Just prior to his leaving Sacramento a caller asked him why he did not have his own radio station. He replied that he might do something like that down the road but for now, “I am not through performing.”

So as far as I am concerned he considers himself an actor doing a role, i.e., stirring up the illerate masses.

One day as I was driving from Modesto, where I had spoklen to a GLBT student group, to Sacramento I was listening to him and a caller asked to repeat the “gerbil story.” Limbaugh then launched into a story he told many times about how gay men inserted gerbils into their rectums.

He said it must be so “because I have never had an irate homosexual call in and refute it.”

I said to myself “Honey, you want to see an irate queen I will show you one!”

I promptly filed a complaint with the Sacramento Human Rights Commission concerning his remarks about gays and the “ugly women” who belonged to NOW.

I wanted him to sit across the table from the president of the local chapter of NOW who was a knockout blonde and tell her she was ugly.

Unfortunately we were informed that Rush was leaving Sacramento in 6 weeks to start a national broadcast so for the most part our complaint was moot.

Limbaugh may have some kind private thoughts toward GLBT people but over the years his public record his dismal.

When one company can own hundreds of stations across the country, then require them to air this fat, drug-addicted bigot’s bile, that ensures success. Not to mention the fact stations aren’t required to air opposing viewpoints, meant so-called “liberal” shows we doomed to fail.

Radio needs to be broken up to remove the monopoly, and just like many other industries needs to be heavily re-regulated again to ensure abuses are limited.

As an aside, the modest progress on gay rights in a Democratic controlled Congress leads me to doubt the power-brokers of the Democratic party care about gays either.

I do not know why you, Priya Lynn, and David Link think the piece is a defense of Limbaugh. But I guess you guys do.

Oh well.

Thanks for the notice about Link’s comment, by the way.

“Which brings me to Rush Limbaugh, and a savvy defense of him on gay rights. As Timothy Kincaid observes at Box Turtle Bulletin, while we’re used to assuming Rush is a Neanderthal reactionary on gay rights, that may not be correct.”

It was not only a defense, it was a “savvy defense”.

Why do Priya Lynn, David Link, and I all reach the same conclusion?

Look – it’s fine if you have some common ideology with Rush. Maybe you like the schtick. It’s not my thing and I find his brand of conservatism quite dangerous to America in general. I see no reason to give him any credit for not being a homophobe. It’s sort of like saying some criminal is nice to their mother so they can’t be all bad.

If you want to rehab conservatism in the minds of gays, go ahead. Certainly Rush is one of those problems you’ll have to overcome. This attempt didn’t convince me.

Good point. In my listing of “nudge nudge, wink wink humor, spiteful parodies, and coy race-based ‘comedy’”, I should have also included “blatant sexism“.