Thirty Years of Rush

[Foxfyre]

I highlighted a paragraph in the OP which will be the appropriate response to a post like this. Do have a great day.

jones would never think of debating someone.....its a lot easier to spew out some bullshit and get over to another thread and do the same there.....the guy is a useless stroonge...

He is entitled to his opinion. I just wish he would start his own thread to bash whatever his heart desires, and allow an intelligent discussion in this one. I don't fault anybody who doesn't care for Rush whose audience at best is 10% or less of the U.S. population and probably not that. So we can safely say 90% or more of the nation do not like Rush or are simply not interested enough to tune in. But more tune into his program than anybody elses nevertheless.

But I note that conservatives/libertarians/moderates can discuss the pros and cons of Rush intelligently and without rancor. And I find that refreshing over the inevitable insults and hate speech from the haters.

well thats probably because most on the right would tend to either agree with him or think he aint that far off.....i notice that the righties here cant talk about something maddow says without not saying insulting things....it goes both ways....

Then you don't listen to enough 'righties.'

i see plenty of them right here.....apparently you dont pay enough attention to what they post...

Just a few points.
--I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.

--So again you don't pay enough attention to what they post. I have zero problem with anybody who criticizes what Rush says--Lord knows I have criticized what he says when I think he is out of line or wrong over the years--but I don't respect anybody who debates via deliberate dishonesty, 'proof texting', and/or insults.

--This thread is not about Rachel Maddow but is about Rush Limbaugh's 30 years of unprecedented success.

--And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And for 30 years liberals would say...



Any day now.........



Rush is going off the air.....






FYI: to the young ones the only reason why Rush got to be so big and popular was the end to stifling free speech, the end to the fairness doctrine the year before.


....

I don't really think that had anything to do with it. I think Rush philosophically was like most of the people populating this country and he tapped into what those people thought, believed, were talking about, were frustrated by etc. as nobody else could and nobody else had done for decades. Paul Harvey, in his 15-minute daily monologue, hit the same kind of nerve, but he had less time to develop the thought and he was less political than Rush.

With the mega millions/billions poured into the Air America experiment to give the nation a liberal voice, you would have though it could have gotten off the ground. But it didn't? Why? Because the left never has any message to offer, no ideas, no agenda that is appealing to much of anybody. All they have is hand wringing and condemnation, nitpicking, and vague promises of a bunch of free stuff that wears thin with the average listener, and therefore the advertisers, really quickly.

But yes, if Rush's ratings slipped the least little bit, the haters were immediately on it. He was done. He was finished. He was a failure. Never mind that his ratings became more diluted when he single handedly created an industry that produced his own competition. But he never lost his #1 slot in any market to any of that competition.

Rush had/has little or no power. If he did, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would never have been elected--twice. Ross Perot would never have become the phenomenon he did--Rush did not like Perot at all--and McCain never would have been the GOP nominee in 2008. I don't think Trump was Rush's pick either--at least Rush wasn't promoting him in any way during the campaign. The candidate that came the closest to being endorsed by Rush was Ted Cruz.

But what he does is brilliant.

His 30 year run has been absolutely amazing and he hasn't suggested ending it any time soon. But the day he does decide to hang it up and play more golf or whatever, you can bet the leftists will all be singing one chorus: See? He failed and was forced out!

It had everything to do with it, Rush would of never got on the air or any of the others, to say what you said tells me how young you are or were not aware of the days before 1987

Before Russia Limbaugh you had Morton Downey Jr spewing the hate. Your MessiahRushie is just a third rate Morton Downey Jr, who was able to make a success on TV at the same time slot Russia failed miserably at.

Yes...in the mind of a radical leftist, anyone who opposes leftism, is a hater.

LMFAO!!!

Brainwashed!!!

It's not called " Hate Radio" for nothing!!!

Objective , give us an example twinkle toes?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This week marked the 30-year anniversary of the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, Rush has had more impact on media in general than any other single person in history. He came onto the scene in the 1980's just as the flower children of the 60's were coming into their own and had pretty well dominated most of the media. They were still doing journalism at that time but they were pushing more and more leftist ideology and concepts. Traditional American values and modern American conservative principles had pretty much vanished from the scene.

Entered Rush with a common sense, usually humorous and satiric, new kind of talk program. He was talking about politics, people, personalities, and concepts that millions of us had been thinking but were no longer hearing on the radio, television, or reading in the newspapers. No, we didn't always agree with him or appreciate everything he said, but we were hungry to hear much of what he had to say that nobody else was saying.

He was entertaining, but because of some very good scholarship, he was also informative. I know I found myself researching some of the facts he presented. And he got it right a whole lot more than he got it wrong.

Because of his amazing success, he paved the way for radio talk shows for many others and affected television as well. And because there were so many of us, he went from a handful of stations when he first started to hundreds propelling talk radio/news stations to #1 in their market pretty much everywhere in the country. Rush pretty much single handedly caused an entire new industry to be created.

Rush, like many highly successful people, is an imperfect person. He suffers from chronic obesity, has had difficulty sustaining personal relationships, became addicted to prescription drugs to the point it destroyed his hearing--he has cochlear implants in both ears that destroyed his enjoyment of music--but he overcame that which was a heroic feat as any recovering alcoholic/addict knows. And like many/most highly successful people, along with some valid criticisms, he has been misquoted, taken out of context, unfairly, dishonestly, mischaracterized.

The left, then and now, does not appreciate being challenged in anything and attack and try to suppress, harm, silence, and/or destroy the messenger rather than rebut what is said and/or offer a better argument. The left is neither open minded nor tolerant of ANYBODY who does not share their rhetoric and point of view. And they certainly went after Rush with a vengeance. And Rush didn't care. He went right ahead and called it as he saw it, did his thing, and has maintained the #1 slot in his genre for 30 years now.

That's pretty amazing. And it is right to acknowledge it.

