I was forced to listen to Rush the other day. I couldn't last through more than an hour, and that included long moments of complete and utter stunned silence.
At one point he congratulated President Bush for his firm, no compromise stand on Iraq, then ten minutes later, made fun of McClain for his firm, no compromise stand on torture. Oh, he complained about the no-torture bit too, but he made pouty baby sounds saying "I'm McClain and I am not going to change my stand no matter what, nyah, nyah". This was 10 minutes after he said, in his deep, respectful, God-like tone, "Today President Bush maintained his strong uncompromising position on..."
My head almost exploded.
But what got me to give up entirely was a comment he made. This was on the day of the Iraqi elections. He was congratulating the entire conservative movement for this success, and telling the world how suicidally depressed every liberal was at that moment.
(I am somewhat liberal. I wasn't depressed. I was excited. Of course, I wasn't using the brave Iraqi voters for a political advantage.)
Then he said, "Just think. If the Liberal's favorite son, Bill Clinton, were still president, these people would not be voting today. What would the world be like if Clinton were still in office?
No Iraqi's would be voting. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. The Rape Rooms would still be open. The murder and torture chambers would still be open. Saddam Hussein would still be expanding his programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Al-Queda operatives would still be using Iraq as a base for rest and funding. The Terror Camps in Northern Iraq would still be training terrorists. The corrupt UN Oil For Food program would still be deverting millions of dollars into his pockets. Saddams maniac sons would still be going around killing and torturing for fun. The families of Palestinean Suicide bombers would still be recieving fat checks from Iraq..."
So many people blame President Bush for a disconnect with reality. They say he doesn't understand the true nature of Iraq, or the war, or terrorism, etc, or that he is purposefully spreading lies about all of that to secure his base.
But it is Rush who is so totally disconnected from the truth, who spins and twists everything into conservative propaganda that drives people into distrusting conservatives in general. He is doing more to wreck conservative credibility than President Bush could ever accomplish.
When I listened to him years ago I thought he was more based on reality, but these rants of his were laughable, if some people didn't believe him. Has he gotten more wild with his accusations as his popularity has fallen?
The scariest part of his whole hate-fest was a call to have other people foot the bill for him sending this propaganda to US soldiers. He is trying to influence our armed forces, as a group. A petty propagandist with wild views of his own importance can be dangerous. One who has the backing of a segment of the military would be the start of a military coup in a smaller country. One who doesn't offer his newsletter to influence the military, but gets his listeners to pay him to send it to them is just, well, laughable.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
After the Democrats lost control of the Presidency and the Congress his career went down hill.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Ahhh, Rush... I tried listenening to him recently (I'm a conservative, but not rabidly so) and I've found a lot of his rhetoric to be just as bad as the negative left-wing rhetoric. It's hard to believe I used to listen to him daily, so many years ago...
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I never liked Rush anyway but I wonder if his reality has changed as a result of his sobriety.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I see, so because you don't listen to him or like, no one should be able to? So much for free speech. Do you have any numbers or proof saying how much his popularity has fallen?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Sobriety changed a person't perception of reality? Might have to try that one day... But seriously, he's always been to the far right, but the far right keeps moving, and he's on the bleeding edge.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
It's harder for him to convince people liberals are responsible for all their troubles when conservatives are running every part of the government. But he'll always have listeners. If anything, I submit his audience is exactly the audience that would tune in to hear what they want to hear, no matter the reality.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:I see, so because you don't listen to him or like, no one should be able to?
You know, I reread all of Dan's post, and I don't see where he said or even implied that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan:
quote:I see, so because you don't listen to him or like, no one should be able to?
You know, I reread all of Dan's post, and I don't see where he said or even implied that.
Like I said.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
DK, I never said people should be forbidden from listening to him. No one has said that, but that is the type of attack response that Rush is famous for giving any critic.
I could see the following conversation: Me: Rush, I think your shoe is untied. Rush: What! Are you saying I am to stupid to tie my own shoes or do you mean that I, being a conservative, don't deserve shoes. You rich pampered liberals are all alike, believing that good hard working people don't deserve shoes if they happen to be conservative. Why, let me tell you........."
And your spring ratings list is a great demonstration of how he continues to trounce liberal talk shows, but it doesn't argue for or against his popularity over time.
