Limbaugh Turnoff

Aug 24, 2005 | polishproud

[PolishProud]

(I am a staunch conservative converted to the right by Rush Limbaugh. I remember the exact issue of my conversion - Limbaugh pointed out that so called cuts in federal spending were actually cuts in the growth of spending. Clinton's duplicity in using the words "spending cuts" insulted my sense of what defines honesty as did Clinton in general. But over the years I have become critical of talk show hosts. )

In my opinion the best hosts are as follows; Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Denver's Mike Rosen and Laura Ingraham. Hosts that suffer by comparison include Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, O'Reilly (radio and TV), Michael Gallagher and Michael Savage. The worse host, by far, is Michael Savage. He gives conservative talk radio a bad name. When liberals excoriate conservative talk, they use Savage as an example and rightly so.

The most overrated talk show host has got to be Sean Hannity. His show consists of promoting his TV show (40%), and telling us what will be on in the next hour (25%). Once in a while he works in a caller, mostly women. Sean really likes women callers. His interviews with politicos are predictable. And the object of recently program content has been used to take advantage of tragedy TV ratings, i.e. the Natalee Holloway's epic.

Rush Limbaugh is very articulate and knows what turns his audience on. But at times Limbaugh takes us back to the sexual innuendoes of the 1970s. He seems to relish "dirty talk." I can remember when, for one week, he talked about women "farting" in their cars. He thought it was so clever that this double entendre could also refer to women putting on make up in their cars. The other day, he was obsessed with the word "condom," asking if anyone on his staff had a condom in his or her billfold. I kept thinking he was getting some little charge in his neither parts as he said "condom." I don't know where the condom bit was going because I turned him off - and besides the next story, was going to be about a guy who died after having sex with a horse.

People listen to Limbaugh for his political bent, but Rush thinks he's a sports talk show. I and others, judging from Rush's own comment about listener input, don't tune in to hear Rush's NFL predictions or golf scores. If you want to get on Rush's show ask him a NFL question. In talk radio there's a conundrum - news talk shows want to be sport shows, and sports shows wants to be news talk shows.

While Rush relates to his audience on most subjects, he disconnects when he talks about social security as an entitlement. He doesn't accept that the government has made a contract with taxpayers; whereby, in return for the payment of social security taxes, the government promised to provide monies for retirees.

Hugh Hewitt is radio's would be PBS talk show host - that is, when he's on the air. He takes more vacations than President Bush. I'm sure talk show listeners can't wait for Hewitt's to feature Shakespeare, religion, extreme sports or NASCAR - at times Hewitt sounds like a religious show host. Whereas Medved doesn't give much worth to single people, Hewitt doesn't take old people seriously, despite talk show listener demographics. For some reason Hewitt comes across as someone trying to make up for his 5 foot 7 inch stature although I have no idea how tall he is. His most redeeming facet, which puts him in my top five, is his recent work on judicial nominations. Plus he has finally realized that his listeners can discuss complicated issues - whereas in the past he would toss out one line questions any idiot caller could answer.

Mike Medved and Mike Rosen are the best debaters. Although recently Medved has gotten off on social rather than political issues. I mean - how many times do we need to discuss homosexuality, TV is bad, movies are good and being single is unnatural? Medved also annoys with his "conspiracy day" where he takes advantage of sickos who tell us over and over that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio and that the secret Yale "Skull and Bones Society" runs the world. Still his debating skills secures the number two spot in my book.

Caustic and irreverent, Denver's Mike Rosen does not suffer fools gladly; but at times, he becomes a sport show host when he shills for the hapless Colorado Rockies - not coincidentally his station, KOA, carries Rockies games. The other day he jeopardized his top five standing when he did a segment on bad breath. I suppose, when you're on air some thirty plus days a year, some shows will stink - pun intended.

Last but least is the Laura Ingraham show, or as it should be known, Laura's musicfest. What Laura does not seem to understand is, while she may be tired of political talk, her audience isn't. Listeners want political talk not music and movie reviews. As the old saying goes "you gotta dance with the one that brung you," and Laura did not get where she is with her personal taste in music. But Laura does scores big with her attack of lefty sound bites. She and her staff must watch every political TV program aired and it pays off with an entertaining show.

The worse talk show host of a national syndicated program is Mike Gallagher. He doesn't bother with research. You will not hear anything new from Gallagher just the latest issues that gets calls. His demographics seem to be pissed off red necks.

