Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    My opinions about Rush Limbaugh are unprintable.

    re:.0
    
    Pseudo-intellectual afraid to allow open, public discussion on his
    show for fear of being duly debated in the open, in front of his fans.
    
    Note the absence of any opposing viewpoints, even the studio audience
    is screened and consists only of a few dozen conservative-type sheep-
    people.
    
    For what it's worth, I agree with most of what he says, but I still
    see his flaws and rhetoric as such.  Those sufficiently enamoured with
    Rush turn a blind eye to his failings and weaknesses.

    I never miss him .. when I can't listen I record it and listen to it at
    a later time.  I NEVER miss the television show.  I've got the video
    tapes that he's done and .. some of my friends gave me copies of his
    book for Christmas (I ended up with 4 copies of it!).  I even tried to
    take the cruise last year - $3,000 per person.  By the time I called
    it was full (only about 300 tickets were available)!  In Bakersfield
    a number of restaurants have "Rush Rooms" that are set aside during
    his broadcast and people can listen while they're eating/drinking. I
    go to the Rush Room whenever possible.

    There .. does that tell you what I think of Rush?

    I dearly love to talk to those who purport to hate the man.  I always
    ask "what have you heard that you really dislike".  In about 95% of the
    cases I get "well .. I haven't ever listened to him".

    No, I don't agree with each and everything that he says .. but .. about
    99% would be close.

    Bubba

I've only seen Rush's TV show once, but my first impression was, "Boy, his
audience sure is filled with yuppies!"  I think they all got their suits from
the same tailor.

He seems like a rhetorical bully, to me.  But he's pretty funny.  The day
I watched he was making fun of those videos where you can watch a peaceful
scene on your TV (like a video aquarium or a video fireplace), but he seemed
to blame such silly things on liberals.  But maybe I'm being paranoid!

Jon

    > blame such silly things on liberals. 

    Rush blames everything on liberals.   Liberals are divided into
    categories such as "environmentalist whackos" (no such thing as
    a conservative environmentalist, apparently), "feminazis" (there is
    nothing of value in the feminist movement), and the "PC crowd" (freedom
    of speech and expression is prized above all else among conservatives).

    I think he's a buffoon.

    True, he raises important issues, makes interesting points on occasion,
    and definitely fills a need.  Someone has to be out there to counter a
    predominantly left-of-center mainstream media.   But he doesn't do it
    in a reasonable, thoughtful manner.

    His main goal is to entertain and he does so by attacking "liberals."
    Apparently there are enough people who buy into such simplistic
    notions (e.g. that liberals are at fault for everything that's bad)
    to make him very popular.

    I'd like to see him debate a truly intelligent talk show host, like
    Gene Burns (yeah, he's got a huge ego too, but he isn't as silly and
    corny as Rush - and he's much more even-handed).

    Rush's TV show is doing better than I expected.  I was guilty of 
    over-estimating the intelligence of the viewing public, I guess :-)
    (You needn't gloat and send me an "I told you so" note, Jerry :-)
    
    /Greg

    P.S. I think Mario Cuomo came up with a great nick-name for Rush.
    	 Rush had been making fun of Mario's name (that's a big thing
    	 with Rush...making fun of someone's name), so during an
    	 interview when someone asked Cuomo about Limbaugh's program,
    	 Cuomo responded and referred to him as "Rash Limbaugh" - perfect
    	 if you ask me :-)

    rush is a big jerk.

    "He's bright, he does his homework, and you ignore him at your 
     peril"--Ted Koppel.

RE: .7

No one doubts that he's bright and influential.

I was reading a US News & World Report about who would pose the biggest
challenges for Bill Clinton.  The first two people named were Ross Perot
and, yes, Rush Limbaugh!

We won't ignore him because we realize the peril!!

    
    
     Over all I like the opinions and remarks he makes about the left. I do
    not like the absence of intelligent opponents on either his radio or
    t.v. shows. I did catch his recent double interview on c-nbc with
    Pozner and Donahue. As expected, Donahue launched the usual
    emotional/moral high ground attack. Rush defended himself ok.
    
    David
    

    
    
    Had to jump in here, Dybz.
    
    Obviously (looking at my "header" you can already tell I'm a fan.)
    Yup, it usually takes a "double teaming" up on Rush, since half his
    brain is tied behind his back! 8)
    
    I've read a few comments about how his show is generally not open to
    other viewpoints, interviews etc.  What the hell for?  We get the
    "other side" constantly anyway.  Besides, I saw Rush on Donahues 
    program both times he's been on.  And man, talk about a *biased* 
    audience.  Phil was practically foaming at the mouth in his furious
    attempts at misprotraying Rush's postion and every liberal philosophy
    he (and all his ilk) hold sacred.  Rush acts as the perfect gentleman
    and it's funny to see the liberals get scewered on Rush's ozone eating
    barbeque.
    
    .2
    >Pseudo-intellectual afraid to allow open, public discussion
    
    Ah  yes, as we well know, the Liberals control the market on
    Intellectualism.  Hey, what other country will be able to brag that
    THEIR 3rd graders have read the great intellectual works like "My
    Two Mommies."  8)
    
    and .5
    >Apparently there are enough who buy into such simplistic
    
    Again, where is the "arrogance" here.  The writer of this note once
    more proves that it's only the "liberals" who have the market cornered
    on true enlightenment and knowledge.  What Rush discusses on his
    program is NOT simplistic.  I think what confuses people is that he
    is one of the few people who can boil the topics of whatever happens
    to be discussed to easily understandable terms.  He is an expert at
    illustrating points as well.  Do not confuse his ability to make things
    easily understandable with the deemphisis of the importance and value
    his topics present.
    
