Explain Rush Limbaugh to this foreigner

[hotflungwok]

@Starving_Artist

Limbaugh sometimes has African Americans host his show in his absence and had his good personal friend Clarance Thomas perform the ceremony when he wed Marta Fitzgerald.

Really? Did he play ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ for them? I bet they would have loved that. I wonder if he had to tell them take the bone out of their nose so they could be understood. Did he ask them why all composite pictures of criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Of course in the eyes of liberals these guys don’t count as a blacks because they’re conservatives. And his wisecracks about “Feminazis” were aimed at strident, in-your-face feminists of the type inclined to call stay-at-home moms names for not seeking their own careers and attempting to harangue women into getting abortions when they were undecided about it…oh, yeah, and arguing that all sex was rape.

So when he said that women protesting sexual harassment were protesting what they actually wished would happen to them sometimes, which of those things was he aiming at?

It had nothing to do with feminism per se nor equal pay as gonzomax claimed, just as the song “Barack the Magic Negro” was not an insult to blacks but a comment about people who voted for Obama simply because he was black.

Keep saying it, that’ll make it true. C’mon, it should only take a few more times.

It’s pretty much impossible to criticize anything liberals do in this country on the behalf of women and blacks, no matter how wrongheaded, without being labeled sexist or racist and that’s why Limbaugh gets accused of sexism and racism.

Or maybe it’s cuz he says sexist & racist things. You know, instead of the persecution complex you’re going for.

[Robot_Arm]

@Starving_Artist

…and had his good personal friend Clarance Thomas perform the ceremony when he wed Marta Fitzgerald.

His third wife, who he has since divorced. Darn those gays and liberals for damaging the institution of marriage.

[JohnT]

@Starving_Artist

And by “talk radio” I mean talk radio with a conservative (or at least political) agenda, which I believe is what Bosstone had in mind when she used the term.

Conservative talk radio has been around since late 1940’s, then largely funded by HL Hunt.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm

[Lightnin]

My wife is out on Thursday nights, so tonight is my night to pretend to be a bachelor. I’m feeling the urge to go out for dinner, but I’m not sure where I should go- nothing sounds particularly interesting.

Would some Conservative be kind enough to tell me what I secretly want for dinner tonight? I’m kind of leaning towards the Irish pub down the street, but I tend to go there a lot and I’d like to get something a bit different.

Thanks.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@gravitycrash

That was some of his best stuff though! Back in the early 90’s some of the feminists organizations were particularly shrill, especially NOW. That speech from one of the NOW representatives that he recorded and lampooned was hilarious.

" We’re fierce, we’re feminists, and we’re in your face!"

I think we have different ideas when it comes to what’s entertaining. I found him interesting at one time, but I believe he realized he could bank on extremism early on and ran with it. And ran and ran.

I don’t know all conservatives, but I know my brother, once a huge fan, has backed away over the years as well. He has the same problem. The man became a caricature. He tries to come across as a superior being but he screws up just as much or more than some of his targets. He’s the trolling type of entertainer who has limited appeal. I don’t wish the man ill or find him loathsome. I’m just don’t care for the whole putting down people for laughs thing, no matter who is doing it.

[cmkeller]

Man, some of this is making me laugh. Not derisively, but humorously.

Did any of you guys ever hear of Bob Grant? That guy was the top voice in talk radio before Rush. He shouted down callers all the time, his voice was never on an even keel, and hardly had any sense of humor. Rush, believe it or not, RAISED the level of civility in talk radio.

That’s not to say the criticisms of him - or his degree of civility - are unwarranted. I’m just commenting that it’s amusing, considering that his increased degree of civility over his predecessor(s) on talk radio was part of his earliest appeal.

[Gyrate]

@Starving_Artist

So people who dislike a certain political ideology tend to enjoy an entertainer who makes fun of that ideology and exposes its flaws and weaknesses? Yeah, I’d say so. Hardly a news flash. How do you feel about Al Franken and Janeane Garofolo?

I like Al Franken as a senator. Never thought much of him as a front-of-camera talent. And Garofolo is deeply irritating, especially when discussing politics, as indeed is Wanda Sykes. I prefer entertainers willing to skewer the idiocies of all sides, like Jon Stewart or Rory Bremner (and yes, The Daily Show has taken aim at Obama and other Democrats on a regular basis).

It is possible to share an ideology with someone and still dislike their means of expression.

[emacknight]

@MaxTheVool

Unless I massively fail to understand what “correlation” means, it’s still a correlation.
Here’s Bob. Bob is a conservative chosen randomly from among all US conservatives, and that’s all we know about him. What are the odds he’s a regular Rush listener?

