This Above All (Defending Rush Limbaugh)

The Washington Times ^ | June 11, 2002 | Balint Vazsonyi

[oldvike]

The Shakespeare passage that begins with the words "This above all" comes from Hamlet. Polonius, that "most secret" councillor, gives advice to his son, about to depart for a longer stay abroad. The three words entered my consciousness around the age of 12

[newgeezer]

Yeah, but he disses windmills and anyone who says they don't blow.

[Pyro7480]

Yes, Rush is a bit full of himself, but Mr. Vazsonyi is correct in this editorial. He read this on the air after his brother David sent it to him in an e-mail.

[biblewonk]

2 years ago Rush, who is never wrong, was singing hymns to Dubya, now Dubya is a pinko commie according to Rush. I am seeing Freepers turn away from Rush lately and that tells me a lot.

[Wm Bach]

This guy must have warmed the same piano bench as one of my old teachers, Ed Kilenyi. Ernst von Dohnanyi's music is excellent, and written in the best Brahms tradition. Kilenyi fought nazis and didn't care for commies either.

[The Electrician]

Isn't that analysis a bit too simplistic and overstated? While I am generally a Bush supporter, I too must question a lot of the decisions that he has made. Any independent thinker would, too...

[oldvike]

Dubya is a pinko commie according to Rush

Really? You must have been listening to Chang Limbang, not Rush Limbaugh.

[meandog]

But, thank goodness, so is the number of opening minds. Nonetheless, as we speak, Rush finds himself under daily attack by some of his own constituency. Why? Because he remains true to himself.

Balderdash, poppycock, bullbutter, rubbish...Mr. Limpbull is, was and will be a pawn of those special interests who provide his talking points and feather his nest with $$$...try Michael Savage or G. Gordon Liddy to get he real conservatives true to themselves!

[jraven]

Rush lost me a LONG time ago which is why I prefer Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and O'Reilly. Basically, he started out a SUPERB conservative, independent thinker....UNTIL the day George Bush, Sr...who he had been criticizing...invited him to sleep over at the Lincoln bedroom. After that weekend he became The Voice of whatever policy or position the White House embraced, occassionally straying. He's now straying again, but within X amount of time he will again be taking PREDICTABLE positions. I find it refreshing to listen to Savage, Igraham, O'Reilly and Michael Reagan because they often take a position and embrace a position that is truly independent...and they make me laugh and think. I travel a lot and when I go from town to town, driving in my car, until O'Reilly I had to listen to Rush since he was on almost every station. I usually would last a few minutes then turn to news or a book on tape. Rush IS straying now but to those who want someone who walks a non-nonsense party and ideological line, playing to the choir, he is GREAT. To those who like something a bit less predictable that makes them think, laugh and listen because they don't always know what position will be touted next....he isn't that great. Rush's shows still center a lot on Hillary and Bill, which is soooooooooooooooo tiresome even if it is deserved. These other hosts still give the criticism where it is due...but they tend to spend their time a bit more in the year and month in which they broadcast. O'Reilly may not be it, but sooner or later someone (Savaga and my FAVORITE -- Laura Ingraham) will begin chipping away at his ratings. Yes, some listeners are upset...but Rush is still pretty much White House Talking Points. And it's all seemingly traceable to the weekend when G Bush Sr invited his critic over to the White House to be wined and dined.

[biblewonk]

Isn't that analysis a bit too simplistic and overstated? While I am generally a Bush supporter, I too must question a lot of the decisions that he has made. Any independent thinker would, too...

I distinctly remember Rush going on and on about Bush's character. He almost got misty eyed about it.

As an independent thinker I've learned to follow the money. It usually explains why people do the things they do whether it's Rush or Bush or most every policy decision we make.

[EllaMinnow]

Isn't that analysis a bit too simplistic and overstated? While I am generally a Limbaugh listener, I too must question a lot of the remarks he has made. Any independent thinker would, too.

[foolish-one]

Ah, the irrational, liberal form of debate. Sound indignant, concoct a semihumorous, derogatory name, throw out generalities without facts and hope it all stands as sound arguments. Care to redeem yourself through elaboration? Or would you rather just call me a "Dittohead", assume that proves your point entirely and move on?

[The Electrician]

No.

[meandog]

Ah, the irrational, liberal form of debate. Sound indignant, concoct a semihumorous, derogatory name, throw out generalities without facts and hope it all stands as sound arguments. Care to redeem yourself through elaboration? Or would you rather just call me a "Dittohead", assume that proves your point entirely and move on?

Check it out, Dittohead...a good part of Rush's income comes from speaking to conservative businesses and groups such as tobacco interests, ACU etc. And, just as he complains the Dems do, he gets talking points from ultra right-wing services--though, I give him this, he doesn't refer to them as much as liberal spokespeople!

[Gladwin]

Rush Limbaugh has to disagree with about 10% of Bush's positions, or he wouldn't be convincing on the other 90%.

[Dane]

Yes, Rush is a bit full of himself, but Mr. Vazsonyi is correct in this editorial. He read this on the air after his brother David sent it to him in an e-mail

Wow! No mention of the controversy that started this and that contorversy was rush using a New York Times article as his source to slam Bush.

rush was caught in the ruse and rush cannot apologize or do a "mea culpa". rush called in some favors for this "editorial".

[NittanyLion]

2 years ago Rush, who is never wrong, was singing hymns to Dubya, now Dubya is a pinko commie according to Rush. I am seeing Freepers turn away from Rush lately and that tells me a lot.

There are two variables involved here. You've assumed one has remained fixed, and it's the other that has changed. Consider for a moment that both may have varied, or that the other may be the one that varied.

[biblewonk]

There are two variables involved here. You've assumed one has remained fixed, and it's the other that has changed. Consider for a moment that both may have varied, or that the other may be the one that varied.

Therefore it's just one of the many issues that Rush is and has been WRONG about. Like renewable energy, Christianity, Energy policy, fuel economy, SUV's etc.

[foolish-one]

And just who would you expect Rush to be speaking to? The DNC? Or maybe he should turn down requests from conservative organizations in order to maintain his credibility with you. And how does spouting his opinion to a bunch of like-minded people equate to getting his talking points from them? I believe he's paid to pontificate - not listen, take orders and march. Sounds like twisted logic to me. Whaddaya think?

By the way, got a reference to Rush getting his talking points from an outside source? I'm open. You could change my mind with a fact or two.

[NittanyLion]

Therefore it's just one of the many issues that Rush is and has been WRONG about. Like renewable energy, Christianity, Energy policy, fuel economy, SUV's etc.

Respectfully, I believe you missed my point. You've assumed Rush has changed his stances, because he's moved in relation to Pres. Bush. I submit Pres. Bush could have changed his stances, and Rush could have remained steady. Or both could have moved their positions.