Great post DJ! Rush also uses humor so the show is entertaining as well as informative. His fake commercials are a riot.

Yes, Rush changed America, but you are wrong about a lot here:

"frankly it was slow going at first."

Not really. The show garnered enormous attention immediately, and the guy was a phenomenon from the get-go. (The New York Times magazine was already profiling him as a phenom by 1990.) If you graph the number of stations that carried his show by year, you'll see it took off like a rocket (at a record 112 in 92) and has stayed in the 600-station stratosphere ever since. And "slow" compared to what? There had never been a long-form national radio program before him; Rush invented it.

"he listened to everyone who called in, and made a point of getting a broad range of callers"

Wrong. He has always tightly screened his calls; he has absolutely no interest in a "range" of callers. The only point of callers is to elicit brilliance from Rush. People DO NOT listen to his program because of his callers; they listen because of Rush. He can (and regularly does) go entire three-hour shows taking less than two or three calls an hour; he often goes whole segments without taking any calls at all. Callers are foils. Rush wants calls from which he can launch. Whether they "agree" with him or not is entirely beside the point. If they're original and pithy, all the better, but his entire interest in taking a call is if it brings to the table something he wants to talk about at that particular moment. He alone directs the content and direction of the show. Callers are only on the air if they advance that direction.

"Limbaugh...got a lot of debates started simply by letting ordinary people speak to a national audience."

He does not "let ordinary people speak to a national audience." HE speaks to a national audience, whose numbers and loyalty he, and he alone earned. Callers are by and large incidental. It's Rush's RESPONSE to news events - and callers - that the national audience tunes in for. It's his take that matters. He affects the national debate because he is hilarious, clear, original, memorable, and persuasive.

"The Clinton years were a perfect breeding ground for talk radio."

A common myth. Rush's greatest growth came during Bush 41.

"talk radio, led by Limbaugh's show, reflected a deep and burning anger, which foretold the 1994 'revolution' in the House Majority"

Wrong. Buys into the liberal media's "angry white male" myth of the time. Rush's show has never been angry. He is passionate, inspirational, and optimistic. 1994 on the Rush Limbaugh program was, like every other year, more fun than human beings should be allowed to have. Voters were educated on the absurdities of the Clintons - and 40 years of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives - by laughing at them.

"Limbaugh is by no means perfect, especially on his policy positions. He has, at times done harm to the Right as much as he has to the Left."

BS. You don't specify which policy positions are imperfect, or how he has "done harm to the Right," so the argument is an empty one. The "harm" charge is simply ludicrous.

"he ... allows anyone to speak their mind on the issues of the day."

Wrong. See point above. He speaks his mind. Callers, when he is of a mind to use them, further that sole agenda.

"one man got folks the chance to be heard"

Wrong. One man earned an enormous audience, members of which consequently realized they weren't alone, weren't wrong, and weren't weak.

Are you serious? The Bush adminsitration has given people the ability to be heard by government? Dubya's success has been aggravating to the left- what success? In what way, other than cutting taxes, has this administration been a success? Let me also fill you in on something- the comic strip you are talking about, which I am asusming is "This Modern World," is written from the perspective of a Christian in TOTAL MOCKERY. If you don't see that completely obvious point, I suppose it explains the rest of your line of thinking. It is not a liberal talking point to say that Bush is useless as a president. Did you hear him on and off mic at the G8 summit? No foreign leader takes him at all seriously, and he has shown almost no leadership skill. For the good of our country, please try to see what is really going on in this world. The beginning point is to stop believeing almost anything coming out of the Bush administration. That is the focal point of lies, as they don't even try to hide it.

"Bush" starts with a B.

"Rush" starts with an R.

This article is about the guy whose name starts with an R.

So you are clearly full of [Bush-on-mic word].

The first two paragraphs, consisting of 539 words, are not about Rush. The last several paragraphs, consisting of 388 words, are about Rush. The majority of this post is, therefore, actually not about Rush, and I responded to the first 2 paragraphs. But I am sure you will find another way to not respond to my post and call me full of shit. So please feel free. However, i really would like to know how the Bush admin is a success. PS, Rush is an idiot. if vituperative xenophobia and ignorance makes him a great host, then to each their own, I guess.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The author's thesis, from beginning to end, first two paragraphs through last several paragraphs, is this: Liberals condescended to and thus lost the common man, while conservatives, particularly Rush, gave the common man voice. I took issue with this thesis, but at least I understood it. Because the fact remains that this article is not ABOUT Bush...at all.

