Basically I agree with you, but your wording suggests a point I'd like to discuss.
There are many ways of "supporting" someone. There's nothing wrong with people having sympathy for Rush (though I can't say I have any myself). There's nothing wrong with people continuing to listen to his show, buy his books, or attend his speaking engagements. There's nothing wrong with people expressing their admiration for the admirable qualities that he does have. There's nothing wrong with conservatives continuing to look to him as one of the leaders of their movement.
What I take issue with, is not what I would call "supporting", but "defending", or even more precisely "making excuses for".
The attitude conservatives should take toward Rush, is the one so many of them _claim_ to have toward homosexuals - hate the sin, love the sinner.
I am genuinely surprised at how little "hate the sin" I have seen at FreeRepublic. Those conservatives who do criticize Rush, mostly fret about how the scandal may affect "conservatism". So far I haven't seen one full-throated roar against Rush for hurting _the society_, for endangering our families or our neighborhoods, our "standards of behavior", or "the survivability of the American way of life".
I know the conservatives think the charges of hypocrisy are themselves an insincere political tactic. But I am frankly surprised to find how hypocritical they really are, how little stock they themselve put in the cant of the drug war. That makes it all the more horrifying that they are nonetheless willing to lock people up in its name.
I view that lack of moral condemnation as a positive sign, since there are no reports of anything Rush did to hurt anyone other than himself (unless you include the people he has probably ratted on). Maybe Rush's calamity will eventually lead to a "hate the drug war" mentality.