I assume that his popularity has gone done because almost nobody talks about him anymore.
I also assume he has become unpopular because of his arguments.
He argues: A) Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong and either a liberal or a moderate.
B) All liberals are evil, cruel, and stupid.
C) All moderates are lazy, apathetic and idiots.
Now I regulary disagree with him, but I am not evil, cruel, lazy or apathetic. That means that he is calling me Stupid or an Idiot. I won't listen to people who call me stupid or idiotic.
As he continues to expand areas of opinion, defining more areas that require total agreement or being called names, more people will realize that they can be conservative and moral and disagree with Rush. Many of those people will not like being called Stupid or Idiots either, and will turn him off for more moderate fare.
Hence, slowly, his ratings will go down.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
Whether you love or hate Limbaugh, his ratings have been higher in the last two years then they have been at any point previous, and he is one of the few talkers to expand their market into new markets.
I don't listen, so no comment from me there. I'm one of those who picked up satellite Radio (SIRIUS) and enjoy it greatly.
However, I would have it a hard time to say "has been" when someone so dominates the marketscape for advertising revenue.
This isn't to justify his politics or anything above, just to comment on the market realities and the arbitron rating books.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I've disliked him every since what he said about Hiroshima. The man positively annoys me, but Hannity is even more annoying. I tried to read some of his books and just couldn't get past the constant freedom and evildoer references.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, if it's any consolation, I find Howard Stern as offensive as Rush and they have about the same ratings, I believe. (around 20 million listeners)
Posted by boogashaga (Member # 8881) on :
I have a novel idea! If you so vehemently hate someone on the public airwaves (that is ANYone, ANYwhere), just turn off the device (or tune it out). Doesn't matter who or where or what it is--just don't listen or watch or read or experience it.
I don't want to have to give any of you mouth-to-mouth if you collapse. And considering what I had for breakfast, you probably wouldn't want it either!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Megan and Lalo, I may have overstated but I was responding to this
quote: The scariest part of his whole hate-fest was a call to have other people foot the bill for him sending this propaganda to US soldiers. He is trying to influence our armed forces, as a group. A petty propagandist with wild views of his own importance can be dangerous. One who has the backing of a segment of the military would be the start of a military coup in a smaller country. One who doesn't offer his newsletter to influence the military, but gets his listeners to pay him to send it to them is just, well, laughable.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
But that says nothing about trying to get him off the air; it just states that he should pay for his own crap.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't listen to Rush. Or Stern. Or Ann Coulter, or Al Franken, or Hannity, or Moore, any of the other commentators that communicate only through ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and scornful name-calling from their position in their various black and white worlds. There's really no point. It would be like getting all of my opinions solely from political cartoons.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
there is a an implication that he shouldn't be on the air because of his views
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, there really isn't. He's slamming Rush for requesting donations. That's pretty much it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
What I like to do for fun sometimes is listen to a right wing commentator then flip around and find a left wing commentator. It's like two completely different events occured
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"A petty propagandist with wild views of his own importance can be dangerous. One who has the backing of a segment of the military would be the start of a military coup in a smaller country."
That sounds a lot more than just slamming someone for requesting donations...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(In reference to comparing commentators) Very true. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I'm sorry if that is what you are hearing DK.
At worst, I am saying you shouldn't listen to him, not because of his views, but because of the techniques he uses to espouse those views.
However, I am not saying that listening to him should be illegal. Its just illogical. I'm not saying that he espouses a bad thing called conservatism, but that the way he espouses is bad for conservatism.
As for the quote you mention, I was thinking more along the lines that any cult that targets the military in particular needs to be watched for national security reasons. I don't care if they are a sect of Communists, Christians, Wiccans or Dittoheads. People in the Military are as free as any American to believe what they want, but groups targeting the military need to be watched.