Your viterative xenophobia and ignorance has clearly clouded your ability to read.

Yo momma's so fat, she could be mistaken for Rush Limbaugh.

Who is this "average american," anyway? Is the average american defined as a right-wing, ignorant boob? If so, then I suppose Rush lives up to the author's billing as the voice of the common man. I would like to thank the common man, then, for his influence on current politics, and the ensuing radical reduction of america's standing and influence in the world. common man, I salute you!

The author posits that liberals view average Americans as ignorant boobs. You have proven his point, ace. But surely you noticed that.

great post Mr. Drummond...

outstanding as usual...

that only depends as who you define as average americans. i, personally, don;t believe that your ignorant boobs are the average americans, but apparently you do, which is quite sad. you assume that it is the "average american" who listens to Rush, whereby I suggest that maybe it is not the "average american" whoever he or she may be, that listens to Rush, but right-wing, ignorant boobs. I can only hope the listeners of Rush are not the average american. kind of depends on your perspective, doesn't it, "ace." just don't assume the average american is the same as the Rush audience.

The point of the piece is that conservatives, unlike liberals, respect the average American. You appear unable to understand nuance.

You assume to know both speak for, and know who is, the average american, which you define in contrast to what you think is a liberal. my personal view is that conservatives mainpulate the people you assukme are the average americans. Rush is kind of a demagogue who, as you yourself noted, controls very tightly who gets to talk. This is not respect. This is manipulation in the name of making it seem that he, and I am assuming you consider him a conservative, respects the average american.

Sigh. Nothing I have written addresses who the average American is or isn't. I am simply responding to and explaining the points raised in THIS ARTICLE, which you quite obviously don't possess the capacity to comprehend.

PG proved every point in your post. The left wing liberals are so stupid they think they're smart. What a poor position to be in. PG wouldn't last 10 seconds in a debate with Rush or O'Reilly, but would leave the stage whimpering as all the liberals do. Of course he would blame his failure on Bush.

Don't feed the trolls, please. It only encourages them, and makes others think they are worth responding to. They are not.

Limbaugh's success was a result of the country's gradual but steady move rightward, beginning with the late '60s. No doubt his talent for repartee and sense of humor helped him take advantage of that trend, which was an open field at the time he started out.

As Rush himself will freely admit, he is not an "opinion leader" so much as an entertainer.

"Limbaugh's success was a result of the country's gradual but steady move rightward, beginning with the late '60s."

Oh, really? As a nation we started to move right in the SIXTIES? And poof, Rush was a success? Surely there has to be a little more to it than the cause-and-effect you assert here.

"No doubt his talent for repartee and sense of humor helped him take advantage of that trend, which was an open field at the time he started out."

Sure. Anyone could have done it. He just hopped on a trend. It was just happenstance that no other human being saw this huge "open field." ( / sarcasm) The truth is, there was no such field. Rush created the entire phenomenon of national talk radio ex nihilo.

"As Rush himself will freely admit, he is not an "opinion leader" so much as an entertainer."

I dare you to find such a quote. On the contrary, Rush nearly every day refers to himself, with great verve, as "a powerful and influential member of the media." Which he manifestly is.

I had not had the opportunity to hear his show before last year when Cornell's AM radio station decided to carry it. I was surprised how much his show is like reading a blog post. He reads excerpts of articles in various newspapers and then opines and provides background for his opinion. It's entertaining - he is a big personality after all - and enlightening. I don't always like his bombastic approach, but there is no doubt where he's coming from and I like that.

Rush would never have gotten off the ground without the abolition of the Fairness Act in 1987.

I, too, was enchanted by him for about a week in 1989-- found him, at first, refreshing: the champion of the little person. Then I listened a little more deeply to his often bigoted referrences and comments, which the TFMs don't seem to be able to do.

He uses a lot of black and white comparisons to separate everything and everyone from blacks from whites, to men from women, straight from gay, Dem from Rep, Blue from Red, Conservative from Liberal, pro-life from godless baby killers; He also puts people in groups and makes up labels to support his opinions as fact... which the dittoheads repeat over and over till they believe it. Most of his rhetoric, even today, is black and white choices.
Allowing propagandists like Rush to rule the airwaves is one of the reasons we are where we are today.

Oh, really? As a nation we started to move right in the SIXTIES?
--------------------------------
He did say LATE 60s, and I think that is a fair statement.