And the only thing worse than Limbaugh’s 30 years of lies, ignorance, hate, stupidity, demagoguery, fake news, and conservative reactionaryism is that the reprehensible right continues to listen to this bloviating blowhard spew his lies, ignorance, hate, and stupidity.

Prove it...


I still remember when I used to listen to Rush and Phil Donahue had his show on MSNBC or something , they were talking and agreeing about the same thing.



All it is with you guys is kill the messenger not the message



.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't really care for the guy. I listened to him a couple times 20 years ago, that being said you have to hand it to a guy that pisses off the left for 30 years to the point where he lives in their heads night and day.

Back when I was running my business, I listened to him a lot because I was in my car more than I wasn't. Or he would be running in the background when I was working--I worked out of a home office. And though I was listening more for entertainment than information, and I was arguing with him sometimes a lot of the time, I came to understand his tactics and point of view, and how partisan and dishonest most of the stuff the left was throwing at him was. I by no means missed it when I missed his program--didn't think about it really--but I did notice that when he has a substitute host on, that host no matter how good just didn't have that certain something Rush has that is compelling.

These days I listen probably less than 30 minutes a month when I happen to be driving somewhere during his time slot. But even with that little exposure, he rarely fails to give me something to think about or that inspires me to research something when I get home. And I think that accounts for his success.

I'm usually aware of everything he says before he says it. He isn't original at all, he is like a radio version of the Drudge report, a news aggregator, but for conservatives. Yet he uses sources that would usually be suppressed.

He brings a spotlight to news and work that independent journalists are doing, directly to the masses, stories that are otherwise suppressed and received scant coverage. The thing that really irks me, is he censors it, and only presents one side of the story.

There is A LOT of work that the non-corporate press, and independent press is doing, stuff that has a progressive or left populist flavor, that he doesn't present. He definitely has some backers with an agenda to it. It's troublesome to say the least.

OTH, he does provide an invaluable service. Everyone should listen for the POV and the stories he does cover. Just like they should listen to NPR or BBC with a mind to their bias and the stories and holes they will have.

He toots his own horn, but he really doesn't do very much but read, select stories, and talk.

This week marked the 30-year anniversary of the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, Rush has had more impact on media in general than any other single person in history. He came onto the scene in the 1980's just as the flower children of the 60's were coming into their own and had pretty well dominated most of the media. They were still doing journalism at that time but they were pushing more and more leftist ideology and concepts. Traditional American values and modern American conservative principles had pretty much vanished from the scene.

Entered Rush with a common sense, usually humorous and satiric, new kind of talk program. He was talking about politics, people, personalities, and concepts that millions of us had been thinking but were no longer hearing on the radio, television, or reading in the newspapers. No, we didn't always agree with him or appreciate everything he said, but we were hungry to hear much of what he had to say that nobody else was saying.

He was entertaining, but because of some very good scholarship, he was also informative. I know I found myself researching some of the facts he presented. And he got it right a whole lot more than he got it wrong.

Because of his amazing success, he paved the way for radio talk shows for many others and affected television as well. And because there were so many of us, he went from a handful of stations when he first started to hundreds propelling talk radio/news stations to #1 in their market pretty much everywhere in the country. Rush pretty much single handedly caused an entire new industry to be created.

Rush, like many highly successful people, is an imperfect person. He suffers from chronic obesity, has had difficulty sustaining personal relationships, became addicted to prescription drugs to the point it destroyed his hearing--he has cochlear implants in both ears that destroyed his enjoyment of music--but he overcame that which was a heroic feat as any recovering alcoholic/addict knows. And like many/most highly successful people, along with some valid criticisms, he has been misquoted, taken out of context, unfairly, dishonestly, mischaracterized.

The left, then and now, does not appreciate being challenged in anything and attack and try to suppress, harm, silence, and/or destroy the messenger rather than rebut what is said and/or offer a better argument. The left is neither open minded nor tolerant of ANYBODY who does not share their rhetoric and point of view. And they certainly went after Rush with a vengeance. And Rush didn't care. He went right ahead and called it as he saw it, did his thing, and has maintained the #1 slot in his genre for 30 years now.

That's pretty amazing. And it is right to acknowledge it.

i grew up a radio talk show junky well before Rush hit the airways, thanks to my dear mother.

I too spent a lot of time in my car in the 1980s and heard Rush his first week on radio. I thought wow an opinion that isn’t liberal. Listened religiously for several years but his love of the criminals in the R party, eventually turned me off.

However we do owe him a debt of gratitude, as he did a great job exposing the biased MSM and the corruption in the D party. He also spawned a whole new genre, Right wing radio. The left hates him too. So congrats Rush.

I hear what you are saying but I don't think he 'loves' criminals in either party. But he will defend an "R" who is unfairly attacked and/or maligned or mischaracterized when nobody else will. But he was very critical of many in the Reagan administration when he first got started and was pretty non-partisan. The only thing that made him LOOK partisan is that the GOP more closely represented his point of view than did the Democrats.

And over the years, as the left has moved ever further left and became more criticisable because of it, Rush would hold firm on conservative principles. Anybody who defended those principles in Congress would be acknowledged no matter how criticisable, corrupt, disingenuous, or feckless they might otherwise be.

One of Rush's commentaries in 2013 took the feckless Congress to task over the immigration debate after Congress passed and Obama bragged that 700 miles of border fence would be built. And the manipulation of that legislation by both sides of the aisle was reprehensible. His monologue on that was quite lengthy but accurate in illustrating why nothing in Congress seems to ever get done:
Untangling the Gang of Eight Web of Deceit

I listened to Rush when Bush41 was President
He often criticized Bush
By the time Clinton came in, he had found his niche as a conservative blow hard

 

[Foxfyre]

He's an uneducated dropout, draft dodger and insufferable misogynist blowhard.

Limbaugh enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but left after two semesters and one summer session. Limbaugh was not drafted during the Vietnam War draft lottery. He was also classified as “1-Y” due to an ingrown hair on his fat ass.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/draft-notice/

Uh huh. That accounts for 30 years of unprecedented success in his genre. If you do not want to do anything but make childish, hateful posts about him, why not start your own thread and do that and allow those who wish to discuss that 30 years of unprecedented success to do so? Thank you very much.

