Rush Limbaugh

[KSB2424 3,174]

Disclaimer: I have never heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I don't listen to political radio. To be honest I really don't know much about the guy except what is in the media; that he is an ultra conservative talk radio host and people always say he is crazy.

 

Flipping though the channels I saw a news program that was discussing the whole Rush speech at the Repub convention the other day. They showed a good portion of the speech. If you looked past some of his over the top gestures, everything he said made perfect sense. I didn't see anything in the speech that was a cause for all the publicity by the media and/or the left.

 

So my question is: What is the big deal with this guy? He made some compelling points and didn't come off as a wacko at all to me. What is all the fuss about? Seriously.

[AsimoV 0]

Disclaimer: I have never heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I don't listen to political radio. To be honest I really don't know much about the guy except what is in the media; that he is an ultra conservative talk radio host and people always say he is crazy.

 

Flipping though the channels I saw a news program that was discussing the whole Rush speech at the Repub convention the other day. They showed a good portion of the speech. If you looked past some of his over the top gestures, everything he said made perfect sense. I didn't see anything in the speech that was a cause for all the publicity by the media and/or the left.

 

So my question is: What is the big deal with this guy? He made some compelling points and didn't come off as a wacko at all to me. What is all the fuss about? Seriously.

 

That fuss is just the unreasonable left-wing destroying the reputations of folks who disagree with them. They live for that stuff.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

People like to bash the guy...but he's not all that bad. His arrogance is what drives the left nuts, apparently they haven't figured out that Rush is arrogant, because he enjoys the fact that it drives the left nuts. I like him for that, and alot of the stories he reports on are never touched by the mainstream media. He is good at getting the word out on things others ignore....but that comes with a heavy bias.

 

The main thing I don't like is...he's just extremely close minded. The Repubs are ALWAYS right. The Dems are ALWAYS wrong. Sometimes there is a grey area...but to Rush there is not.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

That fuss is just the unreasonable left-wing destroying the reputations of folks who disagree with them. They live for that stuff.

 

Sure, like calling Obama Osama, or calling people communists, or... oh wait, that's the right.

[jerryskids 7,251]

Disclaimer: I have never heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I don't listen to political radio. To be honest I really don't know much about the guy except what is in the media; that he is an ultra conservative talk radio host and people always say he is crazy.

 

Flipping though the channels I saw a news program that was discussing the whole Rush speech at the Repub convention the other day. They showed a good portion of the speech. If you looked past some of his over the top gestures, everything he said made perfect sense. I didn't see anything in the speech that was a cause for all the publicity by the media and/or the left.

 

So my question is: What is the big deal with this guy? He made some compelling points and didn't come off as a wacko at all to me. What is all the fuss about? Seriously.

He is more popular than all liberal talk shows combined, and the left doesn't like that. So they dismiss anything he says, and anyone who listens to him, even tho most of them have never listened to him. HTH

[posty 2,867]

Everything he said made perfect sense.

 

This is a very true statement...

 

BTW, how long until the Democrat backers here come in and start calling him Limblob and other names and bring up his past painkiller addiction and so forth...

[NorthernVike 2,113]

Sure, like calling Obama Osama, or calling people communists, or... oh wait, that's the right.

 

 

TBBohmy, you have got to be the easiest fish in the sea to catch. Try just sniffing the bait some times

[KSB2424 3,174]

Sure, like calling Obama Osama, or calling people communists, or... oh wait, that's the right.

I think we all know both sides get a little out of hand. But to my oringinal point, when they cut to the the speech I remember thinking to myself "I get to see what wacko comments he made and what the big deal is about this guy". Then afterwards I was like .

 

All he talked about was his philosophical differences with liberals, like the war on poverty that has been going on forever. The US gov't constantly gives the poor things, but poverty doesn't go away. The poor only become more reliant on the gov't instead of reliant on themselves. The old "give a man a fish and he will eat for a night, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime" mantra.

