Asymmetrical Information

"High level" depends on, compared to what? Rush is a big improvement over getting your news from, say, Peter Jennings or Katie Couric; he gives you the context and some sense of the competing positions in a way you'd never hear on network TV news. But compared to, say, opinion magazines or blogs, Rush doesn't hold up nearly as well, and it's easy to see why his shtick would rub a lot of people the wrong way.

Also, I haven't listened to his show regularly since I graduated from college in 1993, so my view is a bit dated (and dates back to when there was no internet, no blogs, few real alternatives to the mainstream media world view).

No, your experience with Rush sounds typical. The only time his show is worth listening to is when Walter Williams is guest host.

Thanks to a little thing called "my damn family" I've listened to Rush, quietly and politely, for many, many years and watched his TV show. It's possible that he slacks off a bit during holiday times and the summer (when I'm with my damn family) but from what's I've heard you are spot on. The actual content of the average all-afternoon show could be listed in five bullet points on a 3X5 index card and two of the points would be "I hate those people" and "You should hate those people." High level my foot. Bombastic grandstanding is what it is.

I still get a chuckle when I remember the wonderful day some journalist found out that Rush, who at that point had been on the air for a few years, had never even registered to vote.

I refuse to cut Rush Limbaugh any slack. This is the same man who adamantly advocated putting drug users behind bars. He is a hypocrite and should pay the price. Also, he has never been my hero. Rush's exaggerated rhetoric concerning so-called feminist Nazis and others may have caused more harm than good. He and the Paul Krugmans of the Left serve us poorly.

Rush's great moment was for NAFTA. For weeks he explained free trade and what it meant to legions of Perot sympathizers and protectionists. He helped bolster support among Republicans that they would not be out on a limb.

Recently he has not been a focused or have a target so emininently laudable.

Rush's great moment was for NAFTA. For weeks he explained free trade and what it meant to legions of Perot sympathizers and protectionists. He helped bolster support among Republicans that they would not be out on a limb.

Recently he has not been a focused or have a target so emininently laudable.

His audience is working class middle America. Lambasting those he doesn't agree with works with his audience. Does he pander to them? Yes, of course. He is an entertainer. If his audience disappears, he disappears. The mainstream media is no different. The perceived bias in the media is really a reflection of the changing tastes of the market. The press hasn't changed, the audience has. The marketing folks at the major media coprporations understand this. Notice how the New York Times and MSNBC have recently added conservative contributors to their product lines? I don't think it is due to a sudden desire for balance. They see that Fox News is gaining in popularity and fear loss of market share. If the trend continues, you will see conservatives on network news as well.

As for the drug abuse, at least he admitted to it. He could easily have denied it. In my opinion, this was far more respectful than attempting to smear his maid and hoping that no blue Gap dressed would ever appear.

As for the Cubs, hit the cut off man Sammy! Get the bullpen warmed up Dusty! Field the ball Alex.
Finally, leave that poor smuck alone Cubs Fans. You would have reached for the ball too.
Go Cubs!

Jim English
Chicago, IL

The Rush Limbaugh situation makes me sick.

I've listened to him off and on for about 6 years. His show has had greater impact on the American populace than any other single media outlet in the past 10 years. I watched the popular culture shift to the right in direct proportion to his time on the air. It wasn't that he said anything new -- it was just that he said things that most people were not permitted to think or know about in our politically correct culture. Those who thought like he did finally had a voice. Those who didn't know his thoughts existed were exposed to them for the first time.

What you have to understand about Rush's show was that underneath all of the bluster it was really a civics lesson in disguise. There might have been weeks of nothing much happening but suddenly an issue would surface or a caller would call in and Rush would nail it by giving a couple hour substantive course on how government works or why the conventional thinking on a particular subject was wrong. This, of all of the things he did, was his greatest gift. He made the boring seem compelling and interesting.