 

[gipper]

I don't really care for the guy. I listened to him a couple times 20 years ago, that being said you have to hand it to a guy that pisses off the left for 30 years to the point where he lives in their heads night and day.

Back when I was running my business, I listened to him a lot because I was in my car more than I wasn't. Or he would be running in the background when I was working--I worked out of a home office. And though I was listening more for entertainment than information, and I was arguing with him sometimes a lot of the time, I came to understand his tactics and point of view, and how partisan and dishonest most of the stuff the left was throwing at him was. I by no means missed it when I missed his program--didn't think about it really--but I did notice that when he has a substitute host on, that host no matter how good just didn't have that certain something Rush has that is compelling.

These days I listen probably less than 30 minutes a month when I happen to be driving somewhere during his time slot. But even with that little exposure, he rarely fails to give me something to think about or that inspires me to research something when I get home. And I think that accounts for his success.

I'm usually aware of everything he says before he says it. He isn't original at all, he is like a radio version of the Drudge report, a news aggregator, but for conservatives. Yet he uses sources that would usually be suppressed.

He brings a spotlight to news and work that independent journalists are doing, directly to the masses, stories that are otherwise suppressed and received scant coverage. The thing that really irks me, is he censors it, and only presents one side of the story.

There is A LOT of work that the non-corporate press, and independent press is doing, stuff that has a progressive or left populist flavor, that he doesn't present. He definitely has some backers with an agenda to it. It's troublesome to say the least.

OTH, he does provide an invaluable service. Everyone should listen for the POV and the stories he does cover. Just like they should listen to NPR or BBC with a mind to their bias and the stories and holes they will have.

He toots his own horn, but he really doesn't do very much but read, select stories, and talk.

This week marked the 30-year anniversary of the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, Rush has had more impact on media in general than any other single person in history. He came onto the scene in the 1980's just as the flower children of the 60's were coming into their own and had pretty well dominated most of the media. They were still doing journalism at that time but they were pushing more and more leftist ideology and concepts. Traditional American values and modern American conservative principles had pretty much vanished from the scene.

Entered Rush with a common sense, usually humorous and satiric, new kind of talk program. He was talking about politics, people, personalities, and concepts that millions of us had been thinking but were no longer hearing on the radio, television, or reading in the newspapers. No, we didn't always agree with him or appreciate everything he said, but we were hungry to hear much of what he had to say that nobody else was saying.

He was entertaining, but because of some very good scholarship, he was also informative. I know I found myself researching some of the facts he presented. And he got it right a whole lot more than he got it wrong.

Because of his amazing success, he paved the way for radio talk shows for many others and affected television as well. And because there were so many of us, he went from a handful of stations when he first started to hundreds propelling talk radio/news stations to #1 in their market pretty much everywhere in the country. Rush pretty much single handedly caused an entire new industry to be created.

Rush, like many highly successful people, is an imperfect person. He suffers from chronic obesity, has had difficulty sustaining personal relationships, became addicted to prescription drugs to the point it destroyed his hearing--he has cochlear implants in both ears that destroyed his enjoyment of music--but he overcame that which was a heroic feat as any recovering alcoholic/addict knows. And like many/most highly successful people, along with some valid criticisms, he has been misquoted, taken out of context, unfairly, dishonestly, mischaracterized.

The left, then and now, does not appreciate being challenged in anything and attack and try to suppress, harm, silence, and/or destroy the messenger rather than rebut what is said and/or offer a better argument. The left is neither open minded nor tolerant of ANYBODY who does not share their rhetoric and point of view. And they certainly went after Rush with a vengeance. And Rush didn't care. He went right ahead and called it as he saw it, did his thing, and has maintained the #1 slot in his genre for 30 years now.

That's pretty amazing. And it is right to acknowledge it.

i grew up a radio talk show junky well before Rush hit the airways, thanks to my dear mother.

I too spent a lot of time in my car in the 1980s and heard Rush his first week on radio. I thought wow an opinion that isn’t liberal. Listened religiously for several years but his love of the criminals in the R party, eventually turned me off.

However we do owe him a debt of gratitude, as he did a great job exposing the biased MSM and the corruption in the D party. He also spawned a whole new genre, Right wing radio. The left hates him too. So congrats Rush.

I hear what you are saying but I don't think he 'loves' criminals in either party. But he will defend an "R" who is unfairly attacked and/or maligned or mischaracterized when nobody else will. But he was very critical of many in the Reagan administration when he first got started and was pretty non-partisan. The only thing that made him LOOK partisan is that the GOP more closely represented his point of view than did the Democrats.

And over the years, as the left has moved ever further left and became more criticisable because of it, Rush would hold firm on conservative principles. Anybody who defended those principles in Congress would be acknowledged no matter how criticisable, corrupt, disingenuous, or feckless they might otherwise be.

One of Rush's commentaries in 2013 took the feckless Congress to task over the immigration debate after Congress passed and Obama bragged that 700 miles of border fence would be built. And the manipulation of that legislation by both sides of the aisle was reprehensible. His monologue on that was quite lengthy but accurate in illustrating why nothing in Congress seems to ever get done:
Untangling the Gang of Eight Web of Deceit

I listened to Rush when Bush41 was President
He often criticized Bush
By the time Clinton came in, h3 had found his niche as a conservative blow hard

BJ Bubba blamed Rush for Oaklahoma City, and you still believe Bubba, a known liar is right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't really think that had anything to do with it. I think Rush philosophically was like most of the people populating this country and he tapped into what those people thought, believed, were talking about, were frustrated by etc. as nobody else could and nobody else had done for decades. Paul Harvey, in his 15-minute daily monologue, hit the same kind of nerve, but he had less time to develop the thought and he was less political than Rush.

