Yes, it was during one of his at least two attempts at moving to TV.
Since you are making judgements without being informed, let me inform you. The schtick went like this:
Limbaugh: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?
At which point, he shows a picture of then 13 year-old Chelsea Clinton.
Hell of a guy, that Limbaugh.
What does this have to do with his latest remark? Since unlike you, I don't spend a lot of time listening to Rush, and I wasn't in the country for a bit of his glory days when the Clintons were his political target, why am I supposed to care about this? Was he a jerk to drag the First Daughter into his anti Clinton screeds? Yes. Did he ever apologize? I hope so, and if he didn't, then a bigger jerk.
Does it? It is amazing you can have such insight to me when you have so little into Limbaugh's rather notorious and public past. That, or you were unaware that one can't show pictures over the radio.
I think you are taking something from the 90's, and trying to insert it into the year 2010. You are the one with issues here, as you keep demonstrating. You can't resist the troll bait.
Now that you mention it. Your response tells me a great deal about you, too. Maybe you should consider examine your own assumptions before being so sanctimonious.
Given that you are the one making assumptions, the ball's in your court.
Oh, I read your question. You asked if he anyone thought this was a serious statement (and, presumably, not just a joke). The assumption on your part is that the Limbaugh 'show persona' is a reasonable person.
There you go again, making an assumption up and trying to attribute it to me. It is also irrelevant, since Rush's job, it seems to me, is to make Rush rich, and being coarse and insensitive (you used shock jock, which is a good descriptive) is how he does that.
Why don't you go back and actually read my response instead of going off on me? Or are people not allowed to point out things you hadn't considered without being instantly dismissed as 'ranting'?
Given that you remain in foaming mode, no thanks. You seem to have missed the point in my original question.
And yet, you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was simply joking and, I note, leaping to his defense.
"Leaping to his defense?"
You keep making things up. Try this on for size: if you can recognize a dog chewing on a bone as a dog chewing on a bone, you are not defending a dog, you are pointing out the obvious.
Which you apparently need done, given your knee jerk reaction to Rush ... which I am guessing is part of how he makes his money.
PS: if you are looking for the term, your Chelsea Clinton insertion into this topic is called a red herring. No, that is not me calling Chelsea Clinton a herring, in case the foam on your specs is causing you reading problems.
PPS: Back to the OP, if Dorian's analysis is right, and Rush is getting jealous of all the attention being lavished on Beck, which may mean less on him, then I am much amused.
He who lives by the attention whoring, dies by the attention whoring. It gets Funnier the more I think of it.
DR
I don't know why you chose to characterize my response to your question as a "mini-rant" or "responding to troll bait", but it was a legitimate answer to the question of whether or not Limbaugh was serious.
