Replies

Rush isn't really a -well, he may be a conservative, but he is not a revolutionary Jeffersonian. So I don't consider it very helpful to speak in terms of "conservative" and "liberal" because we end up in a semantic miasma. That said, he is the funniest analyzer of idiotic journalism on the American scene, a sort of Podunk Mencken. He has no real education, and I'd be hard pressed to call him eloquent, but he is unparalleled in his social commentary. One simply hangs on his words.

I listen to Rush daily, so take my "criticism" of him in the context that I think he is nearly always right.

Rush isn't an economist and, once in a long while, I wish he'd call in Walter Williams or Jack Kemp to clarify an economic issue that Rush doesn't have a real strong handle on.
On the issue of "bias in the media," he is converging on my perspective but isn't there yet. My perspective toward journalism is that although the Second Amendment explains why we have a right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment doesn't explain why we have a right to keep and operate printing presses. The former right is instrumental, the latter right exists for its own sake.
That is, "the press" doen't exist apart from the people but is of the people, and the press doesn't have rights or responsibilities distinct from the people. It follows from that that journalists don't have to be objective - and I don't have to believe them. And I certainly don't have to agree with their priorities. The important story of the day may not be above the fold on the front page, and may not even be in the paper at all. Or it may appear days after we knew about it on FR.

There are those days when I want to choke Rush for not going far enough, but then I remember that his audience is wide and that many people are new to the ideas that he articulates.

Rather than being the doctorate level that many of us would like, he must appeal in many ways as the Conservatism 101 course. Those that he does reach, he whets their appetite to learn more on their own.