Here’s Doug. Doug is a non-conservative chosen randomly from among all US non-conservatives, and that’s all we know about him. What are the odds he’s a regular Rush listener?

The first odds are clearly higher than the second.
Here’s Mary. Mary is a regular Rush listener, chosen randomly from among all US Rush listeners. What are the odds that Mary is a conservative?

Here’s Anne. Anne is not a regular Rush listener, chosen random from among all US people-who-are-not-regular-Rush-listeners. What are the odds that Anne is a conservative?

Again, the first odds are clearly higher than the second.
To me, that is pretty much a textbook correlation.

You’re reading the wrong textbooks.

Rush listeners are a subset of conservatives. Picture the venn diagram with a big circle representing conservatives, outside is not-conservatives. Rush has a very small circle that is about 96% within the larger circle.

If we then had a circle of people that didn’t know salt was NaCl, it would entirely encompass Rush’s audience, most of the conservative circle, and most of the non-conservative area.

It’s not a liberals know it but conservatives don’t. It’s that viewers of Colbert are more likely to get it, but listeners of Rush’s aren’t.

Rush’s listeners are a sub-set of conservatives. So to say that Rush’s listeners drive red trucks doesn’t mean that conservatives drive red trucks. It means that some conservatives both listen to Rush and have red trucks.

[The_Tooth]

@Starving_Artist

So you are attempting to equate our torturing of three prisoners (and that’s all it’s been, including the mastermind of 9/11) with leading someone around on a dog leash?

None of what you said answers my question about your claim about Limbaugh. What facet of liberalism is one mocking when one attempts damage control on behalf of Republicans by attempting to portray the Republican policy of torturing prisoners as “frat pranks”?
That’s what he was doing. I don’t care what you think of it or the practice of torture. What facet of liberalism is it mocking?

[Shirley_Ujest]

To me he will always be the complete hypocrite who ruined his ears with his precription drug addiction.

[Dan_Norder]

@Clothahump

In a nutshell - Rush irritates the hell out of liberals for two major reasons:

1. He has a schtick and he does it specifically to irritate liberals. It annoys conservatives, too, but we are willing to put up with it because

2. He’s right far, far more often than he is wrong. And that irritates the hell out of the liberals because they can’t refute what he says, so they resort to ad hominem attacks against him.

LOL. Wow, someone drank the kool aid big time. Rush is right about as often as any poorly educated pathological liar is, and his target audience is even less educated and less concerned about honesty. They like to pretend they are smart despite being dumber than rocks, and the only opportunity they actually have to feel intelligent in their poor, deluded lives is when Rush tells them exactly what they want to hear.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Actually, I understand that being attacked makes them feel good, too - proves to them they’re doing something right or hitting a nerve or being mavericky or some damn thing.

I prefer to view them simply with low-level contempt.

[emacknight]

@Clothahump

In a nutshell - Rush irritates the hell out of liberals for two major reasons:

1. He has a schtick and he does it specifically to irritate liberals. It annoys conservatives, too, but we are willing to put up with it because

2. He’s right far, far more often than he is wrong. And that irritates the hell out of the liberals because they can’t refute what he says, so they resort to ad hominem attacks against him.

The thing to remember is that Rush is an entertainer providing a service: he delivers a very specific audience to his advertisers.

He does this by saying inflammatory things that excite his listeners, and it’s a wildly successful tactic.

Here he is mocking Michael J Fox

What’s important to remember is that he’s an entertainer, not a journalist. It doesn’t matter if what he says is right or wrong, it only has to be inflammatory. He can say something stupid like, “Canada’s socialized health care is crippling their economy.”

If he’s right it fires up his listeners, and generates more ad revenue. His listeners hate socialized medicine and are happy to hear examples of countries crippled by it. They aren’t about to go fact check him, they are happy to ear him say things that confirm their bias. Happy listeners generate more ad revenue.

But if it turns out he’s wrong, he gets attacked for it. Keep in mind that it wasn’t that he said something conservative, he said something stupid. Well, this is even better, now he’s a victim of the hateful, irritated liberals! And keep in mind his listeners aren’t about to fact check for themselves. This fires up his listeners as they rally in his defense, meaning more ad revenue.

Then, because he is an entertainer not a journalist, he can play it off as a joke. Ha ha, jokes on you for believing he actually knows anything about the Canadian economy. He was just exaggerating to make a point, because he’s an entertainer.

What’s sad, is that his listeners/followers aren’t in on the joke. They believe him when he says things factual, and believe him when he says things that are full of shit.

It’s the perfect system. And a little ironic that it was an Australian that took this to it’s logical conclusion and made an entire 24 hour news network centered around this principle.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@emacknight

He can say something stupid like, “Canada’s socialized health care is crippling their economy.”