 

It was philosophical differences, but that is expected. I just didn't understand why he is considered a wacko?

[Uh-huh 0]

This is a very true statement...

 

BTW, how long until the Democrat backers here come in and start calling him Limblob and other names and bring up his past painkiller addiction and so forth...

Slow day in the fast food business?

[surferskin 31]

You should give him a listen, KSB. Of course he's not a wacko or a racist or what the left says to discredit him. He's the #1 enemy...there's not doubt they're going take shots at him whenever they can. Listen and find out for yourself...especially if you enjoyed his speech.

 

 

The Repubs are ALWAYS right

 

Also, this isn't even close to true.

[surferskin 31]

This is a very true statement...

 

BTW, how long until the Democrat backers here come in and start calling him Limblob and other names and bring up his past painkiller addiction and so forth...

My guess is as soon as wiffle can wipe the powdered sugar and grease off his keyboard.

[wiffleball 4,799]

I saw bits and pieces of this. What I don't understand is why the GOP (Rush) feels the need to villify intelligence. He kept sniffing off republican "Intellectuals" as somehow being a bad thing. - And encouraging the GOP to embrace so called "Nascar Republicans".

 

 

Now, I don't know if Nascar fans are ALL stupid, but apparently that's what Rush is alluding too. Honestly, they tried this: Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin - guess what happened? FIVE MILLION Republican voters LEFT THE PROCESS entirely. - They didn't vote at all! When you lose by 7+Million votes, that's something you might want to look at.

 

I agree with Colin Powell when he basically said that yes, Rush and his ilk rile the base, but by and large the majority of Americans (whether you like it or not) are massively turned off by this kind of bumper sticker / rile the masses "he's a muslim socialist!" "I hope he fails!" bullshiit. The last election proved it.

 

Look, I'm a Conservative. I agree with George Will (founder of the movement), most of what William Kristol says - the majority of leading conservatives in America. But right now, the GOP has been hijacked by the lowest common denominator. - And it cost them the election.

 

I'm really disappointed. I had hoped that the GOP would have to fail miserably in order to wake up. They did the first part, but not the second. You've got JTP, Rush and Culter as the leading voices in your party right now. - While guys like Jindal fail miserably. I think it's the wrong direction.

 

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He flunked out of every course he took in College. There's a reason why he's so anti-intelligence. It's easy to throw spitballs from the peanut gallery - when your audience isn't that bright in the first place. In turn, it's easy to make your (largely uneducated white male) audience feel better about themselves by trashing everyone who is smarter and more successful than them. That's not new. The Klan did that. Jesse and Al do that. - All for the same purpose - to make money. Limbaugh is very successful in that regard. But when you have a retard who flunked EVERY SINGLE COURSE in college, when you have Sean Hannity who barely made it through High School - as the leading voices in your party - it's not a good thing.

 

Like him or not, I'm not going to debate. I think he's a master at what he wants to accomplish. Even he has said "Hey look, I don't have to be RIGHT - I just have to rile the masses." He's PT Barnum. - And great at it.

 

But that's not who want running your party. Leastwise, that's what 5 Million voters said last time.

[surferskin 31]

Right on queue.

 

Look, I'm a Conservative.

 

[Brad GLuckman 519]

The Repubs are ALWAYS right

 

Also, this isn't even close to true.

 

From the time I listened to him, this is the vibe I get. If, in Rush's eyes, the Repubs are wrong...it's because they are not far enough to the right on an issue.

 

ie: McCain

[Uh-huh 0]

Look, I'm a Conservative. I agree with George Will (founder of the movement), most of what William Kristol says - the majority of leading conservatives in America. But right now, the GOP has been hijacked by the lowest common denominator. - And it cost them the election.

 

...

 

Like him or not, I'm not going to debate. I think he's a master at what he wants to accomplish. Even he has said "Hey look, I don't have to be RIGHT - I just have to rile the masses." He's PT Barnum. - And great at it.