With the mega millions/billions poured into the Air America experiment to give the nation a liberal voice, you would have though it could have gotten off the ground. But it didn't? Why? Because the left never has any message to offer, no ideas, no agenda that is appealing to much of anybody. All they have is hand wringing and condemnation, nitpicking, and vague promises of a bunch of free stuff that wears thin with the average listener, and therefore the advertisers, really quickly.

But yes, if Rush's ratings slipped the least little bit, the haters were immediately on it. He was done. He was finished. He was a failure. Never mind that his ratings became more diluted when he single handedly created an industry that produced his own competition. But he never lost his #1 slot in any market to any of that competition.

Rush had/has little or no power. If he did, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would never have been elected--twice. Ross Perot would never have become the phenomenon he did--Rush did not like Perot at all--and McCain never would have been the GOP nominee in 2008. I don't think Trump was Rush's pick either--at least Rush wasn't promoting him in any way during the campaign. The candidate that came the closest to being endorsed by Rush was Ted Cruz.

But what he does is brilliant.

His 30 year run has been absolutely amazing and he hasn't suggested ending it any time soon. But the day he does decide to hang it up and play more golf or whatever, you can bet the leftists will all be singing one chorus: See? He failed and was forced out!

It had everything to do with it, Rush would of never got on the air or any of the others, to say what you said tells me how young you are or were not aware of the days before 1987

Before Russia Limbaugh you had Morton Downey Jr spewing the hate. Your MessiahRushie is just a third rate Morton Downey Jr, who was able to make a success on TV at the same time slot Russia failed miserably at.

Yes...in the mind of a radical leftist, anyone who opposes leftism, is a hater.

LMFAO!!!

Brainwashed!!!

It's not called " Hate Radio" for nothing!!!

Objective , give us an example twinkle toes?



.

Please do not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in other exercises in futility. If we do, they win as their purpose here is to derail the thread. Honest observations that are unflattering to Rush Limbaugh, the syndicated radio host for 30 years are fair game. Certainly over 30 years of 15 hours of programming in most weeks for all that time have yielded things are that criticizable.

But just childishly insulting him as all that he is should be beneath anybody who is an adult, fair, and/or intellectually honest.

 

[DGS49]

I haven't listened to Limbaugh in years, but that's not because I don't like his program. I just don't listen much to radio at the time he is on, and I prefer to listen to Dennis Prager.

When I did listen, it always struck me that he was GREAT at keeping the show moving without much substance in content, HOWEVER, you frequently heard news and facts on his program that you didn't hear anywhere else. Not that there was a new blackout, but the MSM just ignored a lot of things that was of interest to Conservatives and libertarians. He also shed light on stories that were being reported in a biased way by others.

Considering everything else on radio, Limbaugh is a valuable asset to the medium.

 

[Foxfyre]

This week marked the 30-year anniversary of the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, Rush has had more impact on media in general than any other single person in history. He came onto the scene in the 1980's just as the flower children of the 60's were coming into their own and had pretty well dominated most of the media. They were still doing journalism at that time but they were pushing more and more leftist ideology and concepts. Traditional American values and modern American conservative principles had pretty much vanished from the scene.

Entered Rush with a common sense, usually humorous and satiric, new kind of talk program. He was talking about politics, people, personalities, and concepts that millions of us had been thinking but were no longer hearing on the radio, television, or reading in the newspapers. No, we didn't always agree with him or appreciate everything he said, but we were hungry to hear much of what he had to say that nobody else was saying.

He was entertaining, but because of some very good scholarship, he was also informative. I know I found myself researching some of the facts he presented. And he got it right a whole lot more than he got it wrong.

Because of his amazing success, he paved the way for radio talk shows for many others and affected television as well. And because there were so many of us, he went from a handful of stations when he first started to hundreds propelling talk radio/news stations to #1 in their market pretty much everywhere in the country. Rush pretty much single handedly caused an entire new industry to be created.

Rush, like many highly successful people, is an imperfect person. He suffers from chronic obesity, has had difficulty sustaining personal relationships, became addicted to prescription drugs to the point it destroyed his hearing--he has cochlear implants in both ears that destroyed his enjoyment of music--but he overcame that which was a heroic feat as any recovering alcoholic/addict knows. And like many/most highly successful people, along with some valid criticisms, he has been misquoted, taken out of context, unfairly, dishonestly, mischaracterized.

The left, then and now, does not appreciate being challenged in anything and attack and try to suppress, harm, silence, and/or destroy the messenger rather than rebut what is said and/or offer a better argument. The left is neither open minded nor tolerant of ANYBODY who does not share their rhetoric and point of view. And they certainly went after Rush with a vengeance. And Rush didn't care. He went right ahead and called it as he saw it, did his thing, and has maintained the #1 slot in his genre for 30 years now.

That's pretty amazing. And it is right to acknowledge it.

And the only thing worse than Limbaugh’s 30 years of lies, ignorance, hate, stupidity, demagoguery, fake news, and conservative reactionaryism is that the reprehensible right continues to listen to this bloviating blowhard spew his lies, ignorance, hate, and stupidity.

Prove it...


I still remember when I used to listen to Rush and Phil Donahue had his show on MSNBC or something , they were talking and agreeing about the same thing.



All it is with you guys is kill the messenger not the message



.

That is true. In the mid 90's and in some of the 2000's, MSNBC was one of the best media outlets in providing reasoned and objective reporting and commentary. They started about the same time Fox News did and MSNBC enjoyed and all, plus CNN, deserved great ratings at that time. And all, plus Limbaugh, would often be arguing the same point of view.

But MSNBC and then CNN started veering more and more left while Fox, as Limbaugh had done, was the lone conservative television source standing. And they plus Rush and most other successful talk radio hosts were just about the only media sources providing a conservative voice to be found anywhere.

And I give Rush credit for that. He pioneered a means for conservatives to have a voice. Had he not done that with tremendous success, I don't think there ever would have been a Fox news.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't really care for the guy. I listened to him a couple times 20 years ago, that being said you have to hand it to a guy that pisses off the left for 30 years to the point where he lives in their heads night and day.

