I'm sorry, Rush.

Post #305,038 by Silverlock 3/4/09 8:07:46 AM Reply	I'm sorry, Rush. Ooh, snarky like nobody's business. http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
Post #305,041 by boxley 3/4/09 8:49:52 AM Reply	remember McCarthy? back in the day it was mandatory to kiss his ass. After his fall from grace all partook gleefully in the kicking. Imagine when rushboes ratings drop. Anyone else remember granville?
Post #305,046 by beepster 3/4/09 9:58:45 AM Reply	This is all a game Nobody really cares except the folks that want him off the air...so they'll use all this to support "new rules" about radio content and call it "fairness". All the money in the world can't support liberal talk radio...so in sticking with their motto (all equal in misery) they'll be happy to kill the successful. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,047 by jake123 3/4/09 10:07:06 AM Reply	Ya know the radio announcer/DJ in Rwanda who helped incite the genocide there was very successful too; he had great ratings. Just sayin'. Does this mean I equate Rush with him? No... but the simple fact of great ratings and money making doesn't justify itself absent any other context.
Post #305,049 by boxley 3/4/09 10:18:51 AM Reply	face it Jake if it wasnt for hnic no one would voluntarily watch Canadian television
Post #305,130 by jake123 3/5/09 10:17:28 AM Reply	I'd have to disagree with that Da Vinci's Inquest, Intelligence, The Border... yeah, nobody watched those shows.
Post #305,052 by beepster 3/4/09 10:46:01 AM Reply	So when the US Gov't takes over all radio stations and puts Rush in drive time...we can talk about this being a comparison. Of course the ONLY radio station in the country is going to have good ratings. D'uh. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,065 by mhuber 3/4/09 1:05:41 PM Reply	Some places they de-facto do Armed Forces Radio, in some parts of the world, is pretty much the only English language station around. Don't know if Rush is still on it all the time, though. He was for a while.
Post #305,072 by beepster 3/4/09 1:41:32 PM Reply	Just cut it out it was a silly comparison...no matter how you try and spin it. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,054 by drook 3/4/09 10:47:25 AM Reply	No I care. And I don't give a shit that he's on the air. What pisses me off is that elected officials feel pressured to apologize for daring to point out that Rush hasn't been elected to anything. I'm pissed off at those elected officials, who have no spine. This story isn't about Rush. It's about the Republican party and their willingness to take it up the ass from a talk show host. Bringing up liberal talk radio is a red herring. -- Drew
Post #305,055 by beepster 3/4/09 11:05:28 AM Reply	So don't vote for them. And if those they represent care like you, they'll do the same. He wields no real power. If he did, McCain would NEVER have been the candidate for President. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,057 by Another Scott 3/4/09 11:42:12 AM Reply	He has the power given to him by the Republicans. HTH.
Post #305,073 by beepster 3/4/09 1:45:52 PM Reply	They're not doing it. None of them have called him to leadership. He's got the Dems in a lather. They're doing him a favor and making his ratings even better and calling him the defacto leader. He has no vote. He authors no policy. He establishes no platform. He has a 20M listener audience 3 hours a day. He talks. People listen. Thats it. Anything else bestowed upon his is imagined. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,079 by Another Scott 3/4/09 2:22:12 PM Reply	There weren't too many Democrats at CPAC. *He has no vote. He authors no policy. He establishes no platform.* Neither did Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Anita Bryant or .... Hmmm... The folks at CPAC were Republicans. They're the ones giving Rush the forum. You're almost arguing that Rush is not a political personality. That's sort of like arguing what the meaning of "is" is, isn't it? Cheers, Scott.