    >Rush had been making fun of Mario's name (that's a big thing...
    
    Actually, Rush is making "fun" of the Reeeeeeverand Jaaaaacksonnnnnn.
    See, J. J. pronounces Cuomo's name Kumo.  Versus the more appropriate
    way - Kuo-mo.  So, in order to not offend anyone (don't want to be 
    accused of being a racist), Rush simply pronounces it the way Jackson
    does.  That's all.  
    
    And again, he's just doing it to be funny.  And it just really ticks of
    the pc crowd that's all.  He is constantly being mischaracterised.  Any
    body who has not listened to him (for 6 weeks) and doesn't like him,
    probably doesn't like much of anything.
      
    Bill
    

    RE: .10

    What an amusing note.   You tell me I'm arrogant because I think Rush 
    is simplistic, and then have the gall to assume that either my opinion 
    is based on less than six weeks of evidence, or that I "don't like much 
    of anything."

    First of all, characterizing Rush as simplistic in no way implies
    conservative intellectuals don't exist.  Rush is not the be all and
    end all of conservative commentary in America - even if all the
    people who call in to the show seem to think so.   If I want to hear
    thoughtful conservative commentary I'll do something like read National 
    Review or pursue Justice Scalia's SC decisions, or even talk to one of 
    my uncles.  Any one of those choices would be more enlightening than 
    listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    Second of all, it doesn't surprise me that someone defending Rush
    would resort to using that tired cliche; 'the pc crowd' - It is just
    the sort of simplistic sloganeering one might expect to hear on his
    program.  

    Finally, along with my criticism I explicitly noted that Mr Limbaugh 
    serves a purpose, making some interesting points and presenting a needed 
    point of view.  Perhaps your blind adoration of the man prevented you 
    from seeing those comments...

    /Greg





    /Greg

> If I want to hear thoughtful conservative commentary I'll do something 
> like read National Review 

um, Greg, I'd hate to burst your bubble, but NR has really gone down the
tubes in the last year or so.  They're positively shrill these days.  The
days of thoughtful commentary from that quarter seem to have ended, for 
the most part.  I say that as someone who has read them for 4 or 5 years.
I'll be letting my subscription lapse, they've really sunk.  Its a shame.
Conervative thinkers deserve better editors and companions.  Perhaps I'll
give Commentary a try; anybody here know if its any good?

DougO

    > but NR has really gone down the tubes in the last year or so.
    
    Hmm...really?  Well I haven't picked it up in months (school has
    kept me too busy to read many of the periodicals I used pursue
    on a regular basis).  Sounds like I should avoid resuming a 
    subscription...
    
    >give Commentary a try; anybody here know if its any good?
    
    I'll second that.
    
    /Greg

    I personally have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, and don't have a
    particular desire to. The little clips that I haven't been able to
    avoid seem to confirm the buffoon image, and remind me of the long
    line of conservative talk shows like Wally George, George Putnam,
    etc, with their stacked audiences, and yelled half-truths.
    
    Rush falls in the Andrew Dice Clay category which I call "Why Bother?",
    and he will fade as quickly as ADC has. I would rather listen to George
    Will, personally.
    
    

.10>  I've read a few comments about how his show is generally not open to
.10>  other viewpoints, interviews etc.  What the hell for?  We get the
    
    For intellectual honesty, that's what for.
    
    Otherwise, why call it a talk show, when it's a lecture?

    
    
     			Quayle/Limbaugh in '96 !
    

I was hoping we'd seend the last of J. Danforth!

    
    I listened to the radio show to find out what all the fuss was about,
    but found it largely content-free.  Lots of posturing, name-calling,
    and sound gags, but very little substantive discussion of issues.
    I enjoy reading some conservative columnists because they challenge
    my way of thinking with different points of view, so it's not just
    that I don't think like Rush.  I'm not afraid of the man or his ideas
    -- it's just that I found him a waste of my time.  One of the things
    that quickly got on my nerves was the use of the same gag over and
    over and over -- the "one half of my brain tied behind my back",
    the Born Free theme complete with howitzers, etc.  The actual
    coherent discussion of issues takes a back seat, probably covering
    a total of 5 minutes per half hour.  And even that 5 minutes is
    based more on ideological assumptions than facts.
    
    Ron

    Bubba,
    
    What LA station (FM) can I find Limbaugh on?
    
    Thanks,
    Jodi-

    
    
    -1
      
      Rush is a conservative radio commentary who just recently started his
    own television show.
    
    David

    >What LA station (FM) can I find Limbaugh on?
    
    Don't know about FM .. but I catch him on 640 AM when I'm down in that
    neck of the woods.
    
    Bubba

    >Don't know about FM .. but I catch him on 640 AM when I'm down in that
    >neck of the woods.
    
    Thanks Jerry, can't stand listening to AM -besides, I stayed home
    today and accidently caught Limbaugh's TV show. I don't think I'm
    all that interested in finding a station (AM or FM) anymore.
    
    He did do a great rendition of BombBombBomb BombBombIran.
    
    Jodi-