Back when I was running my business, I listened to him a lot because I was in my car more than I wasn't. Or he would be running in the background when I was working--I worked out of a home office. And though I was listening more for entertainment than information, and I was arguing with him sometimes a lot of the time, I came to understand his tactics and point of view, and how partisan and dishonest most of the stuff the left was throwing at him was. I by no means missed it when I missed his program--didn't think about it really--but I did notice that when he has a substitute host on, that host no matter how good just didn't have that certain something Rush has that is compelling.

These days I listen probably less than 30 minutes a month when I happen to be driving somewhere during his time slot. But even with that little exposure, he rarely fails to give me something to think about or that inspires me to research something when I get home. And I think that accounts for his success.

I'm usually aware of everything he says before he says it. He isn't original at all, he is like a radio version of the Drudge report, a news aggregator, but for conservatives. Yet he uses sources that would usually be suppressed.

He brings a spotlight to news and work that independent journalists are doing, directly to the masses, stories that are otherwise suppressed and received scant coverage. The thing that really irks me, is he censors it, and only presents one side of the story.

There is A LOT of work that the non-corporate press, and independent press is doing, stuff that has a progressive or left populist flavor, that he doesn't present. He definitely has some backers with an agenda to it. It's troublesome to say the least.

OTH, he does provide an invaluable service. Everyone should listen for the POV and the stories he does cover. Just like they should listen to NPR or BBC with a mind to their bias and the stories and holes they will have.

He toots his own horn, but he really doesn't do very much but read, select stories, and talk.

This week marked the 30-year anniversary of the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, Rush has had more impact on media in general than any other single person in history. He came onto the scene in the 1980's just as the flower children of the 60's were coming into their own and had pretty well dominated most of the media. They were still doing journalism at that time but they were pushing more and more leftist ideology and concepts. Traditional American values and modern American conservative principles had pretty much vanished from the scene.

Entered Rush with a common sense, usually humorous and satiric, new kind of talk program. He was talking about politics, people, personalities, and concepts that millions of us had been thinking but were no longer hearing on the radio, television, or reading in the newspapers. No, we didn't always agree with him or appreciate everything he said, but we were hungry to hear much of what he had to say that nobody else was saying.

He was entertaining, but because of some very good scholarship, he was also informative. I know I found myself researching some of the facts he presented. And he got it right a whole lot more than he got it wrong.

Because of his amazing success, he paved the way for radio talk shows for many others and affected television as well. And because there were so many of us, he went from a handful of stations when he first started to hundreds propelling talk radio/news stations to #1 in their market pretty much everywhere in the country. Rush pretty much single handedly caused an entire new industry to be created.

Rush, like many highly successful people, is an imperfect person. He suffers from chronic obesity, has had difficulty sustaining personal relationships, became addicted to prescription drugs to the point it destroyed his hearing--he has cochlear implants in both ears that destroyed his enjoyment of music--but he overcame that which was a heroic feat as any recovering alcoholic/addict knows. And like many/most highly successful people, along with some valid criticisms, he has been misquoted, taken out of context, unfairly, dishonestly, mischaracterized.

The left, then and now, does not appreciate being challenged in anything and attack and try to suppress, harm, silence, and/or destroy the messenger rather than rebut what is said and/or offer a better argument. The left is neither open minded nor tolerant of ANYBODY who does not share their rhetoric and point of view. And they certainly went after Rush with a vengeance. And Rush didn't care. He went right ahead and called it as he saw it, did his thing, and has maintained the #1 slot in his genre for 30 years now.

That's pretty amazing. And it is right to acknowledge it.

i grew up a radio talk show junky well before Rush hit the airways, thanks to my dear mother.

I too spent a lot of time in my car in the 1980s and heard Rush his first week on radio. I thought wow an opinion that isn’t liberal. Listened religiously for several years but his love of the criminals in the R party, eventually turned me off.

However we do owe him a debt of gratitude, as he did a great job exposing the biased MSM and the corruption in the D party. He also spawned a whole new genre, Right wing radio. The left hates him too. So congrats Rush.

I hear what you are saying but I don't think he 'loves' criminals in either party. But he will defend an "R" who is unfairly attacked and/or maligned or mischaracterized when nobody else will. But he was very critical of many in the Reagan administration when he first got started and was pretty non-partisan. The only thing that made him LOOK partisan is that the GOP more closely represented his point of view than did the Democrats.

And over the years, as the left has moved ever further left and became more criticisable because of it, Rush would hold firm on conservative principles. Anybody who defended those principles in Congress would be acknowledged no matter how criticisable, corrupt, disingenuous, or feckless they might otherwise be.

One of Rush's commentaries in 2013 took the feckless Congress to task over the immigration debate after Congress passed and Obama bragged that 700 miles of border fence would be built. And the manipulation of that legislation by both sides of the aisle was reprehensible. His monologue on that was quite lengthy but accurate in illustrating why nothing in Congress seems to ever get done:
Untangling the Gang of Eight Web of Deceit

I listened to Rush when Bush41 was President
He often criticized Bush
By the time Clinton came in, h3 had found his niche as a conservative blow hard

That is very true. He was highly critical of Bush 41. He modified that criticism, however, when Bush 41 invited him for a visit with himself and Barbara at the White House and Rush accepted. He must have given Rush some insights he otherwise would not have had because Rush, while still calling it as he saw it, did temper the more abrasive criticism after that.

I am sure to somebody who tilts mostly left, Rush does sound like a blowhard. It is hard for me to not see a lot of the leftist commentators that way though I do try to focus on what they say and not unfairly attack them on who they are.

 

[Foxfyre]

Back when I was running my business, I listened to him a lot because I was in my car more than I wasn't. Or he would be running in the background when I was working--I worked out of a home office. And though I was listening more for entertainment than information, and I was arguing with him sometimes a lot of the time, I came to understand his tactics and point of view, and how partisan and dishonest most of the stuff the left was throwing at him was. I by no means missed it when I missed his program--didn't think about it really--but I did notice that when he has a substitute host on, that host no matter how good just didn't have that certain something Rush has that is compelling.

