Posted on 12/31/2009 12:49:02 PM PST by presidio9
With the hospitalization of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, questions about his overall health and ability to maintain his radio schedule have become a matter of concern, especially to his avid followers (reportedly near 14 per week). They are questions that should be considered. What if Rush Limbaugh were unable to continue with his radio show? What if he died? Who would -- who could -- take Limbaugh's place, maintain his audience, and deliver much the same neoconservative message?
News broke on Wednesday that Rush Limbaugh was rushed to Queens Medical Center, a hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, because of "chest pains." Paramedics were called to the Kahala Hotel where the 58-year-old Limbaugh was staying and subsequently transported to the hospital. He was reportedly admitted in serious condition. But there has been almost no word, no details surrounding the hospitalization since his admission on Wednesday afternoon.
A posting on his website, rushlimbaugh.com, reads: ""Rush was admitted to and is resting comfortably in a Honolulu hospital today after suffering chest pains. Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes and will keep you updated via rushlimbaugh.com and on Thursday's radio program."
Although the statement reads as somewhat hopeful and even notes with positive assurance that Limbaugh will be back to work as scheduled on Thursday, January 4, it is still basically noncommittal.
So... What if the worst were to happen? What if something occurred that would keep Rush Limbaugh (and not necessarily death) from his verbal posturings and pontifications? Who would they get to replace him?
Of course, many names come to mind: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and others. But these pundits already have their shows and followers. The producers of Rush Limbaugh's show would want to hang on to his following -- and let's face it: If Limbaugh's
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
ditto
Nothing is going to keep Rush Limbaugh from his calling. This is a moot point to consider anyone else.
Mark Steyn or Glen Beck would get my vote. however, God willing, Rush will return to this microphone soon.
That would work!
It would be a constant legal battle with the BATFE.
They can chop up the interview to make Jesus look bad.
Belling - my first choice and favorite sub
Mark Davis - my second choice
Mark Steyn - funny guy
Walter E Williams - informed, entertaining
Rodger Hedgecock - a trifle boring
Mark Levin - Bombthrower (great one? great what?)
Michael Savage - loon (certified, needs meds)
Glenn Beck - sap, loon (needs to stay on meds)
Mike Gallagher - ignoramus and bombthrower
Sean Hannity - lightweight, formulaic
Michael Reagan - name drops his dads name all the time
Ken Hamblin - miss the guy - did he retire?
This thread makes it look like we have already written him off, and offends my sensibilities.
No one can replace Rush, and if he, or his people are reading this thread, I apologize on behalf of those of us that know this.
Disagree. Mark is very good at “turning a phrase” but Rush has always been ahead of the news. He and his staff call it almost every time. For entertainment Mark Steyn is tops. For in-depth analysis and insight no one can top Rush.
a tad pre mature but either Jason Lewis or mark Steyn
Agreed.
There is more to being a good talk show host than simply having the right ideas. About half the time, I turn off Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity after a few minutes because most of their shows sound like re-runs. Two hosts I listen to all the way through are Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz. Somehow, they manage to come up with shows every day that do not sound like re-runs.
I hear Mark Steyn frequently as a substitute; and I would also put him in this upper tier of hosts who know how to produce a different show every day.
Another of my requirements for a good host is the ability to deal with hostile callers. Neal Boortz does the best job of this. He has a zero tolerance policy for "drive-by debaters" who make ridiculous statements and rush on before they can be challenged. When a caller make a factually or logically questionable statement, he stops them dead in their tracks until they explain themselves or back down. Sean Hannity does the worst job of handling hostile callers (and guests). He lets them take over the show, browbeat him and basically waste air time repeating Democrat Party talking points ad nauseum.
Steyn by a mile. He is a scream.
Today, Walt Williams (subbing for Rush) was pretty good...and Thomas Sowell called in and I thought I’d hit an exacta.
I don’t think Sarah Palin would be that good as a host; not that I disagree with her, but I think her message would get very repetitive, she has a very folksy way of saying things and doesn’t have the twisted subtleties that Rush has. Which I really like!
Rush would be near-impossible to replace for plenty of reasons. Here he is, with the largest audience, yet he is so gracious to callers and allows them to speak quite openly and at remarkable (IMO) length.
If you sample the various talk show hosts, you can see about a dozen ways to go off the rails: Hannity: Too repetitive. Savage: Too abrupt. Levin: Kind of abrupt though I really like him. Tom Mahr: Too much low key anger. (I REALLY liked Mark Simone the other day) Kasich, kind of ran outta steam. There’s simply nobody like Rush.
Rush is coming back, stronger than ever.
But IF Rush didn’t, I would have 3 hours a day to do something else. Rush is irreplaceable.
I know this is way premature to even think about...but I would love to hear Dick Cheney on the air. I Obama can’t handle Cheney speaking out once every few months, I’d love to have Dick tell us what he thinks every single day!
I agree. Rush is not replaceable. Rush is a political genius. I listen to him not just because he is entertaining. I listen to him because he is almost always right.
Steyn is my number one vote. He is always awesome as guest host, he was spectacular filling in for Hannity last week and always on target and funny in his columns. I’m completely smitten.
Thank you - ‘right on’ post. This thread is meant to cause division. Rush’s talent is on loan from God. NO ONE can replace him and his giftings. He’ll be back for no weapon formed against him shall prosper.
Bump!
But you don't have to be brilliant to run for Governor of California, or even President of the United States. Ronald Reagan wasn't brilliant. Neither is George W. Bush. Both presidents were great delegators, and I have no doubt that Sarah Palin would do the same. She did in Alaska.
The other two I mentioned were Mark Steyn and John Gibson. I admit that I know less about these two. I might stipulate that Palin is as smart as either of these two, but certainly not any smarter. If you still have a problem with this, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
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.