The horror of all of this is that an important voice in American culture has lost its authority. He has shown himself to be a fraud on an issue that he frequently and specifically addressed and on which he held others to a very high standard. Any thinking person will find his current situation to be untenable.

The Rush Limbaugh situation makes me sick.

I've listened to him off and on for about 6 years. His show has had greater impact on the American populace than any other single media outlet in the past 10 years. I watched the popular culture shift to the right in direct proportion to his time on the air. It wasn't that he said anything new -- it was just that he said things that most people were not permitted to think or know about in our politically correct culture. Those who thought like he did finally had a voice. Those who didn't know his thoughts existed were exposed to them for the first time.

What you have to understand about Rush's show was that underneath all of the bluster it was really a civics lesson in disguise. There might have been weeks of nothing much happening but suddenly an issue would surface or a caller would call in and Rush would nail it by giving a couple hour substantive course on how government works or why the conventional thinking on a particular subject was wrong. This, of all of the things he did, was his greatest gift. He made the boring seem compelling and interesting.

The horror of all of this is that an important voice in American culture has lost its authority. He has shown himself to be a fraud on an issue that he frequently and specifically addressed and on which he held others to a very high standard. Any thinking person will find his current situation to be untenable.

I last listened to Rush regularly in about 1991, though I've listened here and there since then. Your impression is fairly good, though Rush is rather too easy to caricature, and some of the most outrageous things people thinks he said, he hasn't.

I found myself agreeing with most of Rush's commentary, except on a few issues (notably abortion, but also those where a libertarian would differ from a conservative), but after a while, I couldn't stand to listen to him for more than a few minutes at a time. His jokes are mostly what Heinlein('s characters) considered "funny-once".

Rush is preaching to the choir. Nobody who holds "liberal" values will be convinced by someone like Rush, but that's not why he's popular. Many people with conservative values find it hard to defend their beliefs to their liberal neighbors and friends, because they lack the factual knowlege to counter liberal arguments, and the conservative print commentators don't provide nearly enough factual material or analysis to counter the pervasive liberal bias in reporting and analysis. Rush gives them the ammunition to argue with liberals. He spends 15 hours a week talking about things which liberals do which many liberals would like to ignore, about news items which tend to validate the conservative world-view against the liberal one, and providing rough-and-ready analyses of these facts.

I don't see hypocrisy. I don't think Rush thought is was okay for him to abuse prescription pain killers while he condemned such behavior on the radio. If anything, he's guilty of advocating a standard of behavior he, himself, was unable to meet. That's human weakness, not hypocrisy. Condemning others for behavior you, in truth, find acceptable is hypocrisy.

Arguing for high standards of personal conduct, and then failing to meet those standards (though making a good faith effort to do so), shouldn't be viewed as hypocrisy. Otherwise, none of us could argue for high standards because we all, at times, fall short of the mark. Drugs are not my problem. I have other standards that I advocate (and try to instill in my kids) that I don't always meet. I honestly try to live those standards and frequently fall short in the effort. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me human.

I agree with David. When I read about the disconnect between what Rush said and what he did, I recall a quote:

"Principles are more easily fought for than lived up to."

David W.,

Your point about hypocrisy is sensible, but I don't think it applies to Limbaugh. It would if he was on the air urging people to stay off drugs, talking about how dangerous they were, etc. But that wasn't the message. It was that drug addicts are scum who lack sufficient self-discipline to stay off and need to be in jail. There's a difference there.

Jim English,

He didn't quite "admit to it" voluntarily. It had been in the news, and was likely to come out anyway as a result of the investigation. He had no choice. In fact, since this had been going on for quite some time, I would say he tried to keep it secret. Understandable, but let's not give him credit for something he really didn't do.

"Rush's great moment was for NAFTA. For weeks he explained free trade and what it meant to legions of Perot sympathizers and protectionists."

That would be when he went on about letting filthy Mexicans do the work not fit for Americans?

Bernard,

He never denied it. Then, less than a week after it hit the mainstream press, full disclosure directly to his 20 million listeners. I stand by my earlier comments and comparison.