As for proof, I would simply look at every Presidential election since 1968 - the only Democrats who won both portrayed themselves as Southern, conservative, Christian "new" Democrats - and also were greatly aided by outside forces (namely GOP scandal and Perot)

The Democrats who portrayed themselves (and had voting records to match) as true LIBERALS happened to get trounced. Clinton had to campaign as a pro-death penalty governor who wanted to lower taxes and was deeply troubled by abortion and thought marriage was only between a man and a woman etc. The fact he did not GOVERN like that (mostly) once in the White House is not the point.

It was also during this time that the "Jesus Movement" began, and new Bible-teaching, conservative evangelical churches began to not only be formed but grow to huge congregation sizes. This was no small issue, especially compared to the early 60s and the nation's attitude towards God at the time. The mainline older demoninations that began to die through the 20th century were left in droves and replaced with these new vibrant conservative Christian movements.

The liberal fruit of the early 70s (like Roe v Wade) was a result of judicial placement many years prior..

which the dittoheads repeat over and over till they believe it.
-----------------------------
Linda, whenever someone uses the term "dittohead" in a manner as you did above, it shows their complete ignorance about the show.

I would think the left would have learned that by now - given how many times they have shown said ignorance in this fashion.

It amazes me that folks on the left can respond with such moral certaintude about the bigotry of a man (and show) that they clearly never even bother to listen to (or checked out once for a week about 17 years ago)

Yes, beginning with the late '60s, Americans have demonstrated a very slow but very steady move towards conservatism. Every periodic survey of national attitudes has shown this overall, as has the mega-trend of elections.

As with any national realignment, it has not been a full change of direction everywhere - the northeast and upper Mid-Atlantic have certainly become more liberal electorally. The sum of results is beyond argument, though. That our shifts in national alignment tend to take a generation or more to effect is one major reason that our realignments tend to be of 50-60 years in duration.

Rush did ride this wave, but not just anyone could have done it, and not at just any time. As Linda Rogers points out, before the repeal of the Fairness Act such shows would have been impossible to put on the air. Rush's talent as an entertainer surely was a major factor in his success, but the fact that he was the first and virtually ONLY voice for conservatives in national mass media was a key. A growing constituency with out an outlet suddenly found one.

Let's not forget the demographic avalanche that Rush educated and nurtured; the conservative mom.

Moms who stayed home with their kids tuned into Rush because he's smart, funny, entertaining and informative. Then they made their husbands tune into Rush during lunch hour. Then they raised conservative kids who tuned into Rush.

When I attended Dan's Bake Sale in Fort Collins in 1993 (one of the only public appearances Rush has ever made), there were college kids everywhere sitting on roofs and standing in the crowd, excited and thrilled to see Rush. Those kids are now parents... and my little son who was so small at that event will be voting in his first election this year.

You know how he'll be voting.... he's Student Council VP next year. He buys Red Bull at Costco and sells it at a profit during lunches and he's gradually turning all his friends into Republicans. They have to keep it secret, since the entire teaching staff is hideously liberal. He's the bomb.

And I've got more growing up just fine, right behind him....

Some facts about Rush:

Rush is a hypocrit, having been addicted to drugs and not gone to jail after insisting that drug users should be in jail. He does not apply the same standard to drug users as to himself because he is better than them.

Rush is greedy, and his show and culture reflects that. He is not out to inform the masses, he is out to maintain a certain level of outrage to keep his listeners and pad his audience. If he inspires people, he deserves money; but like Ann Coulter, he says ridiculous or inaccurate things to maintain his audience.

Rush will hang up on callers who trash him personally or say something impolite, because that might harm his credibility as "the truth."

Rush can lie or make up facts, and never admit to a mistake because there is no accountability. Media Matters has lots of examples---some of there stuff might be biased, but a lot of their coverage of him is right on and he will never admit to doing wrong. If a newspaper or TV station runs an untrue story, they are usually forced (by integrity) to retract or correct the story. Not Rush though.

As for him being "an entertainer", that is not conveyed when he says that he is the best source of the truth or the news you cannot get elsewhere. When you use the phrase "news" a lot, people don't think of you as an entertainer, but as an entertaining news provider. This leaves people believing that he is never wrong, and fuels this idea that conservatives are oppressed and/or on the march.

Don't misunderstand me, please. There are still some liberal proponents who are courteous, even thoughtful, but when they debate their politics, most Liberals seem to fall back on the talking points we see used as flame-throwers by the likes of the DNC and Daily Kos. Conservatives, to be sure, have their own share of rabid dogs, but they seem to be far fewer in number, and in any case they do not get quoted by leading Republicans the way that slander gets issued almost daily by the Democrats.