Well, sure, but what are the odds of him saying ridiculously retarded like that? I have to hope the guy has some integrity.

[emacknight]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, sure, but what are the odds of him saying ridiculously retarded like that? I have to hope the guy has some integrity.

It has nothing to do with integrity, he is an entertainer. Reminds me of a Simpson’s episode, Krusty the clown looks out at the Red Hot Chilli Peppers as they dance in their underwear, then says, “how humiliating.” Then turns to his crew, while wearing a little girl’s outfit and screams, “I want a bigger lollypop.”

He’s an entertainer, not a journalist. Nothing he says needs to be correct or incorrect, integrity isn’t relevant. He has to deliver an audience to sell advertising, that’s it.

[Siam_Sam]

I’m neither liberal nor conservative, pretty much middle of the road. But I have no idea if I agree or disagree with Rush these days because I wrote him off as a sad clown SO long ago that I haven’t paid attention to him once ever since.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@emacknight

He’s an entertainer, not a journalist. Nothing he says needs to be correct or incorrect, integrity isn’t relevant. He has to deliver an audience to sell advertising, that’s it.

I’ve noted the same thing about Ann Coulter (at least in my limited knowledge of her). Say something zany, get called on it, ignore the criticism and say something even zanier.

[emacknight]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’ve noted the same thing about Ann Coulter (at least in my limited knowledge of her). Say something zany, get called on it, ignore the criticism and say something even zanier.

What I think is most telling is that conservatives won’t or can’t criticize her. So she/Rush/Fox says something zany and conservatives cheer, regardless of validity. The more zany the higher the ratings.

When something obviously false gets mentioned, the only group to point it out would be those considered “liberals.” As was mentioned earlier this is considered “saying something that irritates liberals.”

Notice the way that “lying” has to be rephrased as, “saying something that irritates liberals.” By definition, what Rush/Coulter/Fox says is the truth (or a joke). They can’t be criticized because somehow they’re not a protected group. Pointing out an obvious error makes a person a liberal douche.

So something “zany” gets said, liberals call them on their bullshit, and now conservatives have to go back and justify/twist/mangle what was said in order to cover their tracts. Instead of doing something with integrity like calling Rush on his bullshit.

Rush insults Michael J Fox (and people with Parkinson’s), gets called on it (by liberals), and conservatives have to rally around Rush and in the process dig up dirt on Fox and Parkinson’s to justify his comments. It’s unthinkable to simply say, “yup, Rush was an asshole.”

Nope, can’t be an asshole, because he’s conservative, the new protected class.

[gonzomax]

@emacknight

The thing to remember is that Rush is an entertainer providing a service: he delivers a very specific audience to his advertisers.

He does this by saying inflammatory things that excite his listeners, and it’s a wildly successful tactic.

Here he is mocking Michael J Fox

What’s important to remember is that he’s an entertainer, not a journalist. It doesn’t matter if what he says is right or wrong, it only has to be inflammatory. He can say something stupid like, “Canada’s socialized health care is crippling their economy.”

If he’s right it fires up his listeners, and generates more ad revenue. His listeners hate socialized medicine and are happy to hear examples of countries crippled by it. They aren’t about to go fact check him, they are happy to ear him say things that confirm their bias. Happy listeners generate more ad revenue.

But if it turns out he’s wrong, he gets attacked for it. Keep in mind that it wasn’t that he said something conservative, he said something stupid. Well, this is even better, now he’s a victim of the hateful, irritated liberals! And keep in mind his listeners aren’t about to fact check for themselves. This fires up his listeners as they rally in his defense, meaning more ad revenue.

Then, because he is an entertainer not a journalist, he can play it off as a joke. Ha ha, jokes on you for believing he actually knows anything about the Canadian economy. He was just exaggerating to make a point, because he’s an entertainer.

What’s sad, is that his listeners/followers aren’t in on the joke. They believe him when he says things factual, and believe him when he says things that are full of shit.

It’s the perfect system. And a little ironic that it was an Australian that took this to it’s logical conclusion and made an entire 24 hour news network centered around this principle.

What is important to remember, is that when he says something outrageous and a Repub does not defend it, the Repub has to make a public apology to Rush. He is not just an entertainer. He is the voice and the face of Republical conservative, pro corporate wing. The Venn diagram of Rush’s listeners would include the vast majority of the party.
I don’t recall him ever saying anything funny. Cruel and nasty, he can do.

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

I don’t recall him ever saying anything funny. Cruel and nasty, he can do.

Nothing is funny, but it’s all a joke.