ahead without feminism. No, feminism already did the work of making sure women could vote, that certain schools did not exclude women, and that certain professions are even open to women.

  • colnago80

    It is my understanding that Thomas did get into Yale via affirmative action so lard ass limp dick Limbaugh is a fuckken liar.

  • Jordan Genso

    I do occasionally flip over to the AM stations if I’m driving around, just to get a glimpse into the conservative bubble, and I actually heard part of a segment that I’m assuming either preceded this (or came after it) about Chris Christie. Limbaugh was irritated that all of the Republicans who are defending Christie are prefacing their support with If Gov. Christie is telling the truth….

    If I understood correctly, Limbaugh was actually making the case that Gov. Christie should be defended, regardless of whether or not he’s telling the truth when he says that he didn’t order the lane closures. To publically take that position on the radio seems remarkable, as it takes IOKIYAR to a whole new level.

  • Michael Heath

    daved writes:

    The fact that Anita Hill was, in fact,telling the truth is completely irrelevant to the fat boy.

    This is incorrect as noted in the very text Ed publishes here:

    . . . I [Rush Limbaugh] have been fully vindicated, by the way . . . [in regards to Anita Hill]

    I watched the congressional hearings on this matter where I tended to believe Anita Hill’s version of events. However I don’t recall whether the evidence was so overwhelming that either Mr. Limbaugh or you can credibly use absolutist language. That could be my own mundane ignorance since I never read any books on the subject.

    Even if you’re right arguing unequivocably in Anita Hill’s defense, that doesn’t make your claim here correct. Mr. Limbaugh is either determinedly ignorant of the facts or denies those facts, but the veracity of Hill’s side is not irrelevant to his argument.

  • Michael Heath

    Re Rush Limbaugh’s tactic to believe the true conservative without considering pesky facts; I have three observations:

    1) This isn’t new. He’s always been out about this. It is however nice to see the public is being reminded that he’s always been a delusional idiot who celebrates his loyalty to the tribe by using this tactic.

    2) Given how Christianity dominates our culture, his audience is already warmed-up to accept this train of illogic since inerrantist Christians do the same thing. They too argue the Bible is inerrant and any supposed contradictions to the Bible are false; most are so overtly bold about this fundamental failure in thinking their so-called teachers and students are required to submit to this claim if they want to work for or study at these institutions.

    3) We also see conservatives typically circle the wagons for their leaders when they get into a scandal. They often like to also project this failure in their own leaders onto an undeserving other, e.g., President Bush’s torture policy and the resulting American casualties in Iraq vs. the degree of actual failure by President Obama in Benghazi.

    All three are fine illustrations of circular thinking given the energetic refusal to be exposed to independent credible sources. Rush Limbaugh is merely one of the few that celebrates this sort of thinking; so we shouldn’t fail to acknowledge this is a trait of conservatism, religious and political.

  • Gretchen

    The fact that Anita Hill was, in fact,telling the truth is completely irrelevant to the fat boy.

    As Mr. Limbaugh’s girth is irrelevant to his idiocy.

  • Area Man

    I knew he didn’t do it, and I didn’t know him. But I learned about his character. I learned about his family. He was conservative. He was courageous. He was a conservative African-American.

    He can’t even maintain consistency within a single stream of thought. “I didn’t know who he was, but I knew all about him.”

    Limbaugh is right about one thing though. You pretty much know that a conservative black Republican is going to be rigidly ideological. That’s pretty much the only way a guy can join a club whose members despise him.

  • caseloweraz

    Gretchen: As Mr. Limbaugh’s girth is irrelevant to his idiocy.

    To the extent Limbaugh is ignorant and illogical — as opposed to pandering to an ignorant and illogical audience — his girth is not completely irelevant to his intellect. If he reduced his girth by exercising more, his brain would benefit. This is well established.

    That said, I’m sure his idiocy is to some extent a pose, and therefore I tend to agree with you. Which won’t stop me from pointing out that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

  • democommie

    “Limbaugh Brags About His Irrationality”

    When a hammer is the only tool in your mailbox…

    Rushbo is fat. His corpulence doesn’t make him a lying, fucking sociopathic piece-of-shit. Both his corpulence and his lying, fucking sociopathic sack-of-shitedness are lifestyle choices, however, unlike, say, being black, female, poor or teh GAY.

    I’m porky, pasty, poor and privileged (white). one of those four is something I could never change. I tend to not brag about any of them. But, then, I’m not gasbag who’s off its moorings like Herr Limbdenburg.