George Will is the founder of the conservative movement?

 

Rush is laughing all the way to the bank each time he takes the right-wing suckers for a ride. Good for him.

[NorthernVike 2,113]

I'm really disappointed. I had hoped that the GOP would have to fail miserably in order to wake up. They did the first part, but not the second. You've got JTP, Rush and Culter as the leading voices in your party right now. - While guys like Jindal fail miserably. I think it's the wrong direction.

 

 

I had hear the Jay wanted out of Denver, but I had no idea that it was that bad

[surferskin 31]

From the time I listened to him, this is the vibe I get. If, in Rush's eyes, the Repubs are wrong...it's because they are not far enough to the right on an issue.

 

ie: McCain

Well, that's different that saying the Repubs are always right. Yeah, he's a conservative...so he's definitely not going to agree with guys like McCain and Arlen Specter all the time. That's being consistent.

[listen2me 23 1,977]

I agree with Wiff in the sense he does a good job at what he looks to accomplish. Give him credit for that. Overall I don't think he helps his party as much as he hurts it.

 

He is a goofball, but that is what he wants. Even people who do not like him will stop and listen for a few minutes. People are drawn to over the top people. Why was TO on ESPN everyday for a while? Enough people will stop and watch him, thats all TO wants.

[posty 2,867]

Well, that's different that saying the Repubs are always right. Yeah, he's a conservative...so he's definitely not going to agree with guys like McCain and Arlen Specter all the time. That's being consistent.

 

Hannity says that all the time, that he is a conservative and has those ideals and bashes the Republicans for moving away from this...

[KSB2424 3,174]

But that's not who want running your party.

I don't understand this either. Rush is a radio talk show host. He is like a celebrity. BUT he is not a politician and is not running for congress, senate, govener, nor the POTUS. So this sentiment is complexing to me.

 

Is Bill Maher or Michael Moore "running" the Democratic party too? Are they not just liberal media guys that have liberal ideals and are on the radio, or tv, and movies in their cases?

 

Same difference, different party.

[KSB2424 3,174]

He is a goofball, but that is what he wants.

See this is the part that didn't translate to me after watching the speech. Was some of his hand waving and fist pumping a little much? Sure But, what he said was far from goofy in my opinion. He didn't come across as a wacko at all.

[surferskin 31]

See this is the part that didn't translate to me after watching the speech. Was some of his hand waving and fist pumping a little much? Sure But, what he said was far from goofy in my opinion. He didn't come across as a wacko at all.

He's on right now...

 

His show is pretty funny sometimes and it's not because he's a "goofball". He's definitely got a good sense of humor and he is a good entertainer.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

II'm really disappointed. I had hoped that the GOP would have to fail miserably in order to wake up. They did the first part, but not the second. You've got JTP, Rush and Culter as the leading voices in your party right now. - While guys like Jindal fail miserably. I think it's the wrong direction.

 

Jindal failed miserably...why? Because he gave a bad speech?

 

Is that your definition of success? How well someone reads a teleprompter? No wonder you're infatuated with Obama.

[KSB2424 3,174]

He's on right now...

 

His show is pretty funny sometimes and it's not because he's a "goofball". He's definitely got a good sense of humor and he is a good entertainer.

The reason I have never heard him really before is that I don't like to have the radio on in my office. It is sort of frowned upon, especially something political as I work in a large corporate environment. We can't even say Merry Christmas around here, we got to say Happy Holidays instead.

 

My next day off, I might check him out a little more to see what all the fuss is about.

[wiffleball 4,799]

I don't understand this either. Rush is a radio talk show host. He is like a celebrity. BUT he is not a politician and is not running for congress, senate, govener, nor the POTUS. So this sentiment is complexing to me.

 

Is Bill Maher or Michael Moore "running" the Democratic party too? Are they not just liberal media guys that have liberal ideals andare on the radio/tv/ and movies in their cases?

