He did. Multiple times. For example:
What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
But forget about calling her a slut. Given that Fluke never discussed her own sex life or contraception, what was the basis for this statement by Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke is
"a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."
Immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life? Fluke never described her own life. Fluke never said she wanted 'all the sex in the world.'
Rush didn't just miss the bulls-eye on this on, or the target. He missed the wall and the dart hit the floor.
What’s the point of this thread? Is this like the third or fourth time you’ve posted this “analysis”?
Rush was discussing her testimony, not her personal life. He then asked the logical question about her testimony.
Fluke never specifically said who she was referring to. She was very dishonest about that. No one had authorized her to speak on their behalf. No other women were identified. Fluke said $3000 for contraception was as much as she herself made in one summer. She said women at Georgetown are suffering because they can not afford contraception. She did not specifically include or exclude herself from the women she said she was talking about.
Rush was commenting on her testimony, not the personal life of this 30 year old law student. The MSM coverage avoids all the specifics of Fluke’s testimony.
The point is Fluke’s testimony was dishonest and probably perjury. Rush commented on her testimony and it was taken out of context.