From the BBCNews website:

The president made his categoric denial at a White House press conference today.

With his fist clenched and his voice shaking, he said: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

"I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.

"These allegations are false and I need to get back to work for the American people."

Mr Clinton left the room without answering any questions.

Rush Limbaugh 9-23-93

"He says that, I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of drug abuse. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you're making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.'

What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I don't know how--how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it and--and pull the trigger. And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it."

Rush Limbaugh 10-10-03

"You know, I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication.

"I first started taking prescription painkillers some years ago when my doctor prescribed them to treat post surgical pain following spinal surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs. I am still experiencing that pain. Rather than opt for additional surgery for these conditions, I chose to treat the pain with prescribed medication. This medication turned out to be highly addictive.

"Over the past several years I have tried to break my dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do so. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next steps.

"Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me. . .

"I am not making any excuses. . . I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem."

So which is it Rush? Strictly a matter of personal will power or a disease? Sure sounds like he is making excuses, the big hypocrite.

Nameless,

Did Rush use the word disease? If you intend to mis-characterize someone's statements it's better not to include their direct qoute.

Jim English

Please. He doesn't need to say "disease." He says he's "addicted," he was "treating the pain," "the medication turned out to be highly addictive," he's tried hard to "break his dependence," to "break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me."

In other words, it's not my fault. It's the drugs' fault. What a big hypocrite.

Nameless,

Since he didn't need to say disease, why did you?
I think his description of addiction fits typical definitions. How would you describe addiction differently?

Jim English

I see the earlier quote as a man talking about something he's never had experience of: the hold this stuff can have on you, to the point where "choice" becomes meaningless. Hypocrite? I don't see it - he simply didn't understand what he was talking about. Looks like now he does...

Bernard and nameless - I draw a distinction between illegal drugs and prescription drugs and so do most of the people I know. In my mind there is a big difference between becoming addicted through recreational use and becoming addicted use drugs prescribed for your treatment. Even if such a distinction were not valid, I don't recall Rush coming down on people addicted to pain medication as opposed to snorting cocaine. Evidently, even before his addiction, Rush drew such a distinction. If that's case, the charge of hypocracy falls flat.

All this misses the central point. For years now liberals have been harranging us to treat drug users as victims and such. We should be compassionate. But once again, the hypocracy bleeds through when its someone the liberals disagree with.

They set one set of rules for themselves and another for their opposition. Clarence Thomas cannot mention pubic hair on his Coke can, but Clinton can demand a blowjob.

Rush Limbaugh? No, look....The Clenis!!!!

I'm no fan of Limbaugh's. Not because of his opinions and policy preferences, but because of his hate mongering and pandering. As others mentioned above, he gives his listeners ammunition for debate. The problem is that that ammunition is mocking and hateful- "the liberals are trying to destroy America" is a phrase I've heard every time I tune in. And so, the dittoheads go out into the world armed with the delusion that they are fighting for America with their daily dose of easy-answer talking points.

"Why shouldn't there be a perscription drug benefit?"

"Because that would give liberals too much control!"

That's not debating a point, that's simply name calling- disguised by the false intelligence of a spurious conclusion. It wins* bar arguments all the time- rather than answer the question, you question motivation, you challenge sources, you challenge one's authority to even ask the question, and finally, if pressed, you skip over the actual answer by drawing a doomsday conclusion based on the asker's preferred answer.

And now the Bush haters are doing the same thing. Limbaugh, and his ilk, have reduced the level of discourse- irreparably, at least, in the short term.

Hate him for that, not for getting caught with a golf-bag full of pills.

* Winning being, in this case, getting the other guy to "shut up".

"Why shouldn't there be a perscription drug benefit?"

"Because that would give liberals too much control!"

This is clearly a characterization by someone who does not listen to Rush's show. He has spent hours explaining why the prescription drug benefit cannot possibly work in the long run and it has nothing to do with liberals having too much control.