And I agree that the best solution to the problem is by voting with the radio switch. I turn him off usually.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
He isn't 'targeting' the military at all though. I would disagree with that whole concept. A caller asked him if he could give a gift subscription to any soldier, sailor who wanted one and that is how it all got started. I could argue that no one should listen to Al Franken or James Carville for the reasons you stated about Rush, but I don't because everyone should have a chance to play.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Chris, As purely just a suggestion, I wonder if you could turn something like that into a column? Not just a leftwing / rightwing thing but maybe the concept in general? Sort of a big he said / she said thing? Or maybe a leftwing / right wing thing? Just an idea though, I really enjoy your columns and you come up with very good topics to write about... Wow, I sound like a fanboy Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sadly, my editor prefers I avoid political stuff. I was toying with the idea of doing a "want to be a political commentator? it's easy!" list. It would be easy to do without delving into right wing/left wing examples, but I dunno if he'd let it go by.
We're in an interesting situation. Our newspaper is predominantly Democrat, but my editor is conservative Republican. I'm independent, my coworker is Green Party. We have great office arguments Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
That is pretty much what I was thinking! You could even expand it out to be "want to a (blank) critic?". I'm sure that could work the same way, or maybe even "want to be a column writer?" Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Did some crackpot extremist in your opposition make an outlandishly absurd statement? That must be what all of them think! Attack them all, quick, and be sure to refer to it contantly from this day onwards!"
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Limbaugh is an absolute joke. Limbaugh...
*shudder*
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
The thing with Limbaugh is, I wouldn't listen to him even if I agreed with him. I don't like his bombastic manner. Anyone else who wants to listen to him, be my guest.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think the historical importance of Rush Limbaugh is lost on no one but Rush himself.
He isn't of any historical import. Now if he would just realize it...
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Well, as far as nobody's go, he became a somebody with his radical views, so while he reaps the benefits of that and we all sit here and share our elevated positions, he's making money. Kudos to you Mr. Limbaugh, you've outsmarted me, no matter what your viewpoint is.
Just because you don't like the nature in which he commentates, does not give mean it's trash. It's a matter of opinion. Voice your opinion all you want. Don't expect anyone to listen; and if they do, then you only did it for the same reason as Rush... to solidify your ideals in your own mind.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: What I like to do for fun sometimes is listen to a right wing commentator then flip around and find a left wing commentator. It's like two completely different events occured
I do the same thing sometimes.
It's better than bingo...
almost. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: He isn't of any historical import. Now if he would just realize it...
As much as I find him annoying, I have to disagree with you here. For good or for ill, Rush has redefined talk radio, galvanized the conservative movement in middle America, made a ton of money, and has a way of getting millions of people to accept his opinions as scripture. That has to have poitical ramifications that are long standing.
I think he has a killer sense of humor, even if it is arrogant. I listen occasionally, but his name calling and bad arguement skills make my skin crawl--but he is funny to me.
He has a following. He made Sean Hannity possible. Sean Hannity has a following and gives high political figures a voice, Ie Condie Rice.
Fox news may even owe it's birth to Rush. He has certainly changed the landscape in many ways.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Rush Limbaugh exists to prove that there is no correlation between having a big audience and being right. In the modern American war between ideology and reason, Rush is on the front lines of the side of false rhetoric and pointless political hatred. He stands side-by-side with many liberal extremist counterparts in that regard.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:We're in an interesting situation. Our newspaper is predominantly Democrat, but my editor is conservative Republican. I'm independent, my coworker is Green Party
No libertarians?! Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Silly Erosomniac. Don't you know you're a dying breed?...it's just you and Joe Scarborough. Have fun.
P.S. greetings from big island.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Limbaugh almost made me cry after the hurricane.
We were driving up to Chicago and desperate for news, so we were basically flipping through stations and listening to anything that mentioned New Orleans.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Pffftt...we also have Dave Barry, Howard Stern, Drew Carey, Denis Leary, Robert A. Heinlein, Kurt Russell, not to mention Ted Nugent and TOM SELLECK, BABY!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I vote we bring back the Bull Moose party. TR would have trounced the nitwits we have on the hill today.
Rush is just silly to me. Rush, Coulter, Moore, sometimes Al Franken, they are all the same. Theirs is the business of accusations, bombastic rhetoric, and hate mongering. Above all it's hate mongering.
Rush and Coulter aren't making money unless they convince someone that liberals want to steal your babies in the middle of the night and sacrifice them to the devil. It's vile invective, and it isn't informative, unless they are just trying to inform the world how ridiculous they can get.