These days I listen probably less than 30 minutes a month when I happen to be driving somewhere during his time slot. But even with that little exposure, he rarely fails to give me something to think about or that inspires me to research something when I get home. And I think that accounts for his success.

I'm usually aware of everything he says before he says it. He isn't original at all, he is like a radio version of the Drudge report, a news aggregator, but for conservatives. Yet he uses sources that would usually be suppressed.

He brings a spotlight to news and work that independent journalists are doing, directly to the masses, stories that are otherwise suppressed and received scant coverage. The thing that really irks me, is he censors it, and only presents one side of the story.

There is A LOT of work that the non-corporate press, and independent press is doing, stuff that has a progressive or left populist flavor, that he doesn't present. He definitely has some backers with an agenda to it. It's troublesome to say the least.

OTH, he does provide an invaluable service. Everyone should listen for the POV and the stories he does cover. Just like they should listen to NPR or BBC with a mind to their bias and the stories and holes they will have.

He toots his own horn, but he really doesn't do very much but read, select stories, and talk.

This week marked the 30-year anniversary of the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, Rush has had more impact on media in general than any other single person in history. He came onto the scene in the 1980's just as the flower children of the 60's were coming into their own and had pretty well dominated most of the media. They were still doing journalism at that time but they were pushing more and more leftist ideology and concepts. Traditional American values and modern American conservative principles had pretty much vanished from the scene.

Entered Rush with a common sense, usually humorous and satiric, new kind of talk program. He was talking about politics, people, personalities, and concepts that millions of us had been thinking but were no longer hearing on the radio, television, or reading in the newspapers. No, we didn't always agree with him or appreciate everything he said, but we were hungry to hear much of what he had to say that nobody else was saying.

He was entertaining, but because of some very good scholarship, he was also informative. I know I found myself researching some of the facts he presented. And he got it right a whole lot more than he got it wrong.

Because of his amazing success, he paved the way for radio talk shows for many others and affected television as well. And because there were so many of us, he went from a handful of stations when he first started to hundreds propelling talk radio/news stations to #1 in their market pretty much everywhere in the country. Rush pretty much single handedly caused an entire new industry to be created.

Rush, like many highly successful people, is an imperfect person. He suffers from chronic obesity, has had difficulty sustaining personal relationships, became addicted to prescription drugs to the point it destroyed his hearing--he has cochlear implants in both ears that destroyed his enjoyment of music--but he overcame that which was a heroic feat as any recovering alcoholic/addict knows. And like many/most highly successful people, along with some valid criticisms, he has been misquoted, taken out of context, unfairly, dishonestly, mischaracterized.

The left, then and now, does not appreciate being challenged in anything and attack and try to suppress, harm, silence, and/or destroy the messenger rather than rebut what is said and/or offer a better argument. The left is neither open minded nor tolerant of ANYBODY who does not share their rhetoric and point of view. And they certainly went after Rush with a vengeance. And Rush didn't care. He went right ahead and called it as he saw it, did his thing, and has maintained the #1 slot in his genre for 30 years now.

That's pretty amazing. And it is right to acknowledge it.

i grew up a radio talk show junky well before Rush hit the airways, thanks to my dear mother.

I too spent a lot of time in my car in the 1980s and heard Rush his first week on radio. I thought wow an opinion that isn’t liberal. Listened religiously for several years but his love of the criminals in the R party, eventually turned me off.

However we do owe him a debt of gratitude, as he did a great job exposing the biased MSM and the corruption in the D party. He also spawned a whole new genre, Right wing radio. The left hates him too. So congrats Rush.

I hear what you are saying but I don't think he 'loves' criminals in either party. But he will defend an "R" who is unfairly attacked and/or maligned or mischaracterized when nobody else will. But he was very critical of many in the Reagan administration when he first got started and was pretty non-partisan. The only thing that made him LOOK partisan is that the GOP more closely represented his point of view than did the Democrats.

And over the years, as the left has moved ever further left and became more criticisable because of it, Rush would hold firm on conservative principles. Anybody who defended those principles in Congress would be acknowledged no matter how criticisable, corrupt, disingenuous, or feckless they might otherwise be.

One of Rush's commentaries in 2013 took the feckless Congress to task over the immigration debate after Congress passed and Obama bragged that 700 miles of border fence would be built. And the manipulation of that legislation by both sides of the aisle was reprehensible. His monologue on that was quite lengthy but accurate in illustrating why nothing in Congress seems to ever get done:
Untangling the Gang of Eight Web of Deceit

I listened to Rush when Bush41 was President
He often criticized Bush
By the time Clinton came in, h3 had found his niche as a conservative blow hard

BJ Bubba blamed Rush for Oaklahoma City, and you still believe Bubba, a known liar is right.

President Clinton and President Obama I believe both referred to the tea party (that didn't exist at that time) and Rush as a catalyst for the Oklahoma City bombing. Neither were willing to look at the Branch Davidian compound fiasco in with more than 70 men, women, and children died and/or Ruby Ridge--both prominently featured on ALL news media--as the motive. Timothy McVeigh quite clearly stated those events as his motive.

But we have become accustomed to the left taking absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for their inflammatory rhetoric and defending it with the First Amendment while accusing conservative rhetoric--more often than not Rush--for promoting everything violent and wrong in this country.

It is positively amazing how that works so much of the time.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't really think that had anything to do with it. I think Rush philosophically was like most of the people populating this country and he tapped into what those people thought, believed, were talking about, were frustrated by etc. as nobody else could and nobody else had done for decades. Paul Harvey, in his 15-minute daily monologue, hit the same kind of nerve, but he had less time to develop the thought and he was less political than Rush.

