When the left gets Limbaugh off the air...

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Tilted

As I indicated, it has been a long time since I heard Limbaugh, so I may have little clue what he does now. But, generally speaking, I don't think people like Limbaugh influence many people to change their stances on issues. I think their effect on the political landscape is marginal. It doesn't much matter if he is correct, or even if he makes his argument well. Those that agree with him, agree with him - and those that don't, don't like him and aren't going to give credit to his position, no matter how well it is supported.

Generally, I think that's true, especially if you're a political hack who rehashes the same talking points, show very little ingenuity and can't argue your way out of a paper bag. Occasionally, both Limbaugh and Hannity take ALL of their daily stuff straight off of Drudge, and it shows. On those days when I happen to tune in, I tend to tune out.

But Rush is very, very good at reading between the lines, and he's an unflappable debater. He's not the intellectual that Buckley was, but he can connect the dots as well as he could. For example, I recall a few years ago, there was a bit about how the Bush administration hadn't set aside enough flu vaccine, and we were rushing to get some from overseas. It seemed that there weren't any manufacturers of flu vaccine on our shores, anymore.

Now this is from memory, mind you, but I recall Rush saying online, boy why does this remind me of something? Yep, here it is - back in the early days of Clinton health care, the Clinton administration had decided that to make vaccine more affordable, they were going to limit the amount of profit that could be made by American companies. So what happened? Exactly, they STOPPED making it. We have to buy it from abroad not because Bush had done something shortsighted, but almost entirely because the Clintons had done something very ideological but pathologically stupid. They did a typical Democrat thing by saying "let's make something cheap by telling people they can't make much money on it" and overnight, they shut it down.

I thought about his commentary and realized, damn, I remember that too, although it had been a few years. But that was a case of him doing his own work, rather than just regurgitate the news of the hour, which is what lots of people do.

He's usually pretty good at catching people saying and doing things vastly at odds with one another.

Now, I don't always care for his namecalling and mocking. That's just me. It seems to me if you can't make your point with logic, you don't improve it with ridicule. But he's pretty good at what he does and unlike a handful of conservative radio hosts, such as Levin or Liddy - he's hugely vastly entertaining.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

and he's an unflappable debater. .

Not so. He is a HORRIBLE debater. He just doesn't do well with one on one confrontation. He can sit there and make his point all day, but he doesn't do very well, at all, in the give and take of a direct debate. His TV appearances have always been stilted and painful.

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Generally, I think that's true, especially if you're a political hack who rehashes the same talking points, show very little ingenuity and can't argue your way out of a paper bag. Occasionally, both Limbaugh and Hannity take ALL of their daily stuff straight off of Drudge, and it shows. On those days when I happen to tune in, I tend to tune out.

But Rush is very, very good at reading between the lines, and he's an unflappable debater. He's not the intellectual that Buckley was, but he can connect the dots as well as he could. For example, I recall a few years ago, there was a bit about how the Bush administration hadn't set aside enough flu vaccine, and we were rushing to get some from overseas. It seemed that there weren't any manufacturers of flu vaccine on our shores, anymore.

Now this is from memory, mind you, but I recall Rush saying online, boy why does this remind me of something? Yep, here it is - back in the early days of Clinton health care, the Clinton administration had decided that to make vaccine more affordable, they were going to limit the amount of profit that could be made by American companies. So what happened? Exactly, they STOPPED making it. We have to buy it from abroad not because Bush had done something shortsighted, but almost entirely because the Clintons had done something very ideological but pathologically stupid. They did a typical Democrat thing by saying "let's make something cheap by telling people they can't make much money on it" and overnight, they shut it down.

I thought about his commentary and realized, damn, I remember that too, although it had been a few years. But that was a case of him doing his own work, rather than just regurgitate the news of the hour, which is what lots of people do.

He's usually pretty good at catching people saying and doing things vastly at odds with one another.

Now, I don't always care for his namecalling and mocking. That's just me. It seems to me if you can't make your point with logic, you don't improve it with ridicule. But he's pretty good at what he does and unlike a handful of conservative radio hosts, such as Levin or Liddy - he's hugely vastly entertaining.

And, sometimes, even when you can make your point with logic, you silence it by adding ridicule. (Sometimes I add ridicule, but I'm usually aware of its potential effect, and I do it for a specific purpose.)

But, generally I agree with what you said. I don't doubt for one minute that Rush is capable of making good arguments, and finding the compelling argument that was lost on a lot of others.

I think he impassions people that see him as a force for good (I don't necessarily mean purely through emotions - giving people more compelling, stronger arguments can increase their devotion to their positions). But, those that see him as a force for evil, aren't going to be swayed by his strong arguments. Why they see him as a force for evil is fairly irrelevant at this point, it seems that many do. If he just spoke to 'his' audience, and went unnoticed by the 'left', then he could clearly be helpful to his political cause. But, the left has wisely made him a point of emphasis, and turned him into a rallying point for their own passions - so now he can do harm to his political cause as well as help it.

You just don't convince people that you are right, by emphasizing the fact that they are wrong. That reality has to be a side point, that they seem to realize on their own.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

If he just spoke to 'his' audience, and went unnoticed by the 'left', then he could clearly be helpful to his political cause. But, the left has wisely made him a point of emphasis, and turned him into a rallying point for their own passions - so now he can do harm to his political cause as well as help it.