While conservative talk appeal to millions of listeners, advertisers don't think much of its demographics as demonstrated by ads for hair growth, belly fat reduction, gold investing and dating services. Surly conservative talk show listeners aren't as dumb as advertisers think we are.

[DCPatriot]

No football references.

Recalling the scene this morning still has me smiling at how well Rush did.

He was brought upstairs to the office by Drew in hopes of talking to the female owner into giving another woman her job back.

Rush used the Bubba analogy...that if he was given a 2nd chance so too should the woman.

[Casloy]

He doesn't accept that the government has made a contract with taxpayers; whereby, in return for the payment of social security taxes, the government promised to provide monies for retirees.

What kind of a contract is it that I never get to sign, but have no choice about how binding it is? Furthermore, they take a huge amount of money, and even if I live long enough they only give me a fraction of what I could have made had I invested it myself. I know this isn't the point of this pointless post, but it irks me when people defend social security as some kind of benevolent agreement.

[cyborg]

I looked up at the door of the ladies' bathroom stall and there was an AD. Not even in the bathroom can you escape! LOL

[Publius6961]

The focus of Michael Medved's entire show is, and always has been, culture and it's impact on society.

So long as Medved and Hewitt stick to what they know they are excellent, informative and entertaining.

But they both jumped the shark recently when they wandered into international culture and politics, mainly islam and its danger. A subject about which they are profoundly ignorant. (Still).

[Hatteras]

"Michael Savage gives it to us at the raw emotional level."

I enjoyed Rush much more in the past when he displayed more raw emotion. He still gets emotional from time to time but he seems to measure his words more carefully. Whether he's doing it to sound more intelligent or in an effort not to offend, I don't know. The point is now, I get my raw emotional fix from Michael Savage.

[MinuteGal]

Rush has alway been sensitive and circumspect regarding the number of commericial time on his programs. He stated this many times when he first entered our homes via air waves.

Since he's so popular, his show could be back-to-back advertising if he so chose. However, his commercial breaks are NOT onerous in number except in the last few minutes he's on the air.

Now, anything Fox is another matter. When Fox radio talk show hosts are on, I can darn near clean my entire house during one single set of back-to-back ads.

But I don't complain about the number of commercial breaks on conservative shows. They reflect the basic economic good health of the programs.

I'll bet Err American would die for the number and quality of advertisers on conservative shows.Of course, Err American is basically dead anyhow.

Leni

[mplsconservative]

I think most of America would agree with you, however since that money has been paid in already, they want SOME sort of return on their investment. Rush acts like people are screwed up for actually expecting something from the government. While I understand concept wise what he's saying, the deal was done a long time ago and he shouldn't expect people to just walk away from their money. Just because Rush is a gazillionaire doesn't mean others are and I seem to find that people (Boortz, Rush, etc...) become that image of the Republican, greedy and unable to comprehend that they are not the center of the universe.

Rush supports the plan to gradually phase out SS and give people a choice whether to privatize a portion of their money.

Those that wish to pigeonhole Republicans as greedy, just aren't paying attention to the facts.

[VegasCowboy]

I think Rush is hilarious. The condom thing the other day was a classic case of Rush highlighting absurdity with absurdity.

[MosesKnows]

In my opinion the best hosts are

My favorite is G. Gordon Liddy and I mention it because his name was not on your list. Although G. Gordon is not widely distributed he is nonetheless an immense source of accurate information regarding law, history, and politics. He also dispenses valuable personal advice as well as Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura. I feel privilenged to have access, via the radio, to his critical thinking ability.

I am not at odds with your observations regarding the host you did list.

[Wuli]

I think you are a troll trying to scare up some anti-conservative talk-show bites from this blog.

Take your pitch someone else; while the rest of us practice the Gippers pledge "thou shall not speak ill of....".

[Little Ray]

I think Hannity is a moron - couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag, uses ad hominems, etc. Too many of his callers are idiotic sycophants; "Oh, Sean, you're a Great American!" is most of the substance of their calls.

I DO like Savage - he's nasty, edgy and smart. He addresses the right issues. His biggest problem is that he's too negative.

The best of all "conservative" talk show hosts, however, is probably Neal Boortz... and his Nealz Nuze is a great source of information.

[SubMareener]

I think PolishProud is from Rio Linda! ;-)

[devane617]

I agree with the part about Hannity.