At the same time, he passionately believes that liberals ARE attempting to destroy America and if you listen to him every day for two months he will explain in great detail why that is. In far greater detail and in a much more compelling way than I have ever seen or heard a liberal explain his or her position.

And yes, during that time you will hear him call people names and make fun of them. Stop and consider, though, the fact that he is just doing the very same thing that any pop culture icon feels free to do every day when describing conservatives and, in particular, the president. He's just aiming his barbs at the other side.

Rush was good or, at least, acceptable when there weren't many other national talk show hosts to listen too. There are now many shows where I live and to my ears Rush doesn't measure up. I prefer Medved who has many callers who disagree with him. When I listen to Rush(rarely) I don't hear that. I have heard Rush yell at Repubs to get more aggressive assuming that the rest of America is just like his radio audience. The funny thing is if he had ran for office instead of sitting behind his golden microphone he would be preparing his resignation speech today. Always easy to tell the players how to play the game when your safely on the bench. In order of preference: Medved(at least 20 IQ points up on Rush),Phil Hendrie(a hoot when he is not being too offensive),Dr. Laura(some callers can be quite compelling), Michael Savage(misdirected passion but he put the illegal immigration on the map) and then everybody else.

I find Rush entertaining, but that might be due to my agreeing with him about two-thirds of the time on his broad position on significant issues. But I often reject the specific argument he makes to buttress his position. Rush seems art and humanities oriented; I am science and technology oriented. That difference means that I can constantly punch holes in his logic, in his claims. But he's creative and entertaining. Maybe his repetitive stuff ("all knowing" ; "excellence in... " ) is strictly humor and advertising - it becomes insufferable.

Nameless, there is a huge gulf of difference between someone who starts shooting heroin purely for the enjoyment of the drug and someone who is seeking relief from physical pain.

There are those who would argue that the heroin users are seeking to alleviate psychic pain but I don't find that a compelling claim. I've struggled with depression all my life but have never felt the urge to seek out narcotics. Other depressives I've known who did are either in far worse shape or dead.

Rush has been on the record as saying that there aren't enough white drug offenders being put in jail.

He knows if he broke the laws regulating the sale and possestion of prescription drugs. He's an admitted college drop-out, but he's no dummy.

If, and ONLY IF, Rush knows that he broke the laws in this area, and then chooses to hire a very good attorney and plead not guilty when the case comes to court, then he is ipso facto a hypocrite.

I haven't seen a compelling case as to why Rush shouldn't be held to his own standards, which as noted above, are clear and unambigious.

As for the comparison between illegal and prescription drugs: Rush could've chosen to go to a pain clinic where they have other means of treating pain besides popping vicodins like M&Ms.

He could've confided in his doctor, who presumably could've referred him to someone with experience in treating people who have his problem.

Like the heroin addict alluded to earlier, he had choices. With his wealth and celebrity, he had a hell of a lot more choices than most drug addicts in this country.

There's even a question as to whether he had a back problem, as he's participated in golf tournaments when he did 250-yard drives at times.
If someone with medical expertise can explain how even with pain-killers, someone with back problems can do this now and again, please let us know about it. It kind of reminds me of the guy who goes on Workman's Comp for a supposed injury, and is then is taped doing stuff that after 5 minutes of activity should send him screaming in pain into his bed on his back because of his injury.

Jane, your problem with Limbaugh's tome is one that is common to many people. You don't realize that it is tongue-in-cheek, "talent on loan from God" and "Half-my-brain-tied-behind-my-back". He is riffing on the "experts" and academics that the left trot out to justify whatever new "program" that they are initiating to save us peasants from ourselves.

I am old enough to remember the 70's when it seemed like there was no conservative presence other than the ultra-right wackos and how glad I was in 1980 for Reagan and even more please when Rush went on the air because he was saying what I was thinking but never had the guts to say.

I am disappointed in him for his drug use, but as a recovering Alcoholic I can sure identify with him.

Comments are Closed.