Right wing has numerous pundits on the radio (Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and a littany of local "talent"), ownership of all the major news networks save for CNN (which is run by a millionaire, so is not quite the "communist" or "leftist" perspective you might have heard), complete wall-to-wall coverage on Fox News, columnists on local op-ed pages from NRO and other sources.

The left has a few outspoken black progressives, a few intellectuals who are never, ever on TV (Chomsky, Zinn, etc.), and a filmmaker who preaches to the choir and makes a film every 2-3 years. The DNC and the DailyKos are far, far more rational and accountable than the RNC, little green footballs, talk radio.

This is what drives the right wing idea of infallibility--all of their informational outlets (the RNC, Tony Snow, GW Bush, Rumsfeld, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Mehlman, Frist, Santorum, Malkin,etc. etc.) never admit to mistakes. It's faith. Ever. And thus you breed millions of Americans who believe or decry various ridiculous things and have no idea how they could ever be considered wrong.

And thus you breed millions of Americans who believe or decry various ridiculous things and have no idea how they could ever be considered wrong.

Translation: millions of Americans (or, in other words, average Americans) are stupid.

QED.

I can spot in a nanosecond someone who does not listen to Rush Limbaugh. This Kimyl person is definitely one. First he/she/it spouts common myths and outright lies, and then it cites figgin' Media Matters as a source to back up its B.S. Then, as if it had any credibility remaining, it actually has the shamelessness to say, with no hint of tongue-in-cheek, that the motherfreakin' DNC and dailykos are more, what? oh, yes: uh, "rational and accountable" than the RNC, LGf, etc. BWAHAHAHAHA!!Oh, shit, let me stop. Alright, I'm good now. Yeah, so basically the whole post is just a big, fat negation of its own intent. It's totally meaningless. There's nothing else to say.

P.S. I, for one, loove my old El Rushbo. There's nobody like him, baby. No one can compare. He rules!

Wow. You drank the kool-aid.

Yes, I would argue that millions of Americans decry things that are wrong or unsupported. They are not dumb, they have been misled or misinformed. They don't have bad logic, they just fail to question logic presented by Rush, probably because it usually fits with their worldview and supports it.

I don't listen to Rush, but I have. In the few times I bothered to listen, he suggested that Hillary Clinton was a nazi, he said that the American left supported terrorists because third world countries were the last hope for communism to take hold, and he said that only 1 or 2 country musicians ever wrote a song against the government, he said that "everyone knows 75% of people who make the minimum wage are high schoolers, and this is a base appeal to them by Dems" when in fact the figure is closer to 1/3, the rest being working adults or single mothers who would help their families and not just buy XBOX games. He has to fill three hours, and because he cannot report either good news from the right or honest debate, he fills it with hatred for the left, so that even if you disagree with Bush, you have to vote for him because the other side is worse.

On the DailyKos or the DNC, the arguments are always backed up with facts. And any major diary (i.e. front page) that is wrong is admitted to, and remains up (it is not hidden as if to pretend it never happened, or doctored like White House press briefings online are).

Since Rush and his ilk came online, the debate has been divisive, angry, polemic, emotional but rarely informed, intelligent or reasoned. Despite electing Reagan, the GOP realized that the risk was too high to continue a good debate, and in bad faith they went toward dirty demagoguery on a number of issues and in a number of races. Just like Rush, it works, but it only gets you into power, it does not produce results.

As for Media Matters... yes they are liberal. They pick on conservative BS. They are sometimes imperfect. But if you go look at all the lies they uncover by Rush, you cannot honestly say that he is an honest, factual and reasoned man. Someone's perspective does not negate their argument if the facts back them up.

I challenge anyone to find less rational and accountable debate than LGF or Rapture Ready. Those people are lunatics!

People tend to forget the early 70s when John Lennon and Yoko Ono were hosting protests to the Viet Nam war. "Grow hair for peace!" "Sleep for peace!" In the latter, John and Yoko stayed in bed for weeks as a form of protest.

A reporter then asked John why he was staging these ridiculous protests. He responded, "We're fighting the establishment with the one thing they can't understand--humor."

That's Rush Limbaugh in a nutshell. He's extremely funny. There have been more than a few times when I almost drove my car off the road because I was laughing so hard.

He's also extremely intelligent. He backs up his positions with logic and clarity, which is more than I can say for his critics.

