[Imgr8t]

I wouldn't consider it opinions as much as I would consider it analysis. He may offer his own opinions on occasion, but what I hear are facts. Maybe it's because I only listen to the first hour of his show, I don't know.

What I get out of Rush's broadcasts are the times when politicians say one thing and do another. He lays it on the line. (See dingy harry's immigration reform from the 1990's and how he plays it today)

I always keep an open mind. I listen to Rush and Hannity and Boortz, and while I enjoy Rush's analysis.. in my opinion, Hannity is a hack. Boortz is good, but a little more LP than I wanna be. I'd be happier if the GOP went back to their roots of limited gov't and curtail spending. That's what I like about Boortz.

While Rush will entertain the thoughts of a liberal caller, try to understand and *try* to see it from thier point of view... Hannity doesn't even give them a chance. And I think that's a major flaw... but anyway, that's my .02 cents.

[hodaka]

Sounds like you listen to the same folks that I do. In some markets I can pick up Mike Gallagher. Boortz and Gallagher are pretty much my favorites because they don't mind taking on callers with a different point of view on a regular basis. Rush's program is so heavily screened that the only time it seems that one that has a different opinion gets on is when they fit his definition of a liberal and starts making personal attacks on Rush. Yes I do know that Rush does state that the reason for the callers is to make the host look good. Hannity kind of reminds me of a Republican version of James Carville. He always interrupts callers and usually answers a question with a question, and will demand that the caller answers his question first because it's his show and then will cut them off without answering their question.