"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity..." Bad grammar, Rush! (better would be: 'I have illustrated the absurd with the absurd', since the two elements are semantic equals, one "illustrating" the other) (the sentence continues, however, and the grammatical error is somehow rendered negligible the ensuing flow of things. I don't know how he does it but I do not dispute he is good at what he does. I should know: when I lived in the right-wing double wide for ten weeks, this was 2004, I head him on the radio every single day, right through the wall, from the right-wing ex-Marine's room next to mine. I never got tired of it. He was just plain good somehow.)
Forced to actually say something not scripted and packaged, this is how RL opened his apology, this according to Huff Post. I think that not only has he for years answered the absurd with the absurd but I suppose he also answered idiocy with idiocy. And I suppose he answers hate with more hate. This is not terrifically impressive, Mr. L.
Next: " In this instance, I chose the wrong words..."
Meaning what, if anything? That he is "sorry," I guess. He was not smart enough to have seen the issue that was looming? He wishes to have been a better word picker? But in only this case? The meaning of words is not really his concern. Ask yourself what meaning is there, which is to say, to the Limbaugh word ----- is there any actual meaning to anything he says, meaning semantically? Not really: RL's words have never meant anything, in the sense, that is to say, of logic, or rationality. It's not there. Limbaugh's "meaning" is not semantic meaning. It is rather that he is communing with them, with the audience. And, as I said above, parenthetically, I do know about it because I have really, really listened to his show(s. many). But in this case he gave himself away. He has as having become a nasty person, to say the least. And this is the problem here. There is nothing here related to what it means (ah, there is "meaning" again) to say: "I apologize."
There is something you cannot take back or apologize or change, which is the fact that you have become a nasty human being. What happened to him? For a long time, he spoke to people over the radio. (In his words, posted on the same Huff post, "...three hours a day, five days a week...") He addressed his "ditto-head" (that is his term, b.t.w.) constituency, who bonded with his voice. It is the human capacity for feeling that is involved here. They identified with him spiritually, if you will; they did not actually listen to the meaning. (Again, here "meaning" is in the sense of the meaning of the words, or of the logic, the semantic, the grammatical --- not the overall or felt meaning) ----- What happened? I asked that, didn't I? I think the man finally in the end became a bastard cut off from the rest of humanity. Real sad.
Next: "In my monologue, I posited [not to be picky or anything, but "posited" does not sound quite right here, don't you agree? ... ah, but I forget: we are not having dialogue here] that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom..."
OK. None. Whatsoever.
And that's why you wanted to see the tapes, right?
My opinion is that the dude don't make no kinda sense. But, anyway...
Limbaugh has never had to answer for himself before. He was brilliant. But one-way. The traffic was all one way. There's a lesson in that, somewhere.
I don't know what, figure it out; use the link I copied. Read it for yourself. RL said, in his own words, in this same statement as I read on the Huff, and the statement that I just quoted from, that what he is involved in "monologue." But in this case he may have been forced, against the brick wall as it were, to for the first time do dialogue. Which, it seems, is different from stand up. He has never had to have a dialogue with anybody --- ever, it would seem to me, in his career.