Moore is annoying because he actually makes a pretense at being a fact based honest person, when he's well known to have made up tons of his iron clad facts in the documentaries he uses to attack his opponents.
If I had it my way, liberals would stop sniping back at conservatives for giving them a bad name, and I'd have them actually live up to the good name they claim to have, and let that speak for itself as a refutation of conservative claims.
If I had it my way, conservatives would stop calling liberals roadblocks to affairs of state and actually try to reach out to them to solve the problems of the nation, rather then refusing to budge, then claiming liberals are just trying to gum up the works when they actually have reasonable complaints that should be addressed.
Both sides are so busy trying to convince the public that theirs is the best suited party to governor the people that neither side is actually taking the time to make sure we are currently being governed well.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Rush is just silly to me. Rush, Coulter, Moore, sometimes Al Franken, they are all the same. Theirs is the business of accusations, bombastic rhetoric, and hate mongering. Above all it's hate mongering.
Word. Although Al Franken is, at least, funny.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Agreed. Al Franken is funny. Personally, I also think he brings up some really good points. Although I really prefer listening to Randi Rhodes (no, silly, not the late guitarist).
The thing I don't get about some of the conservative pundits - Ann Coulter in particular - is that they seem to have this ridiculous idea that the way to change the minds of those who disagree with them is to insult them and be rude to them. I hate to be the one to tell them, but rudeness is not the way to win friends and influence people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I like Molly Ivans but she doesn't have a radio show to my knowledge. It's just that her books are so funny in a texan way.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
quote:"they [conservatives] seem to have this ridiculous idea that the way to change the minds of those who disagree with them is to insult them and be rude to them"
Littlemiss:
The conservatives who do that learned the tactic from liberals. Liberals perfected the tactic way back in the 60s. My favorate liberal bully tactic , all in the name of free speech, is how they scream down their opponent with rude and insulting words so their conservative opponent can't get in a word edgewise.
This liberal tactic is still widely used at the more "progressive" American college campuses that are big "free speech" advocates.
Krank
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Al Franken is about as funny as a coffin nail. If you are that desperate for a liberal to be funny, at least pick a good one, like George Carlin.
"I've got a brown ribbon....."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The thing I don't get about some of the conservative pundits - Ann Coulter in particular - is that they seem to have this ridiculous idea that the way to change the minds of those who disagree with them is to insult them and be rude to them.
Close. But the thing is this: they're not looking to change their opponents' minds. They're looking to defeat and humiliate their opponents, and change the minds of people on the fence. And, sadly, insulting people is a good way to do this over the short term.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Al Franken is about as funny as a coffin nail. If you are that desperate for a liberal to be funny, at least pick a good one, like George Carlin.
We've clearly been reading different books.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Close. But the thing is this: they're not looking to change their opponents' minds. They're looking to defeat and humiliate their opponents, and change the minds of people on the fence. And, sadly, insulting people is a good way to do this over the short term.
Yeah, Tom, I imagine you're right. It's just that I don't understand that impulse at all. I just can't have much respect for anyone - at any point on the political spectrum - who thinks of humiliation of someone who simply does not believe as they do as either a good tactic or a fun thing to do.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Equating Rush, Coulter, Moore, and Franken is not very accurate. Moore sometimes spouts hate in live appearances, but his main works (his films) attempt to be reason-based (regardless of how far you agree with the arguments he attempts to make.) Franken is a comedian, so despite the fact that he is mostly all rhetoric, his comments mostly end up coming across as jokes. Rush, on the other hand, attacks his opponents in a very serious and very angry manner. And Coulter, I think is worst of all - she seems to be of the view that "liberals" are not even human beings. There are equivalent liberals who think the same about conservatives, but I don't think any at that extreme are as famous as Rush or Coulter.
quote:They're looking to defeat and humiliate their opponents, and change the minds of people on the fence. And, sadly, insulting people is a good way to do this over the short term.
But why can't politicians and pundits undertand that the long term is what matters in ideological wars? Getting your way in the short run only hurts you if it ends up showing how wrong you are in the long run. These people think it is best if their "side" were to win every battle on every issue and every election, but the real truth is that they only benefit in the long run from winning in those instances where they are right. Sometimes they are wrong, and for them it is better to lose on those issues, than win in the short run and end up to blame for disaster in the long run.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)