And your monthly won't be missed, either. I'll just increase mine.
Posted on 10/10/2003 4:42:38 PM PDT by B-Chan
Popular radio show host Rush Limbaugh revealed today that he is addicted to illegally-obtained prescription painkillers and is entering a rehabilitation program for substance abusers.
His supporters have “rushed” to defend their idol, running around clucking about how this is really all no big deal. Well, I’m sorry to say, it is a big deal, and the legions of Rush Limbaugh devotees are just going to have to deal with the pain. It’s always devastating to find out your idol has feet of clay. “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”
I, however, am not among the breast-beaters and sackcloth-wearers who are crying in the streets over their toppled god. Frankly, I never understood what was so great about the Rush Limbaugh program. The man was a self-admitted entertainer, not a real political thinker; his brand of rubber-chicken, Chamber-Of-Commerce conservatism has as much to do with historic and traditional conservative thought as Coors Light has to do with real beer - they contain the same basic ingedients, true, but one is watered down for easy-drinkin’ smoothness, with no bitter intellectual aftertaste.
(Speaking of Coors Light, why was it that so many of the good ol’ boys that called in to Mr. Limbaugh’s show with their “cawmints” seemed to be drywall contractors cellphoning from their pickup trucks while driving home to Lewisville? Limbaugh’s listeners were good people, mind you, but not the deepest thinkers in the world.
Not that there‘s anything wrong with that. My point is that Mr. Limbaugh’s show was meant as mass entertainment, not serious politics.)
I guess one reason I never got hooked on Rush (to make a bad pun) was that his fan base kind of freaked me out. Cults-of-personality just make me feel weird. The frenzied worship many of Limbaugh’s fans showed towards him in public was positively embarrassing at times: behavior on the level of the kids who wear Star Trek uniforms to school or spend hours writing elegies in Elvish for fallen Glorfindel of Rivendell. In sci-fi terms, Rush Limbaugh was the Gene Roddenberry of American conservatism, with his own brand of Trekkies; it must be a bummer to realize that the Great Bird of the Galaxy is just another Hollywood sleazebag like everyone else in showbiz
The problem is that people have a natural tendency to make their heroes into larger-than-life supermen, and in so doing they set themselves up for inevitable disappointment. Limbaugh is not the political genius his followers see him to be — he is a showman. I agreed with a good bit of what Mr. Limbaugh had to say on the few occasions when I tuned in to his show over the years, but it was obvious to me from the beginning that most of it was pure schtick, complete with sound effects, zingers, and catchphrases. (The latter were the most cringeworthy; I always found talk of “el Rushbo”, the ”Maharushi”, and the “Golden Microphone” to be intensely stupid, and his constant talk of “excellence” conjured up images of the kind of profound Mission Statements one sees plastered on the walls of companies run by sleazy go-getters. “SlimeCorp — Maximizing Excellence!” Give me a break!)
Anyone who took Limbaugh seriously has got to be hurting right now; finding out that anti-drug Rush is a closet pill-popper has gotta be like finding out that Art Bell doesn’t really believe in the Chupacabra. I feel for his fans — but I hope they’ve learned the lesson in all this: all men are flawed; never get too excited about any one man.
My prayers go out to Mr. Limbaugh’s loved ones. May God grant him a speedy recovery, and may those who looked upon him as more than human finally get the message.
A Bushism, to be sure.
It sounds a bit like an Arnoldism: "überservations".
An apt analogy.
And your monthly won't be missed, either. I'll just increase mine.
My grandma was happy that she got rid of her monthlies.
A Bushism, to be sure.
It sounds a bit like an Arnoldism: "überservations".
All part of my stratergery.
A typist I ain’t. Sorry for the misistakake. Off to play the saxomophone now.
