Will Conor Friedersdorf ever learn? He argues that since Rush Limbaugh has no shame, the people who endorse and support him ought to be shamed:

Shame on him, but that isn’t where it ends. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush ought to be embarrassed that they invited Limbaugh to the White House.  The Claremont Institute, whose work I often respect, ought to be mortified that they sullied their Statesmanship Award by bestowing it upon Limbaugh. Shame on National Review for celebrating one of conservatism’s most controversial figures in a symposium that didn’t even acknowledge his many critics on the right. In it Heather Higgins remarked on “Rush’s long track record of accurate predictions and analyses,” Kathryn Jean Lopez commented on his “graciousness and humility,” Mary Matalin said “he epitomizes what we all aspire to be, both as citizens and individuals,” Andrew McCarthy claims his message is “always” delivered with “optimism, civility, and good humor,” and Jay Nordlinger asserted that “he is almost the antithesis of the modern American, in that he doesn’t whine.” Every last claim is too absurd to satire, let alone defend.

He is right that Limbaugh is shameless and contemptible, but that’s obviously not a problem for the Claremont Institute, National Review and the right-wing in general. Limbaugh looks at the world and sees Us and Them, and consequently he is a very wealthy man.

By the way, I assume that Limbaugh’s latest eruption is the sort of PR nightmare that the NFL was concerned with when they refused to allow him to become an owner a couple of years ago.