Great article: "How to Understand Rush Limbaugh"

[Monkeyleg]

This is easily the best analysis of Rush Limbaugh I've read, in terms of his effect on politics, the reasons for his popularity, and the ways in which the left (at their peril) do not understand his appeal.

There's no one quote better than another, so you can just read the entire article at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/how-to-understand-rush-limbaugh/

[TommyGunn]

Interesting, well thought out article that was. May El-Rushbo continue to thwart, stymie, annoy and irritate his liberal moveon.com-like antagonists for many many years to come!

[Perd Hapley]

Wow. I'm tempted to offer a few nit-picks, but it's all too rarely that Limbaugh gets his deserved due. McClay deserves kudos for taking the time to pen some much-needed Limbaugh appreciation.

[roo_ster]

Pretty good piece on RL, and so very true about the primary reason lefties rarely lay a glove on him is because they are largely ignorant of him beyond Media Matters postings.

[grampster]

A very succinct and honest portrayal of a radio icon.   The writer hits the nail fully on the head.  There are more folks than liberals that don't get Rush, some on the right don't get him either.  If we can salvage America over the next few years, it will be because the "little fuzball" lead the way with his candid and dynamic analysis.  I don't always totally agree with Rush, but he represents a major portion of what's good about America. 

Probably the best is that he has some of the same faults and foibles as do the rest of us and he is unabashed about it.

[Monkeyleg]

One thing I've noticed (not that I'm the first to notice) is that, if someone is really good at what he or she does, it looks effortless. It's only when someone isn't good at doing something that you realize how difficult that something is. Good dancers make it look like they're just gliding along. Go to any wedding and most of the dancers will look like arthritic monkey, and it's then that you appreciate the talent and skill of the good dancers.

That's the case with Rush Limbaugh. He's so good that it seems like anyone could do his job. It's only when you listen to the second tier talk show hosts (G Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, etc) that you realize how good Rush is at what he does.

When I listen to fourth tier talk show hosts such as we have in my area, I'm almost embarrassed for them.

[roo_ster]

Go to any wedding and most of the dancers will look like arthritic monkey, and it's then that you appreciate the talent and skill of the good dancers.

There was no dancing at my wedding.  This was but one reason why.

[MechAg94]

One thing I've noticed (not that I'm the first to notice) is that, if someone is really good at what he or she does, it looks effortless. It's only when someone isn't good at doing something that you realize how difficult that something is. Good dancers make it look like they're just gliding along. Go to any wedding and most of the dancers will look like arthritic monkey, and it's then that you appreciate the talent and skill of the good dancers.

That's the case with Rush Limbaugh. He's so good that it seems like anyone could do his job. It's only when you listen to the second tier talk show hosts (G Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, etc) that you realize how good Rush is at what he does.

When I listen to fourth tier talk show hosts such as we have in my area, I'm almost embarrassed for them.

I actually like Medved, but he hits a more intellectual bent IMO.  His recall of facts when debating people on air is second to none.  I do agree that a lot of the local guys get old pretty fast for one reason or another.  I've heard my share out of Houston.

I always liked Rush because tried to keep his show fun and upbeat.  For me, he was the first major media guy I was exposed to who was unapologetic about being conservative and made sense of a lot of current issues by just asking the right questions and knowing enough background to be able talk intelligently about a lot of topics  (or having the resources to learn). 

[Sergeant Bob]

One thing I've noticed (not that I'm the first to notice) is that, if someone is really good at what he or she does, it looks effortless. It's only when someone isn't good at doing something that you realize how difficult that something is.

When he spoke at CPAC, he went an hour and forty (IIRC) without a written speech and kept it interesting.

[Balog]

Is it Medved who occasionally goes off on a rant about how Bigfoot is real? First time I heard that I thought it was some sort of joke, then I was like 

[grampster]

The thing is, you really have to listen to Rush without any preconceived notions.  Try and put one's own bias to the side for a few weeks and just really listen to what he says.  Many people, particularly those with a modern day liberal bent, have a hard time doing that.  I have found that most people who are rabidly opposed to Rush, have never even listened to his show.

He's deliberately bombastic.  He has a talent and he is intelligent.  He has, as I've I said above, many of the same shortcomings that we all have or have the potential to have in varying degrees.  I don't understand why his critics, who live in glass houses themselves, can't understand why they are hypocrites when it comes to Rush's faults when those they idolize,  or themselves actually, have more faults that Rush does; and perhaps with less intelligence and talent.

Some of my friends who trash Rush for his addiction to pain killers (he has a bad back) have smoked pot or misuse Rx drugs themselves.

[Waitone]

Conservative talk radio pioneered by Limbaugh figured out early on that talk radio has to be first and foremost entertaining.  Remove the entertainment value and you have a multi-hour screed.  I hope liberals and other statists learn the lesson.  We could use viable liberal voice on talk radio.

[MechAg94]

Is it Medved who occasionally goes off on a rant about how Bigfoot is real? First time I heard that I thought it was some sort of joke, then I was like 

I've never heard him say that so much as we shouldn't dismiss stuff like that out of hand.  For some reason I was thinking he has interviewed some university guy about it.

