According to Rushbo, that is:

This is almost like, ‘I don’t give a damn, the country’s going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here.’ [Sanford] had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn’t want any part of it; he lost the battle. He said, ‘What the hell. I mean, the federal government’s taking over — what the hell, I want to enjoy life.’ …

The point is, there are a lot of people whose spirit is just — they’re fed up, saying, ‘To hell with it, I don’t even want to fight this anymore, I just want to get away from it.’

Why does Limbaugh think this is true? Because Sanford’s affair “defies logic,” because his actions made no sense. Therefore, logically, Barack Obama caused Mark Sanford to have sex with an Argentinean.

Logical! Mr. Spock would be proud. Never mind that the affair started before Obama took office, and probably before Obama was even elected.

But this is not surprising, as conservatives tend to see cause-and-effect as this incredible thing that links whatever they don’t like to all the bad in the world (the economy under Bush? All Clinton’s fault!), or, contrarily, whatever they do like to all the good in the world (the Soviet Union falling? Reagan’s magnificent oratory!).

But they have a special talent for linking liberalism to any and all of the world’s ills. Tom Foley? Liberalism! Virginia Tech shootings? Liberalism! Catholic priests molesting boys? Liberalism! 9/11? Liberalism! I’m not making these up, folks.

As an example of how tenuous a connection can be sure-fire proof for conservatives, remember how this guy tried to blame the recent economic collapse on secularism (which, of course, is in lockstep with liberalism), based upon nothing more than the idea that a few business started using the expression “Happy Holidays” instead of Merry Christmas.

The reasoning is all the same: Liberalism (or its agents) are destroying everything, thus causing people to lose their morals, thus causing everything bad.

What can I say? The calculus is undeniable.