Frankly, I never understood what was so great about the Rush Limbaugh program. The man was a self-admitted entertainer, not a real political thinker; his brand of rubber-chicken, Chamber-Of-Commerce conservatism has as much to do with historic and traditional conservative thought as Coors Light has to do with real beer - they contain the same basic ingedients, true, but one is watered down for easy-drinkin’ smoothness, with no bitter intellectual aftertaste. How ego-centric! Your cluelessness to Rush's importance doesnt imply that he is unimportant to 20 million others ... let me clue you in. Go back before the internet - there was *nothing* in the media for conservatives to listen to that explains whats going on in terms that make sense to Conservatives. We'd have to "read between the lines" of the New York Times; we'd have to understand that when NPR said 'controversial proposal' it meant a Republican got some cohones. In 1990, *only Rush* was there explaining exactly what was happening to Clarence Thomas. I first heard Rush during that week, and I am convinced that Rush was the reason Clarence Thomas survived that liberal "high-tech lynching". Public pressure and all... I remember a liberal friend in 1992 "oh now they elected Clinton, Rush will be out of business". the liberals and elitists never got it. It was about Americans wanting news that wasnt spoon fed to them in a liberal way.
(Speaking of Coors Light, why was it that so many of the good ol’ boys that called in to Mr. Limbaugh’s show with their “cawmints” seemed to be drywall contractors cellphoning from their pickup trucks while driving home to Lewisville? Limbaugh’s listeners were good people, mind you, but not the deepest thinkers in the world. I have a PhD in Computer Science and as an occasional listeners I have found Rush's comments on the news of the day spot-on in so many cases and generally creative and entertaining. Your assumption and insults of his audience notwithstanding, he manages to both educate *and* entertain. It's much easier to do one or the other - his does both.
Not that there‘s anything wrong with that. My point is that Mr. Limbaugh’s show was meant as mass entertainment, not serious politics.) Smarmy comment - this man is more right that Russert on MTP, more right than Dowd and the whole NYT columnist list combined. He's got to do it 3x5=15hrs a week. and the subject is politics and cultures.
The problem is that people have a natural tendency to make their heroes into larger-than-life supermen, and in so doing they set themselves up for inevitable disappointment. Limbaugh is not the political genius his followers see him to be — he is a showman. I agreed with a good bit of what Mr. Limbaugh had to say on the few occasions when I tuned in to his show over the years, but it was obvious to me from the beginning that most of it was pure schtick, complete with sound effects, zingers, and catchphrases.
What absurd comments - you seem to be offended by the idea that Rush actually entertains. Yet that is the essense of any show on TV or radio. He gets people wanting to listen, by being himself. Which is not a 'genius' per se, but an exceptionally gifted political commentator. If you took your blinders off, you'd see he's one of the bes t in the business and a trailblazer for every 'right wing talk radio schtick' personality that followed.
I always found talk of “el Rushbo”, the ”Maharushi”, and the “Golden Microphone” to be intensely stupid, Ah, grasshopper - you have no sense of humor. Having heard the Rush speech to the National Broadcasters Association, I clearly heard a man of humility.
What you seem to desire is a conservative movement that is dull,dry, maintaining that hauteur of a Wlm F Buckley and a seriousness of a George Will. No tongue in cheek, no schtick, no irony, no building up ... You can find that in Commentary and National Review, but that will bore the bust and leave us with a Presidency of the likes of Dean.
Bingo. Rush himself said this back during Clinton's first term in office, when all the hostility towards "right-wing talk radio" began. When someone (Hillary Clinton, I believe) pointed out that Rush Limbaugh was nothing more than an entertainer, he asked why she wasn't making the same complaints about Jay Leno and David Letterman when they made the Clinton White House the target of their jokes on their late-night shows.
Touché! ;-)
Another outstanding point. Someone recently suggested that liberals are so upset about the influence of talk radio because it is the one media outlet that so clearly illustrates the major problem with liberalism -- any truck driver in the U.S. can pick up a cell phone, call a radio show, and tear all their idiotic fallacies to shreds.
No. I was only leaving if this thread got zotted.
But, since you seem to be so big, I assume you have increased your monthly?
?
Rush Limbaugh gave voice to the many without.
Rush is popular for the simple fact that his views reflect the ideals that many people have.
About 20 million per week
Rush is free to destroy himself, but in the end doing so is not going change the reason for his popularity nor should it have any impact on what people hold true.
true
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.