Reading Rush: Gingrich's Ex-Wife

When attempting to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio do you find yourself slamming your head into the steering wheel repeatedly until blood is streaming down your face while the other drivers in traffic look on in horror?  Well, he's worse when you can actually read a transcript of what he's saying.

From the official transcript of the 1/19/12 Rush Limbaugh Show:

Rush's rant against the second Mrs. Gingrich started coherently, if offensively, enough:

I think the Democrats may have to give Newt a second look here. Well, follow me on this. Newt Gingrich, aside from the budget deal in '95 and being made to ride in the back of Air Force One, Newt got along with Clinton pretty well, if you recall, and Newt treated Hillary with respect, even sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Now, there's an accusation out there that Newt wanted an open marriage, just like Bill and Hillary. And, in fact, Newt even had the politeness to ask permission for it. Do you think Bill ever did that?

So ok, the idea that Gingrich "got along with Clinton pretty well...and treated Hillary with respect" is pretty laughable, but I see where he's going with this....

I mean, it's all about sex and how many times are we told that somebody's sex life, even if they're president, doesn't matter. It's nobody's business as long as it doesn't affect the job. And how about all the sex stories from Obama's former girlfriends? That's right: What stories? What former girlfriends? In fact, have we ever found out anything about any of his students when he supposedly taught law at the University of Chicago or buddies at Harvard Law Review?

 I'll admit I did not see that swerve into getting angry at Obama for not having skeletons in his closet, but Limbaugh course corrected quickly back into attacking the media:

We were told ABC had been very concerned about the ethical implications of airing their hit piece on a Republican candidate right before an important primary election. I almost wrenched my back laughing at that, that the ABC suits were in an ethical fight, in a conundrum? I wonder, oh, my God, what to do, what's the ethical thing to do here? If there was any debate at ABC, it was over when would be the best time to do it so as to cause the most harm. That was the only debate.

 Because hey, what business is it of so called journalists to report on the hypocrisy of a conservative family values candidate running on a platform of "protecting marriage from the gays" wanting an open marriage with his second of three wives.  Moving on there was a weird tangent about Mitt Romney's Cayman Islands' bank accounts, and then it's conspiracy time:

Here's what I think was going on. I think that ABC, in a race with NBC to curry favor with Obama, and to also hold onto the mantel of taking out Republicans. Remember it was ABC and Brian Ross, our old buddy ABC and Brian Ross who took out Mark Foley over the page stuff in 2006. Well, we haven't heard from him much since. They don't investigate Democrats. And so now it's the Republican primary and then we got this mess out of Iowa where it looks like Santorum won it...So you got Santorum winning Iowa. You've got Romney winning New Hampshire, but that was expected. Now you've got Rasmussen with Newt polling ahead of Romney in South Carolina. Rick Perry pulls out this morning, endorses Newt. Perry was drawing 4% in the polls, so you don't know, even if all 4% go to Newt, what difference does that make. So I think the objective of ABC was to take Mitt out this week, or to just do damage.

 But before we can examine that any further we have to detour back into a bizarre obsession with Obama's non-controversial sex life:

Meanwhile, we don't even know if Obama has really lost his virginity yet. It's a good guess, but we don't really know. We know nothing. We don't know anything.

 Then there's a really long tangent about how it's unfair that Obama has ever won an election before we get back to the main focus of the piece, attacking the media:

This always gets me. Are journalists monogamous? Are journalists faithful? Are they clean and pure as the wind-driven snow? This is what's always fascinated me. These people, the sports writer guys, the news media guys, they all get to sit in judgment as though they live perfect lives -- and then when you try to turn the focus on them, "Oh, no, no, no! I'm just the reporter. What -- what -- what I do doesn't matter." It certainly does because you are not reporting. You're passing judgment. But there's never been an investigation of, say, Brian Ross and who he is. You know, how did he get his grades? Where did he go to school? How did he get out of school? How did he get the job at ABC? Who does he know? How did he whatever? We never get that about journalists, and when you try? Ooh, they have a conniption fit!

Because hey, who doesn't like a good old fashioned witch hunt?  And I'm going to be honest, he goes on for a good other 20 minutes but I can't take anymore.  If you want to give it a try, the links at the top.