 

Same difference, different party.

 

Not even close to the same difference.

 

Nobody's listening to Moore of Maher. They're not getting live airtime. They're not commanding massive crowds. Obama is clearly the leading voice of the Democratic party. - Not just the leader, the leading voice. On the flip side, you've got what you said - a radio talk show host - addressing the GOP's largest PAC and being aired on CNN/FOX live like he's the President. Jindal didn't even get that kind of airtime. It's bizarre.

 

Look at the environment right now: You had Joe the Plumber actually addressing the GOP's Congressional Working Group on financial matters. No kidding. You've got Limbaugh driving the GOP agenda through CPAC, telling millions of voters to try to shiitcan McCain (it worked - maybe not for the reasons he hoped).

 

Face it, there's no one Republican right now is THE leading voice of the GOP like Rush is. Not Jindal, Huck, Romney. His numbers are driving politicans to lean toward whatever he says - simply so Rush doesn't call them out when they're not "RIGHT" enough for his tastes.

 

It's a bad phenomenon for the party when like you said, he's not a politician - he's not held accountable - he can say what he wants - influence party policy, political candidates - yet has absolutely no accountability for accuracy, no requirement to provide legislation nor substantive policy.

 

I'd be saying the same thing if Mike Moore somehow commanded the kind of power that Rush has on the right right now. It's just a bad idea.

[Uh-huh 0]

His show is pretty funny sometimes and it's not because he's a "goofball". He's definitely got a good sense of humor and he is a good entertainer.

 

This is funny?

One of the things that is totally erroneous about me -- and I just want to get this up front -- is that I'm pompous. [Laughter] And that I am arrogant. Neither of these things are remotely true.

 

I can tell you a joke to illustrate this.

 

Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He's greeted by Saint Peter at the gates.

 

Saint Peter says, "Welcome, Mr. King, it's great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what's here, maybe you can pick a place that you'd like to reside."

 

King says, "I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?"

 

"No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King." So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says "Rush Limbaugh."

 

And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: "I thought you said he wasn't here." "He said, he's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."

 

So you see I'm not pompous.

[wiffleball 4,799]

Jindal failed miserably...why? Because he gave a bad speech?

 

Is that your definition of success? How well someone reads a teleprompter? No wonder you're infatuated with Obama.

 

No, we've been through this Brad. Visit the thread if you want. Not doing this again. Even Fox said he failed at his first attempt to be the new leading voice of the party. Most conservatives did too. If you disagree, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that Rush's voice right now is FAR more influential in the GOP than Jindal's - and his botched attempt didn't help in that regard whatsoever.

[Uh-huh 0]

I'd be saying the same thing if Mike Moore somehow commanded the kind of power that Rush has on the right right now. It's just a bad idea.

No, it's more like a bad joke.

 

I wonder if Rush gets money under the table from the DNC?

[KSB2424 3,174]

Not even close to the same difference.

 

Nobody's listening to Moore of Maher. They're not getting live airtime. They're not commanding massive crowds. Obama is clearly the leading voice of the Democratic party. - Not just the leader, the leading voice. On the flip side, you've got what you said - a radio talk show host - addressing the GOP's largest PAC and being aired on CNN/FOX live like he's the President. Jindal didn't even get that kind of airtime. It's bizarre.

 

Look at the environment right now: You had Joe the Plumber actually addressing the GOP's Congressional Working Group on financial matters. No kidding. You've got Limbaugh driving the GOP agenda through CPAC, telling millions of voters to try to shiitcan McCain (it worked - maybe not for the reasons he hoped).

 

Face it, there's no one Republican right now is THE leading voice of the GOP like Rush is. Not Jindal, Huck, Romney. His numbers are driving politicans to lean toward whatever he says - simply so Rush doesn't call them out when they're not "RIGHT" enough for his tastes.

