Rush's most recent episode of bizarre idiocy starts (as so many of them do) with the statement, "I have an observation."

"Jackson's success paralleled the rebound of the United States under Ronaldus Maximus [n.b. his pet name for Ronald Reagan].  His biggest successes took place in the 80s. […]  He flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, and died under Obama." 

Rush praises Jackson as "a supreme individual, not a member of a group," and draws parallels between his career and the state of America.

The first thing that strikes me about this statement is "languished under Bush."  Did Rush really say that?  Did he really hook Jackson's career to the state of America, then say "languished under Bush"?  Both Bushes, and both tenures, by the way, which Rush refers to with the (apparent) collective noun, "Bush."

Rush is obviously having a bit of fun with this, but I wonder if he wants to take that part back.  One of Rush's most staunchly held truisms is that both Bushes have been practically the second coming of Christ for this country.  Bush Senior the most, of course, although he was also an outspoken advocate for George W. 

That's the biggest "Did he really say that?" for me.  Naturally, he uses Jackson's death to condemn the Obama administration, even if only tongue in cheek.  One presumes that he doesn't actually feel that the existence of a black President in the White House was in any way responsible for Michael Jackson's death.  Nevertheless, that is what he says. 

This is an excellent example in a nutshell of one of Rush's favorite logical fallacies: correlation does not imply causation.    This is easy to see in a statement like, "The last time I clipped my fingernails, the power went out."  It's not as easy to identify in sweeping political statements, but it's still there if you look.