I’m not so sure that he could hold his own. I’ve heard him make use of a number of logical fallacies in his rhetoric.
Waddya think?
With a White House staff? Sure.
EVERYBODY holds his own in SDMB debates, because nobody is ever declared a loser. If I call a left-leaning poster a moron, and he calls me a fascist, chances are we BOTH think we’ve “won” that debate handily. And, most likely, the people who generally side with me will think I’ve done a brilliant job of shooting down my opponent, while HIS friends will surely applaud him for making mincemeat of me.
Net effect: zilch!
So, if Rush were posting here, I imagine it would be the same. People who agree with him already would find him witty and persuasive. Those who don’t, wouldn’t. But I don’t think there’s anybody here who could refute what he says to the satisfaction of his fans… and that would be the real test.
From the debates I’ve heard Rush have on the show, it appears that one of his favorite tactics is to let them say a few things, then press the “cut-off” button while jabbering away, then smoothly segue into a commercial. (The “opposing side” often goes strangely silent while Rush pontificates at length on how wrong they are.)
You can’t cut-off posters on this board, or control how much they get to say. (Nor do you get to screen out particularly articulate people.) I think he’d be creamed if he ever tried posting here.
My point is that his “debates” are carefully controlled so that he always manages to have the last word (and usually, many of them.) His opponant’s hands are tied before he enters the proverbial ring. He wouldn’t get the same advantage here.
You’ve never heard the term ‘pile-on’?
good morning friends,
i often wish i had a direct line to rush to politely ask “cite please?” or “could you please put that phrase into the context it was originally stated?” or “do you choose the callers that your screeners let through based on their inabilty to state facts?”
Longhair has a good point. Rush often does not have reliable sources.
Based on his radio show, he is a grandstander, not one who debates. Of course, we have several on this board who follow the same strategy–e.g., be selective in the questions you respond to; answer in a glib, condescending manner; redirect pointed attacks to points you’re more comfortable with; ignore certain things completely; offer as a given that which you need to argue as true; etc. I’d say he’d fit right in.
I’m not a fan of Rush, but what you might be discounting is that he is not an idiot. Sure, he’s a blowhard; but he’s getting paid to be an entertainer, not win debates. So he uses fallacious logic, and abuses his role as moderator to push his agenda. But I think that if put into the position of playing by the rules (as in GD), he’d certainly hold his own. It might not be as entertaining (to those who find him entertaining), but he’s quite knowledgeable and wouldn’t be any more bombastic or one-sided than many current prolific Dopers.
I’m not a huge fan of Limbaugh as he tends to launch into condescending blustermatic mode too often, but make no mistake, the man is not an idiot and I would daresay is more widely and deeply read regarding the wide range of subjects he addresses than the large majority of the people posting on the SDMB Great Debates.
He can be an extremely effective debater is he is so inclined, but as others have correctly pointed out his main job is not to debate the liberals, but to entertain the conservatives and he makes no bones about this, and will cut off dissenting points of view if they become boring or strident. If the opponent is well spoken and credentialed he will go the issues at hand in extraordinary depth
and give them a fair amount of time, but the go-go format of entertainment talk radio is not really set up for having an effective debate.
I think he would get his ass kicked. He wouldnt even debate Al Franken. He does ok as long as there is nobody to challenge him on his “facts”, but having to provide cites to back it up?
Maybe I should have asked if he would “stand out” in GD.
He does seem markedly unconcerned with the logical validityof some of his rants. He sometimes cites less than entirely credible sources, (I’m thiinking of his “There is no global warming” campaign.)
If he debated the way he runs his show, he’d get dogged into the dirt by a midgrade Doper.
Here’s an equally valid question: could any SDMB regular sit in front of a microphone and talk about politics for 3 hours, and not have every listener turn to dial to a different station?
I doubt it!
You think it’s EASY to keep thousands of radio listeners entertained for three hours? You think it’s EASY to talk politics and not bore the audience to tears?
Rush is very effective in his chosen medium. No doubt he’d be less successful in other forums. But your favorite eloquent SDMB posters would probably be stammering fools or hapless bores if they tried to do what Rush does.
We all pick the media in which we feel strongest.
So?
Hmmmm…
december=8 letters
Limbaugh=8 letters
Bad sources, opinion columns and partisan pundits as proof…you do the math 
Or valid.
You forgot to mention that he can screen his calls.
I used to like Rush until he turned from a conservative into a Party Hack(Rah Rah Republicans). I still believe he would eat most debaters alive, especially if it was an issue that he had a keen interest in.
Rush comes from a family of lawyers. I believe his grandfather wrote some kind of important law in Missouri.
Yeah, I could.
I read Rush’s first book and liked it, a point which irritated my wife to no end. He seemed to have a lot of good points, well-researched and explained.
I read his second book, which was published mostly as a response to responses to this first book, and it seemed to boil down to “neener, neener, I’m right, you’re wrong, I’ve got eight bazillion listeners and you don’t, so nyah.”
My wife is happier now.