 

It's a bad phenomenon for the party when like you said, he's not a politician - he's not held accountable - he can say what he wants - influence party policy, political candidates - yet has absolutely no accountability for accuracy, no requirement to provide legislation nor substantive policy.

 

I'd be saying the same thing if Mike Moore somehow commanded the kind of power that Rush has on the right right now. It's just a bad idea.

Interesting veiwpoint. It makes me think of a question:

 

Do you think one of the reasons for Rush's big success (especially recently) is also attributed to the likes of Obama actually taking the time to pubically comment against Rush. This only gives Rush publicity and credibility. Wouldn't it be in Obamas/Emanuels better judgement to just ignore him, as commenting on him just validates Rush?

[wiffleball 4,799]

Interesting veiwpoint. It makes me think of a question:

 

Do you think one of the reasons for Rush's big success (especially recently) is also attributed to the likes of Obama actually taking the time to pubically comment against Rush. This only gives Rush publicity and credibility. Wouldn't it be in Obamas/Emanuels better judgement to just ignore him, as commenting on him just validates Rush?

 

Yes. Absolutely. I completely agree.

 

And think about it - They're not countering a leading GOP politicians' voice - why?

 

Because there is none.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Because there is none.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing right now. There is still time to find one as the last election just ended. I think by not having a singular "leader" in the party is because the Repubs are doing a self assessment. They are taking inventory of where and why they got away from the true conservative roots. I think once the time for party reflection is over a so called "voice" will emerge.

[FranksTanks 0]

It’s about time people started defending the likes of rush! If only he had been around the last 8 years sticking up for conservatism the republicans would have never lost their ways.

I’m sure his fresh approach to politics is just what the American people are craving right now.

 

We need more quotes like this to get the country on track and heading in the right direct.

 

“To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them.” - Rush, CPAC

 

Thank you for stepping up to save the republican party Rush. A true American hero!

 

[wiffleball 4,799]

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing right now. There is still time to find one as the last election just ended. I think by not having a singular "leader" in the party is because the Repubs are doing a self assessment. They are taking inventory of where and why they got away from the true conservative roots. I think once the time for party reflection is over a so called "voice" will emerge.

 

Man, I sure hope so. What worries me though, is the fact that their re-assessment involves these kind of get togethers - where Rush and others like him are th leading speakers. - Not Senate & House leaders, but radio hosts & tv commentators. - Scary.

 

Think about when Clinton was in office. Even though the GOP was out of office, you darn sure knew that Newt was the voice, the leading direction of that party.

 

Not that I'm a huge fan of Newt ("I got better!"), but at least the dude held public office, was accountable & intelligent.

 

I'm sure not seeing any new up and comers (just the SOS) in the GOP, but like you said, they've got time.

 

ETA: The only bad thing is, if an up and comer does come out - and is neutral enough to take on Obama, he's immediately shouted down by the like of Rush.

[KSB2424 3,174]

“To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them.” - Rush, CPAC

But this quote has credence. I have been thinking the same thing and I am no crazed talk show host. It is easy for the Democrats to yell "Bipartisanship" from the mountain tops because they own all branches of the gov't. If you disagree with their agenda then you are not being bipartisan. That would mean totally disregarding your political ideals. The conumdrum is obvious.

 

In reality, biparisanship would mean the dems actually hearing out repub ideas and taken seriously. Which, lets be honest, is not happening. Thus this "bi-partisanship" is a one way street.

 

ETA: That is why even though you quote that saying by Rush, like in my original post, I don't see why that is a wacky satement at all. It actually makes sense.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

No, we've been through this Brad. Visit the thread if you want. Not doing this again. Even Fox said he failed at his first attempt to be the new leading voice of the party. Most conservatives did too. If you disagree, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that Rush's voice right now is FAR more influential in the GOP than Jindal's - and his botched attempt didn't help in that regard whatsoever.