With the mega millions/billions poured into the Air America experiment to give the nation a liberal voice, you would have though it could have gotten off the ground. But it didn't? Why? Because the left never has any message to offer, no ideas, no agenda that is appealing to much of anybody. All they have is hand wringing and condemnation, nitpicking, and vague promises of a bunch of free stuff that wears thin with the average listener, and therefore the advertisers, really quickly.

But yes, if Rush's ratings slipped the least little bit, the haters were immediately on it. He was done. He was finished. He was a failure. Never mind that his ratings became more diluted when he single handedly created an industry that produced his own competition. But he never lost his #1 slot in any market to any of that competition.

Rush had/has little or no power. If he did, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would never have been elected--twice. Ross Perot would never have become the phenomenon he did--Rush did not like Perot at all--and McCain never would have been the GOP nominee in 2008. I don't think Trump was Rush's pick either--at least Rush wasn't promoting him in any way during the campaign. The candidate that came the closest to being endorsed by Rush was Ted Cruz.

But what he does is brilliant.

His 30 year run has been absolutely amazing and he hasn't suggested ending it any time soon. But the day he does decide to hang it up and play more golf or whatever, you can bet the leftists will all be singing one chorus: See? He failed and was forced out!

It had everything to do with it, Rush would of never got on the air or any of the others, to say what you said tells me how young you are or were not aware of the days before 1987

Before Russia Limbaugh you had Morton Downey Jr spewing the hate. Your MessiahRushie is just a third rate Morton Downey Jr, who was able to make a success on TV at the same time slot Russia failed miserably at.

Yes...in the mind of a radical leftist, anyone who opposes leftism, is a hater.

LMFAO!!!

Brainwashed!!!

It's not called " Hate Radio" for nothing!!!

Objective , give us an example twinkle toes?

Sure, your MessiahRushie, like Donnie Dirtbag, gives insulting names to everyone he hates because he loves them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I haven't listened to Limbaugh in years, but that's not because I don't like his program. I just don't listen much to radio at the time he is on, and I prefer to listen to Dennis Prager.

When I did listen, it always struck me that he was GREAT at keeping the show moving without much substance in content, HOWEVER, you frequently heard news and facts on his program that you didn't hear anywhere else. Not that there was a new blackout, but the MSM just ignored a lot of things that was of interest to Conservatives and libertarians. He also shed light on stories that were being reported in a biased way by others.

Considering everything else on radio, Limbaugh is a valuable asset to the medium.

Yeah I moved on in the early 2000's when he couldn't hear good and started talking funny, Dennis is a good one.


.

 

[Harry Dresden]

jones would never think of debating someone.....its a lot easier to spew out some bullshit and get over to another thread and do the same there.....the guy is a useless stroonge...

He is entitled to his opinion. I just wish he would start his own thread to bash whatever his heart desires, and allow an intelligent discussion in this one. I don't fault anybody who doesn't care for Rush whose audience at best is 10% or less of the U.S. population and probably not that. So we can safely say 90% or more of the nation do not like Rush or are simply not interested enough to tune in. But more tune into his program than anybody elses nevertheless.

But I note that conservatives/libertarians/moderates can discuss the pros and cons of Rush intelligently and without rancor. And I find that refreshing over the inevitable insults and hate speech from the haters.

well thats probably because most on the right would tend to either agree with him or think he aint that far off.....i notice that the righties here cant talk about something maddow says without not saying insulting things....it goes both ways....

Then you don't listen to enough 'righties.'

i see plenty of them right here.....apparently you dont pay enough attention to what they post...

Just a few points.
--I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.

--So again you don't pay enough attention to what they post. I have zero problem with anybody who criticizes what Rush says--Lord knows I have criticized what he says when I think he is out of line or wrong over the years--but I don't respect anybody who debates via deliberate dishonesty, 'proof texting', and/or insults.

--This thread is not about Rachel Maddow but is about Rush Limbaugh's 30 years of unprecedented success.

--And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic.

I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.
well good for you...but there are a whole bunch here who have and will do if she is mentioned.....
And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic
i have no position on the woman,i cant watch her,i was just telling you that the right does the same thing as the left does.....no doubt the ones doing the personal attacks are the far right and left...thats what they are good at....but the right does the same type of shit....

 

[Wyatt earp]

It had everything to do with it, Rush would of never got on the air or any of the others, to say what you said tells me how young you are or were not aware of the days before 1987

Before Russia Limbaugh you had Morton Downey Jr spewing the hate. Your MessiahRushie is just a third rate Morton Downey Jr, who was able to make a success on TV at the same time slot Russia failed miserably at.

Yes...in the mind of a radical leftist, anyone who opposes leftism, is a hater.

LMFAO!!!

Brainwashed!!!

It's not called " Hate Radio" for nothing!!!

Objective , give us an example twinkle toes?

Sure, your MessiahRushie, like Donnie Dirtbag, gives insulting names to everyone he hates because he loves them.

Oh names like feminazi offends you twinkle toes? Ya do know their is some truth in those names right?


Grow some hair on your balls will ya..



.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't listened to Limbaugh in years, but that's not because I don't like his program. I just don't listen much to radio at the time he is on, and I prefer to listen to Dennis Prager.

When I did listen, it always struck me that he was GREAT at keeping the show moving without much substance in content, HOWEVER, you frequently heard news and facts on his program that you didn't hear anywhere else. Not that there was a new blackout, but the MSM just ignored a lot of things that was of interest to Conservatives and libertarians. He also shed light on stories that were being reported in a biased way by others.

Considering everything else on radio, Limbaugh is a valuable asset to the medium.

That's me too. When I listen to Rush now it is infrequent and by default as he is featured from 10 am to 1 pm here on our #1 radio station in this market. I disagree that there is little substance in content though you and I might be thinking different definitions of 'substance'. But as you observed, he very often provides information on something you just don't get anywhere else.