Post #305,083 by beepster 3/4/09 3:20:06 PM 3/4/09 3:20:45 PM Reply	No I'm not (and d'uh ^^) You're almost arguing that Rush is not a political personality. That's sort of like arguing what the meaning of "is" is, isn't it? I'm arguing no such thing. I'm stating that Rush is not a politician the same as Keith Olbermann is not a politician. He has no aspirations to be a politician, unlike Robertson. He is a for profit media personality. CPAC likely paid him to be be there. CPAC is not the Republican Party. It is not the House or Senate. The American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill. Edited by beepster March 4, 2009, 03:20:45 PM EST Expand All History
Post #305,086 by drook 3/4/09 3:30:44 PM Reply	Yes you are I'm arguing no such thing. I'm stating that Rush is not a politician the same as Keith Olbermann is not a politician. That's not quite what you said. He has no vote. He authors no policy. He establishes no platform. The first is supposed to be true. It's what a congressman said to start this whole thing. Rush exerted enough pressure to get him to apologize for saying it. So he may not have a vote, but he wields enough influence that the people who do have votes are afraid to say so. The second is mostly true, in the sense that he doesn't write everything down in a fixed form that you can refute point-by-point. The third is absolutely not true. No matter how much you pretend it is. -- Drew
Post #305,090 by beepster 3/4/09 3:36:33 PM Reply	BS. Pure and simple Unless you are telling me that McCain and Rush were trading notes during the campaign. He's a conservative talk show host. Same as Olbermann is a liberal talk show host. If a Democratic platform statement happens to mirror an Olbermann opinion...does this mean Keith is author of the platform? Don't think so. I heard McCain apologize to David Letterman. Does that make Letterman a leader in the Republican Party? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,094 by drook 3/4/09 3:45:12 PM Reply	I'm not talking about the campaign I'm talking about a congressman and the head of the RNC apologizing to him. And if Rush is "same as" Olbermann, can you point me to the instances where a Democratic congressman and the head of the DNC apologized to him? I'll wait ... -- Drew
Post #305,100 by beepster 3/4/09 5:24:08 PM Reply	Why is that such a big deal? Was it about a vote? A policy decision? No. No. Was it about a platform issue? No again. Was it about any pending legislation? No again. Carville and the DNC have you exactly where they want you. Rush is the new GWB. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,111 by Another Scott 3/4/09 7:38:48 PM Reply	You seem to be missing the point. Hint: http://rossdouthat.t...and_olbermann.php [...] Just imagine, for a moment, how conservatives would react if four months after the worst defeat liberalism had suffered in a generation, an Olbermann (or a Moyers or a Michael Moore or a Bill Maher or whomever) showed up to deliver the keynote address at a liberal equivalent of CPAC, and during the course of his speech he blasted every Democrat who disagrees with him as a miserable sell-out, suggested that conservatives are fascists and conservatism a psychosis, lectured the crowd on the irrelevance of policy ideas to liberalism's political prospects, and insisted that the only blueprint liberals need to win elections is the one that Lyndon Johnson used to rout Barry Goldwater. And then further imagine that both before and after this speech, a series of left-of-center politicians ventured criticisms of Olbermann, only to beat a hasty and apologetic retreat as soon as he turned his fire on them. Conservatives would be chortling - and rightly so! Not because liberalism needs to purge or marginalize its Keith Olbermanns, or because impassioned liberal entertainers don't have a place in left-of-center discourse - but because when your political persuasion faces a leadership vacuum, you don't want to have it filled by someone who appeals to an impassioned but narrow range of voters, and whose central incentive is to maximize his own ratings. Remember when National Review ran a cover story about Howard Dean, entitled "Please, Nominate This Man!"? That's how liberals feel about Rush Limbaugh at the moment: They can't get enough of him. I don't see any reason why conservatives should be playing into their hands. Cheers, Scott.