You just don't convince people that you are right, by emphasizing the fact that they are wrong. That reality has to be a side point, that they seem to realize on their own.

Good point. However, the core appeal of Limbaugh has been that he was this lone voice fighting back against the mocking and derision and pettiness of the left, unchallenged, for years and years and years.

He taped into a frustration, a market if you will, that was already there; he didn't make it up.

So, you're point is well taken but it is quite the dilemma. The people who want to silence him are quite often either the ones who started this food fight or, at the very least, were supporters of the lefts disdainful views and sure as hell didn't object when the venom was going the way they preferred it goes.

And those people, the true villains in this saga in my opinion, are those who claimed the moral high ground of unbiased journalists and speakers of truths and they struggle to maintain that illusion to this day while Limbaugh ALWAYS makes clear he is partisan as it gets.

And he's just a radio jock. Not Peter Jennings or Rather or Blitzer or Couric et al. Mathews and Olbermann and Maddow and all the rest do not announce that they are biased. Nor does Stewart. Nor Sen. Franken. They all cling to their own integrity while attacking everyone else for having none.

It's not a very inviting offer when those responsible for this huge market for anti left wing commentary wish for the bickering to stop...so that they can continue unchallenged.

There's the problem as I see it.

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nonno

The left doesn't really want LimpBag to go, where else would they get to see 300 lbs. of loose, drug soaked elephant fat juggling up and down behind a mike. Best to get rid of that fat cheeked drama queen Beck. How can you guys stand to watch and listen to that hamster?

And the left has spoken...

Watch Nonno dressed as a woman tell Obama he loves him...

[Nonno]

Originally Posted by chernmax

And the left has spoken...

That's all you got? Took you long enough to get it right!

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nonno

That's all you got? Took you long enough to get it right!

That's all I need!!!

[Nonno]

Republicans who've dared to criticize Rush only to beg for his forgiveness:

Michael SteeleRNC Chairman Michael Steele:

Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

I'm Sorry, Rush
"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh..."

"I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

"I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."


Congressman Phil GingreyCongressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA):

"I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party. "

I'm Sorry, Rush
“I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, [...] that I regret those stupid comments.”


Gov. Mark SanfordGovernor Mark Sanford (R-SC):

"Anybody who wants [President Obama] to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble..."

I'm Sorry, Rush
Sanford’s Communications Director, said that "the governor was not referring to anyone" in particular.

More at: I'm Sorry Rush - Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Good point. However, the core appeal of Limbaugh has been that he was this lone voice fighting back against the mocking and derision and pettiness of the left, unchallenged, for years and years and years.

He taped into a frustration, a market if you will, that was already there; he didn't make it up.

So, you're point is well taken but it is quite the dilemma. The people who want to silence him are quite often either the ones who started this food fight or, at the very least, were supporters of the lefts disdainful views and sure as hell didn't object when the venom was going the way they preferred it goes.

And those people, the true villains in this saga in my opinion, are those who claimed the moral high ground of unbiased journalists and speakers of truths and they struggle to maintain that illusion to this day while Limbaugh ALWAYS makes clear he is partisan as it gets.

And he's just a radio jock. Not Peter Jennings or Rather or Blitzer or Couric et al. Mathews and Olbermann and Maddow and all the rest do not announce that they are biased. Nor does Stewart. Nor Sen. Franken. They all cling to their own integrity while attacking everyone else for having none.

It's not a very inviting offer when those responsible for this huge market for anti left wing commentary wish for the bickering to stop...so that they can continue unchallenged.

There's the problem as I see it.

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. I'm not being critical about what Rush does - I just don't think it is all that effective in a political context. The reason that some of those people you mentioned (e.g. Jennings, Rather, Couric, Mathews) are/were effective, is because they aren't perceived as being as partisan. Their underlying ideologies, their motives, and their agendas aren't quite as obvious to the listener/viewer. So, many listeners are willing to listen to their arguments/information without reflexively discrediting them. They like those people and connect with them, even though they might ideologically differ from them. They don't instantly recognize that their interests are in conflict, so they allow themselves to be influenced.

Yes, I'm saying that doing the right thing (being open, honest and overt) is often different than doing the effective thing (not being open and overt about your agenda, thus getting 'influence access' that you wouldn't have had otherwise). Fundamentally, this is a problem with democracy - there is often a strong conflict between doing the right thing, and doing what works politically (i.e. is politically expedient).

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. I'm not being critical about what Rush does - I just don't think it is all that effective in a political context.

Of course you're being critical! :




However, there's nothing wrong with that, at all. There is a large downside to what Limbaugh does, as you've pointed out. Which is to say how he does it, not the counter points or pointing out of hypocrisy or taking exception to ideas, etc.

It seems to me there is a HUGE market out there for someone who can make intelligent and entertaining points and political analysis without all the vitriol and hostility. This person would, I think, have to have the credibility of being able to take issue with both sides, offer better solutions and still be fun and entertaining.

I'd be curious what would happen to his audience if Rush lost some of the venom he has for the left.

But again, there are shows like Olbermann on the other side that are PURE venom in addition to the onward march of the folks who claim to be objective who are nothing of the sort.

Pretty tough to put down your gun when 10 are pointed back at you.