 

No I'm going to agree, the speech was bad. I didn't see the whole thing, but from what I saw it was a joke.

 

My point is that does not make him a failure. That may make his speech a failure, but the guy had a 77% approval rating in April '08. I've looked on google, and couldn't find anything more recent. But I would consider that a success. I would consider his actual job performance more of an indicator of his success than I would one speech.

[wiffleball 4,799]

No I'm going to agree, the speech was bad. I didn't see the whole thing, but from what I saw it was a joke.

 

My point is that does not make him a failure. That may make his speech a failure, but the guy had a 77% approval rating in April '08. I've looked on google, and couldn't find anything more recent. But I would consider that a success. I would consider his actual job performance more of an indicator of his success than I would one speech.

 

Yeah, I think we're both cool. I wasn't referring to his job performance as a failure - he's actually done incredibly well. That's why I had such high hopes for him. I was just talking about vying to be the leading voice of the party - they handed him the opportunity - and he kinda botched it. - But that doesn't mean he's a bad leader or that he can't turn it around.

 

You've got JTP, Rush and Culter as the leading voices in your party right now. - While guys like Jindal fail miserably. I think it's the wrong direction.

 

 

- Badly worded on my part.

[wiffleball 4,799]

Interesting timing - Just got this off of Fox.

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Two days after calling Rush Limbaugh a mere "entertainer" with an "incendiary" talk show, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele apologized and acknowledged the radio commentator as a "national conservative leader."

 

"To the extent that my remarks helped the Democrats in Washington to take the focus, even for one minute, off of their irresponsible expansion of government, I truly apologize," Steele said late Monday.

 

Steele's statement capped a remarkable weekend of awkward sparring between Republican officials and Limbaugh, who has repeatedly voiced his desire that President Barack Obama's economic policies fail.

 

The back and forth reached a fever pitch Monday afternoon when Limbaugh roared back in response to a Steele interview with CNN's D.L. Hughley Saturday night. In that interview, Steele rejected assertions that Limbaugh was the "de facto" leader of the GOP. "Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment," Steele said then. "Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."

 

Limbaugh used his Monday talk show to unleash on Steele.

 

"Why are you running the Republican Party?" Limbaugh asked on his radio show. "Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? ... I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit."

 

The infighting between a top party official and a conservative opinion leader with an audience of more than 20 million developed into a distracting episode for a party struggling to compete with a popular president and find its voice as the opposition party.

 

"I respect Rush Limbaugh, he is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice," Steele said in a statement late Monday. "I'm sure that he and I will agree most of the time, but will probably disagree some as well, which is fine.

 

Chairman Steele's reversal this evening and his apology to Limbaugh proves the unfortunate point that Limbaugh is the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama's agenda in Washington," Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Monday evening

[kilroy69 1,274]

I would like Rush to play a game of reverse Russian Roulette. If he survives god really does like him.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Yeah, I think we're both cool. I wasn't referring to his job performance as a failure - he's actually done incredibly well. That's why I had such high hopes for him. I was just talking about vying to be the leading voice of the party - they handed him the opportunity - and he kinda botched it. - But that doesn't mean he's a bad leader or that he can't turn it around.

- Badly worded on my part.

 

 

I guess I know what you're saying, especially with your comment on Newt from above (Even though I like Newt). There is no leader in the party, and it scares me to see Palin so high on "Presidential Hopeful Polls"...right behind Romney.

 

But I think after getting hit hard in this past election, Repubs are trying to find an identity that can connect with the American people again, and gain back their trust. That will take time just to do that, but once that happens, they will find voices to lead the party. To me it looks like they are going for the "fiscal responsibility" tag....which I would be ecstatic with if they:

• Won some seats in future elections
  
• Actually followed through
  

But we'll see I guess

[posty 2,867]

I still don't know why the Democrats are getting all upset over him, he is preaching to the choir and the amount of people that he converts from a Democrat to Republican is probably very minimal...