He also has a conspiracy day about once a month or more.  He invites people to call in about any conspiracy they want to bring up and challenges people to call about one he has not heard of.  The funny thing to me is that people will call in on some subject I never heard of and Medved has not only heard of it, but read the book on it, and starts recalling facts and arguments on why it is likely a bunch of BS. 

[Monkeyleg]

Conservative talk radio pioneered by Limbaugh figured out early on that talk radio has to be first and foremost entertaining.  Remove the entertainment value and you have a multi-hour screed.  I hope liberals and other statists learn the lesson.  We could use viable liberal voice on talk radio.

Very true, and that's a point that's been lost on those who've tried to do liberal talk radio. They're too serious. When they do attempt humor, it's very mean and spiteful humor, which doesn't go over well.

Much of Limbaugh's "bombast" is actually self-deprecating humor, and a good amount of that is insider jokes referring to some bit of his schtick from ten or more years ago.

[Perd Hapley]

Much of Limbaugh's "bombast" is actually self-deprecating humor, and a good amount of that is insider jokes referring to some bit of his schtick from ten or more years ago.

Or he's saying something patently offensive, because someone on the left wrote/said such a thing at some point in the past, and he's ridiculing it. For example, leftists called Obama a "Magic Negro," and talked about his lack of "slave blood."

There are many layers to the Limbaugh.

[mtnbkr]

I like Limbaugh, he's entertaining and informative, but we have some misconceptions here.

Much of Limbaugh's "bombast" is actually self-deprecating humor, and a good amount of that is insider jokes referring to some bit of his schtick from ten or more years ago.

There are many layers to the Limbaugh.

I've been listening to him on and off since before Clinton was elected (dad turned me onto him back then).  Mostly off lately as I'm working when he's on and can't listen to a talk show while I do my job, but there was a period of several years where I listened to him daily during the Summer, but I still catch an hour here and there.  Point is, I'm familiar with the show and its format.  The bombast is less self-deprecation and more ego.  A friend of mine in college interned on his show, the ego is real.  That's not a bad thing, but let's not pretend it's some subtle showmanship or layer to the Limbaugh onion.  He's pretty simple:  He's conservative, he's an entertainer, and he has a large ego. 

Chris

[Monkeyleg]

...and he has a large ego. 

No doubt about that, but it's not obnoxiously so (like a certain president I'm thinking of).

There's a lot of his lines---"trained broadcast professional", "formerly nicotine-stained fingers", "harmless little fuzzball", "performing my duties flawlessly", "talent on loan from God"---that could be taken as egotistical or bombastic, but are just part of his schtick, and sometimes come across as self-deprecating.

[TommyGunn]

How many times has Limbaugh been fired in his life?
He could have wound up unemployed, homeless, a wino, but no, whatever bad happened to him he simply went on, took risks, devloped a plan, stuck with it.
And built himself a radio empire.
THAT takes an ego.  Sorry.  That's the way it is. 
Look at many historically famous authors whose names are household words.  Their walls are probably papered with rejection slips from publishers, yet they kept on writing.  Why?
EGO.
It isn't necessarily unhealthy at all, unless it starts getting in the way of enjoying life. 

[Monkeyleg]

"Ego" has different connotations, some good, some bad. The "ego" you describe isn't bad, nor is the ego that Limbaugh shows on his program bad.

Obama, on the other hand...

[mtnbkr]

How many times has Limbaugh been fired in his life?
He could have wound up unemployed, homeless, a wino, but no, whatever bad happened to him he simply went on, took risks, devloped a plan, stuck with it.
And built himself a radio empire.
THAT takes an ego.  Sorry.  That's the way it is. 
Look at many historically famous authors whose names are household words.  Their walls are probably papered with rejection slips from publishers, yet they kept on writing.  Why?
EGO.
It isn't necessarily unhealthy at all, unless it starts getting in the way of enjoying life. 

I never said it was a bad thing, I was just pointing it out in context of the "layers" comments.  Rush has a room filling ego, it isn't an act and he isn't subtle or humble in person.  That isn't a criticism, it's just a counterpoint that his persona is all act or the results of a complex and nuanced personality. 

Chris

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

No doubt about that, but it's not obnoxiously so (like a certain president I'm thinking of).

There's a lot of his lines---"trained broadcast professional", "formerly nicotine-stained fingers", "harmless little fuzzball", "performing my duties flawlessly", "talent on loan from God"---that could be taken as egotistical or bombastic, but are just part of his schtick, and sometimes come across as self-deprecating.

You forgot how he knows liberals "like every square inch of my glorious naked body."  

[TommyGunn]

I never said it was a bad thing, I was just pointing it out in context of the "layers" comments.  Rush has a room filling ego, it isn't an act and he isn't subtle or humble in person.  That isn't a criticism, it's just a counterpoint that his persona is all act or the results of a complex and nuanced personality. 

Chris

I never thought you were saying it was bad.  It's just that to many people, saying someone has an "ego" often does seem like a criticism.  

"Ego" has different connotations, some good, some bad. The "ego" you describe isn't bad, nor is the ego that Limbaugh shows on his program bad.

Obama, on the other hand...

 Yeah .....    Obama is another matter entirely.....

[Perd Hapley]

When I said there are many layers to the Limbaugh, I was talking about the show, not the man. Much of what he says will be misunderstood without having listened for many years.

You forgot how he knows liberals "like every square inch of my glorious naked body."  

   That is one great line.