Regarding defense #1 and #2, you keep misinterpreting the point, but this is what happens when you regurgitate this approach of taking the most offensive things someone has said (usually in jest) over a thirty year career and judging him on that basis no matter how anomalous they are of his stated beliefs.
The fact is, the same people who are castigating Rush as a racist have no problem sharing the latest racist drivel from Michael Harriot, Neera Tandeen, etc. That's not a "there are people who are worse" defense, that's a highlight of how the outrage is completely selective. Puck made a good point about the guys hypocrisy when it came to addiction-having lived with an addict, they're all hypocrites. It's part of the disease (and I do subscribe to the idea that addiction is a disease). Most non-addicts are hypocrites too.
I understand argument, but I disagree that someone supporting something negative negates their ability to call someone else out on their bullshit. Or better stated, person 2s actions doesn't delegitimize (word?) the actions that person 1 did. Rush still said these things throughout his career.
Its also worth noting, and this is my main point, Michael Harriot, Neera Tandeen, and whomever else, didn't get the Presidential medal of freedom. Rush Limbaugh did.
I'm calling Rush out strictly for the reason of him winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
To further clarify, I, insanity, the one pushing this argument, is not promoting racist rhetoric on one side while also saying Rush is a POS. This argument exists in a vacuum.