...can we say Oprah?
Posted on 05/15/2006 5:36:17 AM PDT by Quilla
Huh!
I disagree. The RATS depend more on the old Yellowdog Dems and 60's protestors than any other group. Gen X and Y are more conservative than their Boomer parents. You only see the DUhmmies who go to anti-war, anti-American protests because that's what the mediots want you to see. X and Y kids were too young to remember the heyday of liberalism during Vietnam and Watergate, but get just as annoyed as the rest of us when they see the Left try to recreate those halcyon days by bashing the military and President Bush. And they're old enough to see and understand what 9-11 meant and realize that this is a war between freedom and Islamic fanaticism.
I am afraid your point was so subtle, I almost missed it.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying because we have a free market, someone would have stepped in at some point to fill this need (for a national conservative voice) and as it happens, it was Rush, but any talented person would have been just as good.
If that was indeed your point, perhaps, but I doubt it. Rush is unique, his talent is unique.
...can we say Oprah?
"With all due respect for Mr. Limbaugh, it was inevitable that a talk-radio format would excel, (if it wasn't him, it would have been somebody else) "
That somebody else was Larry King, the " King " of talk radio.
He had about 15 years along with countless other talk show hosts, to make something of talk radio.
Even into the second year of Rush's show, when Rush was starting to measure his audience in the millions vs King's tiny numbers, King still claimed he had never heard of Rush.
Eventually King's show became too much of an embarrassment and he dropped it.
At the end I was telling friends to tune into King, the Rush conservative callers were destroying him on the air.
Larry King failed, along with Mario Cuomo, Jerry Brown,and other Democrat leaders, comedian Al Franken is failing.
The startling, phenomenal success of the Rush Limbaugh show was not inevitable.
To the contrary, I meant that Rush proved that he could do it, which is what most entrepreneurs are driven to do. Only after he had proved that it could be done - at least by him - did others try it on a national scale."Better mousetrap" ideas seem precious in hindsight, but what makes some of them happen is that someone took that idea and ran with it, when it was not convenient. The entrepreneur is driven to make the idea work. If you invent a water-driven airplane tomorrow, but do not prove that it works, the idea will just be a curiosity. It doesn't matter how good the idea seems in retrospect, only that someone dedicated themselves to proving that they could make it work.
I think it was Texas Instruments whose management said of new ideas for products, when we consider new products we ask ourselves if there is anyone we can put in charge of the product who would quit if we did not develop this product. If we have that person, we consider further. If not, we regretfully conclude that although the idea may be a winner it is not an idea that our company can profitably develop. And I think the "quote" is from In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters.
Our post must have passed in the ether. I did miss the orginal point, but would agree, the time was ripe for someone with Rush's talents and abilities, and ready to sieze the opportunity when presented. I guess my point back was, there are not many like that, and we are lucky we had Rush to lead the way out of the wilderness
Liberals use "message" to hide their intent. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see through them rather easily.
"Truth is much better"
There sure isn't much demand these days, for something in so
short of supply.... THAT is why "liberal" talk shows don't work. Propaganda is a one way street, talk radio is inherently democratic, with a small d.
"When Rush went national, no one believed in him, not even the stations he managed to sign up. The original deal was he had to do a local three hour show (in New York) before they allowed him to do his national three hours show, so in the beginning he was doing six hours a day."
I caught Rush his third day, it was a lot of fun listening to his growth, as a new national host you could hear him use his iron discipline to force himself to adapt to his new audience,( he would often catch himself in mid sentence and say no, I'm not going to say that).
The saddest day on his show was about 2 or 3 months after he started, he devoted one hour to conservatives only.
The conservatives sounded creaky, unsure of themselves, almost like they had been living in a cave for years.
As months and years went by you could hear the change as conservatives gained confidence, and learned how to shape their arguments, and learned new facts previously hidden from them, they knew they were part of a community.
Eventually because of Rush, conservatives came to realize they were part of a majority.
Rush changed the direction of America and served as a bridge between Reagan's sunny embrace of the electorate and Gingrich's guerilla warfare in the bowels of power. Rush empowered a vast pool of middle class activists and water cooler debaters.
Unprincipled people see no evil in using lies towards getting and staying in power. Power is the goal -- along with the perks it brings.
I think we can sum up what Rush did best in saying before he showed up we all thought we were the odd man out. Rush showed that we were not the minority that the main stream media portrayed us to be.
Rush showed us we are not alone, and the Internet gave us our voice.
I disagree. Conservatives like Rush don't claim objectivity. What they do claim and insist upon, I might add, is rationality.
That's the essence of the article. A conservative argument is more rational than a liberal argument. Hence Rush's success in a format that demonstrates rationality and exposes irrationality.
But that only means that it's not a fatal flaw. (Unfortunately!)
Good? Rush is more than good. He's in a league of his own. I've listened to "Talk Radio' for over 30 years. No one comes close.
Articulate, informative, rational and above all entertaining.
save for later...bump
"The Rush Limbaugh and Liberalism’s Fatal Flaw analysis was excellent, however, it missed another aspect of Conservative Talk Radio that may be far more important that the left's inability to field effective commentators. That aspect is satire, which in my estimation is the deadliest form of political commentary in the pundit's arsenal. Left wing politicians abhor satire, mainly because they are pompous self-appointed doo doo gooders who believe that they have been anointed to lead the lumpen proletariat to their promised land of lots of benefits with no responsibilities or work required. Anyone, repeat ANYONE who dares to poke fun at these self-righteous worthys elicits mouth-foaming wrath and eternal damnation by the intended recipient and his or her fellow-travelers.
Over the years, Rush has proven himself as the Grand Master of Satire, with his wicked barbs and merriment verse over pop music laying waste to the liberal strategem. Rush and our other great commentators can never be matched by the left, because we conservatives rarely present a satirable target in person or policy. The left's agenda, on the other hand, is a Potemkin Village of lunactic schemes which cannot pass the most basic tests of reason. Indefensible in their theories, the left wing politicians and their commentators can only respond with ad-hominem fury when criticized, and satire is the pinnacle of political criticism.
(Today’s history lesson: Potemkin Village: When Catharine the Great of Russia condescended to leave the palace and tour a province, her Minister Potemkim sent advance minions to each village along her route to paint or false front the structures she would see from her carriage. Sort of like a movie set. Therefore, Catherine would believe that villagers were prosperous and benefitting from her “wise leadership”)"
"I've been listening to talk radio for 30 years")
So have I, again, I don't want this to be "about" Rush Limbaugh, because my observation deals more about what conservatives have had to put up with for 50 years. Truth is, there WAS no conservative thought expressed for public consumption, unless you count William F. Buckley, and the WSJ. It was just a given that "progressive", urban elite ivory tower judgment was infallible.
I was called "Bourgeois"(sp) in Junior High by a teacher, and this was in middle west suburbia. They got to define the terms of the debate, and always always had the last word. The leftists have had a field day for decades in manipulating public sentiment.
"Mixed metaphors are a pain in the ass and should be thrown out the window."
--William Safire
< ]B^)
I agree-
And I still see it to this very day! at least in the MSM.
I have often wondered if Rush's TV show was canceled
BECAUSE of it's Success--NOT the lack of it-(his ratings
were very high for the time slot)
The real Bourgeois- liberals,socialists,communists
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.