Rahm:
Posted on 03/04/2009 9:27:50 AM PST by NoGrayZone
Rush just issued a debate to barry, or any of his cohorts, to a debate against barry's policies vs.USA.
Rush will incur ALL expenses, we will not pay a dime towards it. Will barry except?
Probably not. barry is a little scared boy in a suit.
You: That's not what I said at all. What I said was, that Rush's show is not suited to rebuilding the intellectual foundations of conservatism.
What you said was his radio program does little to advance conservative thought". That to me is the same as lack of influence.
On that note, we need to be aware Rush is leading us into dangerous territory -- because we've lost our intellectual foundations, it can be very easy for the MSM to paint Limbaugh's opinions as defining "conservatism." Rush is a tempting target: his publicly-stated opinions are tailored to a talk radio audience, and as such cannot be fully fleshed out.
What you're missing here is the fact Rush is virtually "everyman's" introduction to conservatism in this day and age. He is their entry to eventually knowing and learning from your John Derbyshires of this World. Without him, there's be far fewer following the call. Painting Rush as "defining" conservatism is irrelevant in fact because of that loss of intellectualism as you put it. People will tune in, they will listen and begin to hear ideas that they've had themselves. They will begin to broaden their interests in conservatism and eventually come to those you believe are the true spokesmen. It's already happened over the past decades and will happen again. Look at the audience Limbaugh has here on FR. Are we clueless? Yet how many of us (including myself) are here because of Rush most of all? This will happen as it needs to happen. You take far too much into account.
they need only dispense with Limbaugh's necessarily sketchy statements, which is a far easier thing to do.
As a result, the MSM doesn't actually have to address conservatism in an intellectually rigorous way -- Then why is he still on the air today, and as influential (oh, yes he is!) as ever? They've been trying this since day #1.
I have to run. I have some things that must be finished yet this afternoon. Let's call it on this post, shall we?
“I had a block of that Government cheese back in ‘84.
It was pretty good!
Sharp cheddar and crumbly. Good stuff.”
####
Nothing but the best for all those downtrodden ethnic minority groups who suffered so long under the heel of the evil, greedy white man....
You are absolutely right. This is how we are going to bring down the pathological narcissist. Constant poking at his ego. There will come a time when we will hit the right spot or it will be one too many pokes. He will implode and if his handlers try to handle him, neutralizing 0’s fantasy of leadership they will find themselves in a mess. This is a guy that thinks that he is in charge and the reality is his puppet status with others pulling his strings. If he ever figures out that is the reality, and not his version, watch out! Only a pathological narcissist would have let Rush draw him out like this. They can't help themselves!
My only serious concern was and is that Emanuel/Soros are foiled in their attempt to label Limbaugh as the leader of the GOP.
That would be disastrous.
Good answer. Thanks for playing.
Please tell Rahm you need more training, much more.
I don't agree. Who has Obama debated? McCain? When has he ever had to actually think on his feet? He hasn't. He will spew forth the same socialist non-answers that he repeated throughout the campaign. He couldn't beat McCain in a debate and McCain didn't appear to be much of a challenge.
I contend that Obama wouldn't know what to do if he were asked an unrehearsed question from someone outside of the left-leaning media. Especially without his teleprompter.
That might be a question better asked of the republican party leadership who, of late, seems to be trying hard to become the "liberal-lite" party.
I suppose it's a matter of personal taste, but I agree with Rush far more than I agree with what's been coming out of the party the last few years. I'm not saying that Rush is infallible, but he's certainly a strong voice of conservatism, with perhaps a Reaganesque twist.
hahaha
ZOT
Cappuccino??
That's your problem, then. I've already explained the distinction at least two different ways.
What you're missing here is the fact Rush is virtually "everyman's" introduction to conservatism in this day and age.
I don't think so. I might be wrong, but I strongly suspect that Rush's audience contains very few members for whom his show is an "introduction" to conservatism. In fact, I suspect strongly that his audience mainly consists of people who were already conservative before they started listening.
He is their entry to eventually knowing and learning from your John Derbyshires of this World.
Again, I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, there's no comparable outlet for what Derbyshire called "middlebrow" conservatism, which is where Reagan and Buckley operated. A broad acceptance of Conservatism at that intellectual level was the basis of the "Reagan Revolution." Limbaugh-style talk radio doesn't provide it, and there's really nothing else to provide it in a forum that reaches an audience that extends beyond the already-convinced.
We do have a much more difficult task than Buckley and Limbaugh did -- the mainstream media in their time were rather more friendly to conservative ideas, and more prone to giving time for extended discussion, than are the overtly partisan media of today. The reversal of that state of affairs will be years in the doing...
Painting Rush as "defining" conservatism is irrelevant in fact because of that loss of intellectualism as you put it. People will tune in, they will listen and begin to hear ideas that they've had themselves. They will begin to broaden their interests in conservatism and eventually come to those you believe are the true spokesmen.
That's a triumph of hope over experience. We've had 20 years to try out the theory and, if it were true, something like what you describe should already have happened. But it hasn't. Instead, we've witnessed an accelerating disintegration in conservative thought over that period of time.
Look at the audience Limbaugh has here on FR. Are we clueless?
Not clueless at all. But to be quite honest, I think much of what passes for "thought" on FR these days is just as shallow as what Limbaugh puts out -- long on reaction, but quite often short on perspective. FR is a much better medium for deeper engagement on issues, but it's also well-suited to quips and "sound-bite" posts.
As a result, the MSM doesn't actually have to address conservatism in an intellectually rigorous way -- Then why is he still on the air today, and as influential (oh, yes he is!) as ever? They've been trying this since day #1.
He's on the air because he does appeal to a large audience. That's not the same thing, however, as being painted as "what conservatism is all about." The danger to conservatism is precisely that Limbaugh is unable to create a coherent intellectual foundation for conservative priniciples.
Rahm:
But we can’t forget that although it is 0’s narcissism that causes him to make mistakes, it is the work of the handlers that is truly treacherous. They are systematically attempting to eliminate all opposition. They are working to destroy the greatest nation on earth. And even though Rush is the first private citizen to be attacked by a president, he is not the first one 0’s gone after. Remember Joe the Plumber? No individual is safe from them.
The more I see of the handlers work, the angrier I get. Whether it be following Saul Alinsky’s “any means to an end” tactics, Cloward-Pivens methods, or Acorn, these community dis-organizer types are dangerous and we are blessed by the Lord to have someone as shrewd as Rush for them to aim it.
At the very least I hope this will give other conservatives courage to trust that fighting is better than going along to get along. There are too many of those rather switch than fight types even on this site lately.
That sentence alone deserved a ZOT! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAH!
Unlike you, I have provided a detailed discussion of my point, which is simply this: talk radio in its present format is simply inadequate for creating a firm intellectual foundation. It must necessarily deal with issues on a very shallow basis. That's because it depends on the opinions of a single host, who doesn't have time to do much more than to prepare for the next day's show. It's just not possible for them to go into the depth required to build a serious intellectual foundation.
The result, unfortunately, is "conservatives" like you, who do great with the emotional responses, but who can't be bothered to think.
I’m so happy for you and your obvious ascension over the rest of us wannabee thinking conservatives. My shallow thoughts just can’t compare. So with that I will say goodbye...
Well, thanks for making my point, then. If you can't be bothered to think, then I can't be bothered to make you think.
Oh, I've bothered to think alright. But what my thoughts are about you won't be expressed. I'd be zotted myself.
Goodbye. You deserve better than FR (in your mind).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
