If you’re a regular On The Record watcher you know that the show frequently begins with a clip from Rush Limbaugh, even though Fox likes to tout host Greta Van Susteren as their liberal commentator. But on Tuesday (7/30/13), On The Record outdid itself with “balancing” Van Susteren’s liberal views: an entire hour of Limbaugh. Given how few questions Van Susteren asked, how she failed to challenge the conservative hate coming out of his mouth, it must have been like Christmas in July for Fox viewers. Think the “fair and balanced” network will be hosting Michael Moore or Jesse Jackson or Randi Rhodes for a full hour of spouting off on prime time? Don’t make me laugh!

Apparently, devoting the hour to Limbaugh wasn't enough. FoxNews.com showcased the segments, too. 

Van Susteren introduced the first segment, which lasted more than 19 minutes, by saying, “In a rare interview, Rush tells us President Obama likes scandals.” Her first “question” to Limbaugh was little more than an invitation to attack Obama over one of her favorite memes: “President Obama says the scandals are phony. Why do you think he says they’re phony? Because he believes it? Or is there a strategy?”

That was also an opportunity for Limbaugh to promote his “Limbaugh Theorem” which Fox has been hyping. 

The theorem is little more than an accusation that American voters ignorantly re-elected President Obama because they like him personally and didn’t pay attention to all those scandals the likes of Fox and their Republican allies have been doing their best to throw at him.

Here is a man whose policies have done great damage to this country (a banner on the screen helpfully repeated that line), policies that have done great damage to the economy, have done great damage to the American culture, to the American psyche. …And what has always amazed me is how he’s not attached to any of it. He has an agenda, he’s been implementing it. But what I call the low-information voters, who voted for him and other Democrats, do not associate Obama’s policies and agenda with the condition of the country. …That’s always befuddled me. I’ve never, never known a president to be immune from economic circumstances in an election as he was in 2012.

Limbaugh continued by saying, “It all became clear" to him after reading a New York Times article (yes, a New York Times article) that said most people disapprove of “the Obama agenda.”

My theory is that Obama has positioned himself as an outsider, not attached to anything that’s happening. What he has made happen, he positions himself as opposed to it and against it, and fighting for everybody else to overcome what he has done. And that’s one of the reasons why the constant campaign. So he doesn’t appear to be governing. So he doesn’t appear to be part of Washington. He appears to have this mysterious, powerful bunch of forces that are opposing him and stopping him from creating jobs. And stopping him from giving people proper healthcare. And stopping him from making their home values go up. And he’s constantly out there fighting it. And he does that by constantly campaigning and never seen to be governing.

There’s plenty you could criticize in President Obama’s governing style. But to accuse him of making up a “mysterious, powerful bunch of forces” blocking him is hardly credible given the Republicans’ obstructionism. Yet Van Susteren sat in rapt silence throughtout as though Limbaugh were some kind of political oracle.