His scholarship is amazing and usually perfectly on point and you are right that he does provide facts and insight that others aren't providing. He has sent me back to the 'books' more than once to fact check him. Sometimes I find that he has a fact wrong, but it is pretty rare.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is entitled to his opinion. I just wish he would start his own thread to bash whatever his heart desires, and allow an intelligent discussion in this one. I don't fault anybody who doesn't care for Rush whose audience at best is 10% or less of the U.S. population and probably not that. So we can safely say 90% or more of the nation do not like Rush or are simply not interested enough to tune in. But more tune into his program than anybody elses nevertheless.

But I note that conservatives/libertarians/moderates can discuss the pros and cons of Rush intelligently and without rancor. And I find that refreshing over the inevitable insults and hate speech from the haters.

well thats probably because most on the right would tend to either agree with him or think he aint that far off.....i notice that the righties here cant talk about something maddow says without not saying insulting things....it goes both ways....

Then you don't listen to enough 'righties.'

i see plenty of them right here.....apparently you dont pay enough attention to what they post...

Just a few points.
--I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.

--So again you don't pay enough attention to what they post. I have zero problem with anybody who criticizes what Rush says--Lord knows I have criticized what he says when I think he is out of line or wrong over the years--but I don't respect anybody who debates via deliberate dishonesty, 'proof texting', and/or insults.

--This thread is not about Rachel Maddow but is about Rush Limbaugh's 30 years of unprecedented success.

--And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic.

I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.
well good for you...but there are a whole bunch here who have and will do if she is mentioned.....
And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic
i have no position on the woman,i cant watch her,i was just telling you that the right does the same thing as the left does.....no doubt the ones doing the personal attacks are the far right and left...thats what they are good at....but the right does the same type of shit....

Yes, some on the right do the same type of shit and that is just as offensive to me as it is when the left does it.

But again, that is not what this thread is about and I would appreciate those participating to respect that. There are hundreds of other USMB theads to do that in.

 

[edthecynic]

But just childishly insulting him as all that he is should be beneath anybody who is an adult, fair, and/or intellectually honest.

Except I gave you examples of him lying about things he claims to have invented which he actually plagiarized while condemning others for plagiarism, and you ran away rather than admit the truth that your MessiahRushie is a liar and a hypocrite.

Here is another example of his plagiarism and he even has the gall to expect he should be credited for coming up with what he plagiarized!!!

March 5, 2013
RUSH: Limbaugh Theorem, folks! Limbaugh Theorem. It's everywhere. I'm not bragging.

March 5, 2013
RUSH: Now, let me wrap this up.* I'm very nervous about this.* And the only reason that I'm continuing to go through this Limbaugh Theorem, I'm being very honest with you, I'm being deluged with e-mail from people who are telling me they're seeing and reading all kinds of people using it as their own and not giving me credit, and I just want you all to know, I don't really care.*

He plagiarized Noah Rothman for his "Limbaugh Theorem."

 

[Harry Dresden]

well thats probably because most on the right would tend to either agree with him or think he aint that far off.....i notice that the righties here cant talk about something maddow says without not saying insulting things....it goes both ways....

Then you don't listen to enough 'righties.'

i see plenty of them right here.....apparently you dont pay enough attention to what they post...

Just a few points.
--I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.

--So again you don't pay enough attention to what they post. I have zero problem with anybody who criticizes what Rush says--Lord knows I have criticized what he says when I think he is out of line or wrong over the years--but I don't respect anybody who debates via deliberate dishonesty, 'proof texting', and/or insults.

--This thread is not about Rachel Maddow but is about Rush Limbaugh's 30 years of unprecedented success.

--And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic.

I am what you would call a 'rightie' and I am nowhere near alone in criticizing what Maddow says without attacking her personally.
well good for you...but there are a whole bunch here who have and will do if she is mentioned.....
And anytime somebody defends their position with a 'they do it too' argument, well, that's just pretty pathetic
i have no position on the woman,i cant watch her,i was just telling you that the right does the same thing as the left does.....no doubt the ones doing the personal attacks are the far right and left...thats what they are good at....but the right does the same type of shit....

Yes, some on the right do the same type of shit and that is just as offensive to me as it is when the left does it.

But again, that is not what this thread is about and I would appreciate those participating to respect that. There are hundreds of other USMB theads to do that in.

well you said this earlier....."But I note that conservatives/libertarians/moderates can discuss the pros and cons of Rush intelligently and without rancor. And I find that refreshing over the inevitable insults and hate speech from the haters.".....all i was guilty of was saying that many righties are no different and do the same thing.....its called a conversation....

 

[Foxfyre]

But just childishly insulting him as all that he is should be beneath anybody who is an adult, fair, and/or intellectually honest.

Except I gave you examples of him lying about things he claims to have invented which he actually plagiarized while condemning others for plagiarism, and you ran away rather than admit the truth that your MessiahRushie is a liar and a hypocrite.

Here is another example of his plagiarism and he even has the gall to expect he should be credited for coming up with what he plagiarized!!!

March 5, 2013
RUSH: Limbaugh Theorem, folks! Limbaugh Theorem. It's everywhere. I'm not bragging.

March 5, 2013
RUSH: Now, let me wrap this up.* I'm very nervous about this.* And the only reason that I'm continuing to go through this Limbaugh Theorem, I'm being very honest with you, I'm being deluged with e-mail from people who are telling me they're seeing and reading all kinds of people using it as their own and not giving me credit, and I just want you all to know, I don't really care.*

He plagiarized Noah Rothman for his "Limbaugh Theorem."

This is one of your less cognizant observations. "Commentary Magazine" has discussed the Limbaugh Theorum as the Limbaugh Theorum at length without once suggesting Noah Rothman came up with it first. Rothman is associate editor of the magazine. So your attack here--no doubt once again cut and pasted from a hate Limbaugh site--is absurd on the face of it.

I too had observed and have frequently posted how Obama never took responsibility for ANYTHING that went wrong in his administration. He was 'always out of that loop' or 'he first knew about it on the news like everybody else', etc. etc. etc. So I was surprised to find out there WAS a Limbaugh Theorum on that topic. And I'm damn sure I didn't plagiarize anybody.