Post #305,119 by beepster 3/4/09 10:13:30 PM Reply	I'm missing that poiint? I hardly think so. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,108 by beepster 3/4/09 5:58:43 PM Reply	And lets look at that apology being spun 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. The Democrats are doing everything they can to find ways to take people's attention off of their massive 36-billion-dollar-a-day spending spree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have embarked on. 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. Hardly an "I'm sorry Rush". More like, "this guys got listeners that help my cause". The apology was to the party for giving the Democrats something to chew on...which he did in spades. But, true to politicians...none of them seem to know when its the right time to just shut up. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,085 by Ashton 3/4/09 3:29:13 PM Reply	..nor Father Coughlan; in the '30's: Our Rwanda propagandist -- sane people also thought. Then, too.. OK he's just a nutzo-blowhard; no intelligent person would be moved by his insane rhetoric. Many Jews et al, in Germany and elsewhere -- for the Longest Time -- also thought, ~ Nahh.. this Schikelgruber loon is just dplaying to his inarticulate, impotent cohorts; he can't possibly-MEAN those hateful incitements! He'd Never Do the idiotic stuff in that book; just the mutterings of a stir-crazed convict, wallowing in his bathos.. Nothing to see here. Words! is all. WTF power has a 'word'? Zzzzzzzzzzz The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Post #305,087 by beepster 3/4/09 3:32:06 PM Reply	Aren't I the one oft accused of falling for the ploy du jour http://www.politico....s/0309/19596.html tap tap tap...cue the woodwinds I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,089 by drook 3/4/09 3:34:34 PM Reply	No one thinks you're dumb enough to fall for it Which is why it's so maddening when you keep repeating it. -- Drew
Post #305,091 by beepster 3/4/09 3:38:48 PM Reply	Me repeating it? I'm not the one calling Rush the leader of the Republican party or claiming that his has some political power. That would be you, my friend. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,093 by drook 3/4/09 3:45:01 PM Reply	Was referring to the "frequently accused" line When you say you are frequently accused of falling for the ploy du jour, that means the Republican ploy, which you are parroting, yes? And I don't think you fall for it. I think it's more accurate to say you often recite the ploy du jour. -- Drew
Post #305,096 by Ashton 3/4/09 3:56:10 PM Reply	(Surely you've known for years.. that Beep was paid under-the-table by er, Admin..? ~~ to stir up the complacent Doves in these parts.) -- but when those funds from the Murican Academy of Sophomoric Chit-Chat ran out -- he just ran with the role. It's a John Galt kinda thing, I wot ... even if ya don't quite pass for Gary Cooper. ;^>
Post #305,101 by beepster 3/4/09 5:26:34 PM Reply	What Republican ploy would that be? Is that the one where they appointed El Rushbo to the head of the party and didn't tell anybody? No, this would be the Democratic ploy this time..the one that has prominent Democrats out there quipping to the media about Rush being the leader of the party, etc...which you seem more than happy to agree with...accurate or not. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,095 by drook 3/4/09 3:48:20 PM Reply	And by the way ... Nobody really cares except the folks that want him off the air Ad hominem. Instead of addressing the issue, you attack the people who raise it. You imply that it's only being said because people want him off the air. I don't care if he's on the air or not. But the people who do want him off, it's because of what he says. So you have the cause and effect exactly backwards. -- Drew
Post #305,102 by beepster 3/4/09 5:31:08 PM Reply	They have an option. Don't listen. Same went for Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, the GreaseMan and all the other shock jocks. And that wasn't an attack. Just a statement. Ad hominem maybe. Attack, no. I've spend plenty of time in this thread addressing the issue as well. Your problem seems to be you don't like my conclusion. Rush is a radio announcer. Full stop. Any power that he is thought to have is imagined. The power is with his >audience<. They vote. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,115 by Andrew Grygus 3/4/09 9:19:02 PM Reply	If that were true . . . . . rabble rousers would be out of business. The listeners have the power to vote. By skillfully playing to his audience the rabble rouser has power over them, and directs their vote. He has this power over them because they have given it to him - in return for freedom from having to think for themselves. They become his surrogates. Humans are semi-pack animals and a majority of them are looking for a leader to follow - rather few are leaders, perhaps a few more are independents. If this were not so Hitler would have remained a paper hanger.
Post #305,116 by Ashton 3/4/09 9:48:46 PM Reply	Amenuensis. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Post #305,118 by beepster 3/4/09 10:11:40 PM Reply	And again... if Rush had that true power over Republicans...McCain would never have been the candidate for President. Rush tried very hard...but gee...he didn't make a difference. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,124 by Andrew Grygus 3/5/09 12:06:28 AM Reply	For that argument to be valid . . . . . you have to show viable alternatives supported by Rush. If there are no truly viable alternatives it doesn't matter what anyone says, regardless of their power - and I seem to recall the Republican primary field was a basket of losers. At least Mc Cain had some name recognition.

Welcome to IWETHEY!