Rush Limbaugh never said that he wanted to be a party leader. In fact he stated clearly that he did not. As to his being the voice of conservatism, why not?
This author talks about a “moderate’ voice. He qualifies it by saying that he doesn’t mean wimpy. Ok, what does he mean? The Republican Party is out of power now because of moderates. I am questioning whether can remain a Republican because of moderates who have gained control of the Party.
I have been trying desperately where I live to get a centrist or moderate Republican to tell me what that means. I have asked some of these people to identify an issue, any issue, and tell me what their position on it is, that conflicts with my conservative position.
Guess what! They can’t. Or they won’t. Let this guy explain why he thinks that Limbaugh shouldn’t be the voice of conservatism. If he is going to disqualify Limbaugh I think that he owes his readers a more detailed explanation of why.
I frequently find Rush extremely irritating. His style, or perhaps more accurately, his ego, really turn me off. I think he is a braggart and probably turns off many others with his “Schtik”. Perhaps that accounts for Mark Reynold’s rejection of him as the “Voice”.
What Limbaugh does is provide information, evaluation and expression from a conservative perspective. He has resources most of us don’t have when it comes to information gathering. If he is not acceptable to Reynolds then perhaps Mr. Reynolds can suggest someone who is.
Good question, I don't know. I suppose it would mean someone who can SAY and DO what Rush and most conservatives believe in, without turning people off. Someone who can "sell it".
I'm not going to say that Rush has NO ego, but as a listener since he came to NY from Sacramento, I *will* say that the people who enjoy him, see a major part of his style as being satire.
If you don't like it, fine. I'm glad to see that you're so discerning, i.e., you won't let your preferences get in the way of Rush's conservative message. I applaud you.