About Rush, it is getting harder to take the full three hours of Rush talking up the daily WH briefing. Rush is a BushBot WaterBoy that has one message, and that is what the WH tells him to talk-up that day. I think he has lost touch with his audience during the past two or 3 years.

[infocats]

"The worse host, by far, is Michael Savage. He gives conservative talk radio a bad name. When liberals excoriate conservative talk, they use Savage as an example and rightly so."

NONSENSE! In the first instance, who gives a flying f**k what liberals think (an oxymoron because they don't think...they feel). In the second instance, Savage is far brighter and more intellectually honest and has a more keen sense of humor than all the rest put together.

Where Savage does suffer is in the showmanship department where he is demonstrably less refined and more crude than the others.

[atomicpossum]

But at times Limbaugh takes us back to the sexual innuendoes of the 1970s.

I guess you never listened to G. Gordon Liddy. (!)

[Just mythoughts]

I think PolishProud is from Rio Linda! ;-)


lol, got to be. This one is sure to give Rush a chuckle.

[Reaganghost]

"Sometime you really have to acknowledge, like it or not, that social security is here and it's not going away."

Under current law (unconstitutional) payment into social security is mandatory. The government does not give you a choice. If that is anybody's idea of a contract, somebody is out to lunch. If social security is the red hot, be all-end all, that liberals and Democrats would have you believe, why do they fight tooth and toenail to keep participation mandatory? In a country that alleges that it is free, how can government dictate or require that anybody participate in social security. The concept is obscene, not to mention, insane. Cato provides a plan of how participation in social security can be voluntary. With some modification, it can be made to work.

The United States is currently borrowing 2.5 billion dollars every day. This borrowing is required to meet our current cash flow needs as a nation (government + business + individuals + organizations, call it America, Inc.). The unfunded liabilities of social security will begin maturing in the fall of 2008. The unfunded liabilities of Medicare will begin maturing in the fall of 2012. The US Comptroller of the Currency is already on record as saying the US nor any other economy has ever grown at a rate that would be needed to amortize these unfunded liabilities when they begin to mature. What new technology or industry, on the horizon or over the horizon is going to put enough Americans to work with high enough paying jobs to amortize those unfunded liabilities when they begin to mature?

At the point those liabilities begin to mature, our country which is cash flow negative to the tune of 2.5 billion per day will have another 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars a day need for more cash. Who will loan it to us? Why would anybody loan it to us? If government tries to print its way out of insolvency, what will happen to the wealth of every American? It would go up in smoke exactly as if the government had set fire to our currency, which is exactly what printing money does. Wealth goes up in smoke. At that point, government's only option will be to start selling chunks of land that it owns. Prospective buyers are going to want something of value for their money- empty desert won't cut it. If I were a Japanese industrialist with mountains of cash and looking for a place to invest it, I would want to buy oil deposits in ANWAR, red wood forests in California, or maybe a National Seashore, all parcels where I can get some return on my investment. When enough Americans realize that our cash flow is irrevocably in the red and that we are bleeding precious assets to pay for mandatory programs that were nothing more than ways politicians bought votes so that the politicians could stay in office, not to mention that the programs were flat out insane to begin with, how long do you think it will be before there is blood in the streets or these programs are ended? Social Security, Medicare and all the other evil socialistic programs are going to come to an end or the United States is going to come to an end. Apart from fantasies, there aren't any other alternatives.

[beandog]

I love Rush, only person I make sure to listen to everyday. It sounds to me like you are a prude. I can't believe you can't handle a little bit of as you put it "dirty talk". I'm a 48 year old female and I have no problem with it.

[johnny7]

Next to Reagan, it was Limbaugh who really helped get conservatism to the masses. I'm amazed at the amount/quality of analysis he accomplishes in 3 hours.

Started listening to him in '92... haven't tuned out yet.

[unsycophant]

Rush is the best, even though he has had some problems.

Sean Vannity and O'Reilly have both ridden Rush's shirt tail for years (even their websites looked like his and contained much of the same content) and boy-it truly shows because neither has the broadcasting experience or level of professionalism Rush has. Kindly enough, Limbaugh lets them have their little TV shows and does not compete with them for viewers.

Many on our side seem to view conservatives as their personal cash-cow. (Conservatives: Need fast cash? Write a book, take to the airwaves, latch on to an "issue"!) Even that goofball Keyes gave it a try.

I should also point out that Rush is very humble.