Back in September, I mentioned that Rush Limbaugh went ballistic over The Ohio State University’s new sexual consent policy. He claimed that it took all the fun out of sex. He then asked the men in his audience, “How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, know that ‘no’ means ‘yes’ if you know how to spot it?”?The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pounced on it, sending an email blast that called for Limbaugh to be canceled for suggesting that rape and sexual assault deserve anything less than zero tolerance. It also started a petition calling for Limbaugh’s advertisers to unload him. Well, Limbaugh delivered his answer on Monday, when he threatened to sue the DCCC?for supposedly taking his words out of context.
Limbaugh’s attorney, Patricia Glaser, fired off a letter to the DCCC on Monday morning threatening to sue the DCCC for defamation and wrongful interference with Limbaugh’s business relationships?unless it fully retracts its attacks on Limbaugh and publicly apologizes to him. Read the letter here. It claims that Limbaugh “could not have been more clear?and?categorical” in condemning?the mentality that “no means yes.” Glaser writes that when?Limbaugh asked how many of the men in his audience knew that “no” could mean “yes,” he was actually mocking those who believe this. Indeed, it claims that Limbaugh said it was time to?change this mentality.
There’s just one problem with these demands — they’re baseless. As I mentioned in September, Limbaugh’s screed against Ohio State’s new policy came in response to ESPN’s Kate Fagan calling for society to have a major rethink on how it raises men. Indeed, if you look at a partial transcript from Limbaugh’s September 15 show, he was saying that Fagan’s statement was yet another example of how the “chickification” of our society has caused confusion about the roles men and women are supposed to play in society. Moreover, Media Matters got a clip of Limbaugh riffing on the Ohio State policy. He was reading it in a mocking tone. Remember, folks, Limbaugh has to prove actual malice.?Looking at the transcript and the partial clip, I’m left wondering what Limbaugh was thinking when he went this route. I also have to wonder if Glaser bothered to?watch the actual podcast of Limbaugh’s show and read the transcript before firing off this letter. After all, unless there’s something I either don’t know or haven’t heard, the velocity with which this suit would be tossed would create enough of a breeze that I’d be able to feel it here in Charlotte.
It also says a lot about the merits of these threats — or in this case, lack thereof — that Limbaugh isn’t going after anyone else who called him out on this statement. It looks like all Limbaugh wants is the spectacle of the DCCC groveling before him. If that’s the case, he’s in for a long wait. And if he is foolish enough to take this to trial, he may very well be the one who has to open the wallet.
Let us know your thoughts at the Liberal America Facebook page. Sign up for our free daily newsletter to receive more great stories like this one.
Darrell Lucus, also known as Christian Dem in NC on Daily Kos, is a radical-lefty Jesus-lover who has been blogging for change for a decade. Follow him on Twitter @DarrellLucus or connect with him on Facebook.
Edited by D.H.
