I believe Limbaugh encouraged donations through the Red Cross rather than donations through the US government. What is being publicized is that he did say not to donate through the government.

Here's what Rush said: (And Ebert's open letter chastising him for saying it)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...NION/100119985

Right. He doesn't trust the government or Obama, and take that for what it is. However, he never said not to send money for Haitian relief.

I don't see how anyone with a straight face and clear conscience could interpret his comments as anything but extreme politicizing and utter douche-baggery. Ebert points out that Limbaugh has basically said that clicking the white house link will mean that your donation is actually being stolen by Obama for his own uses. That's demonstrably untrue, (they just have a link to the official Red Cross site) and a very heavy accusation. That, if true, would get any President tossed right out of office. Indeed, it would be a scandal to make Watergate seem like a hiccup.

Limbaugh also said that we citizens have already given to a Haiti fund, the US tax system. (Har har) This seems, on the face of it, to be discouraging anyone from donating. If anywhere he indicated that this was just a cheap political joke, and that his listeners should actually help out, that's fine. Has he done that?

I do see that Rush's home page now has a link to Haiti assistance efforts - according to liberal sources, he didn't have such a link up yesterday, though every other conservative pundit did. At the time I looked, there were no clarifying comments from Rush making him seem human. I hope i'm wrong about him. But really, his public face so far seems unapologetic, indifferent and proud of it.

I think conservative is a perfectly wonderful thing to be, and I don't demonize my conservative friends and family members. (I try my hardest to own up when liberals fall into d'baggery - though I don't consider myself to be staunchly liberal. I'm very middle-of-the-road in my own mind.) But really, is this guy (Rush) worth defending anymore? Isn't there a limit? As of my current understanding, I rate him Worse Than Pat.

Found this to be an interesting review of the history of Pat Robertson's statement (as I said earlier it wasn't just the spontaneous ravings of an old man speaking extemporaneously) within certain theological circles (which include some parts of Haiti as well.

Though I am still surprised when people express outrage that people who believe in a vengeful god and an omniscient/omnipotent god actually express the belief that events are god's plan. Seems kind of self-evident. Arguing about why that's god's plan is just a form of asking which crazy is less crazy.

I blame the Methodists

Nah... Can't be the Methodists. Coming up with bat sh!t crazy takes too much time away from the golf course.

What it is, is an outrageous accusation, though probably not a serious one - just gasbaggery. But people take him seriously, and if he says that clicking at the government site will funnel your money into Obama's campaign, some people will buy it and go into rage mode on a false belief. At best, this is utterly worthless commentary, and at worst, it carries some real dangers.

Sometimes liberal sources (I'm looking at you Huffington Post) carry things that are misleading, stupid or completely untrue. When that happens (and HP has been a real crapfest lately), I find it embarrasing. It would be refreshing (and smart) to hear rational conservatives knock Rush a little more often. Wow, this paragraph is rambly and pointless. I need to refocus on work.

Oh noes, now Clinton and George W. are trying to steal your money too!