I never thought I would enjoy Rush's show, I was a liberal Democrat for many years after all, but while he is bombastic, he is intelligent and forthright in his opinions and he is very very funny. Like the day he took a phone call from a fellow Ithacan spouting the usual liberal mantras and he called her "honey." Boy was she mad.

Rush considers it his calling to debunk the liberal mythology and he provides a lot of history to back up his positions. No one on the left has successfully managed to carve a similar niche, which must be why liberals hate him so.

As far as the drug thing, well I don't see Patrick Kennedy in jail, or any liberals calling for him to be locked up. Why the separate standards for "entertainers" and elected officials, hmmmm???

Funny about the accusations against Rush - since his show spends so much time playing the actual tape or reading verbatim from a cited news story of those he then criticizes.

(Of course, all of you who listen to the show know that already)

My favorites lately are when he plays a collection of liberal media repeating their talking points, all from the same news evening. Like 12 different sources all using the term "towel snapping antics" to describe a Bush press conference. Each source is cited and heard in his own words. It makes the point.

And since some of our commentators were about 13 (literally) when Rush had his TV show before the 1994 elections - we got to hear the same things, except we ALSO got to see the liberals speak for themselves.

Kimyl Oh!: I don't drink kool-aid, beotch. I'm not ghetto. I only drink the finest natural fruit juices when I feel the urge for a fruity refreshment.
As for anything else you said, which I only bothered to skim, nothing has changed from what I said before. You have proven yourself to be unstable and intellectually dishonest already, therefore there is nothing to say to you, and everything that you say is negated. I'll not waste my time. Once again, though, I will freely and readily admit my huge soft-spot for Rush. He really is just a harmless, lovable little fuzzball, but with loads of talent and so much to offer the public. Awww!

Rush is not insane, or a complete liar, but he spends so much time debunking liberal bullshit (of which i will admit there is some), but he does very little to advance the dialogue or critique both parties. If you like his style of humor, which I sometimes do and often don't, that is fine.

But he takes isolated incidents across the country to get people ramped up about some liberal takeover. In reality, if he spent any time criticizing the right, the GOP would be in much better shape because they would be held accountable by their voters. The fastest way to see things decline is to attack the other side without cleaning your own house---when both sides behave like that you get two bad, unclean houses, which is what we have now.

I am center-left, but I don't hate either party, or their beliefs, but I want to see a serious and rational debate in our government instead of pie-throwing, stupidity, rabid attacks and humorless jokes. We can all do better. Spend some time keeping your party in line, instead of trying to "expose" the left all the time. Trust me, there are millions of Democrats who want a better, stronger, more honest party (both rhetorically and individually), and we are hard at work making that happen. Make it happen on the right.

Here's an idea: instead of giving Rush programming advice, why don't you start your own show, and implement your brilliant suggestions to "advance the dialogue"?

Oh, wait, you've tried. Over and over. The bottom line is, he blows you all out of the water - which drives you all absolutely crazy. You can't do anything about it, though. Must be tough to be incompetent and powerless.

Here's another idea...Before you criticize his show, become a listener.

Anyone who says that Rush doesn't spend any time criticizing the GOP or trying to keep them "in line" seriously just simply is not a listener of the program. I mean, it really is that simple.

As everyone of you who actually does listen knows quite well enough...

Glad you debunked that myth, Steve - I was just about to jump all over that comment. Rush is one of the harshest critics of the GOP - immigration, the Ports deal, all pro-life issues. Oooohhh baby, you haven't heard anything until you've heard him go after one of our own. He is rightly merciless.

What liberals don't get is that when you are comfortable with your positions and comfortable with your sense of historical perspective, you can afford to be funny while discussing serious issues. Rush walks that line better than anyone out there. Air America should take notes. Liberals should take notes.

I apparently missed many of his virtues the handful of times I heard him. Can you blame me for not listening, after that? You wouldn't watch a shitty TV show if the first 5 episodes you saw were not very good. I guess he could be funny, but I have heard a lot of ranting and vitriole when I have listened--and you can hear that anywhere.

Anyway, if he goes after the right, good for him. But I have a feeling he never says "the Dems were right on this one" or suggests anything other than voting right-wing. He might get mad, but he's never leaving the flock.

While his entertainment value might be high, I think my criticism that him and people like him often stifle more debate than they encourage is accurate. I don't claim to be entertaining, but I could think of dozens of ways to make TV and Radio more informative---but then they might become boring, lose money, and get canceled. Part of our culture today is that if you cannot be snappy, snarky or angry, you won't get heard. Popular support does not translate to accurate info.

Rush is entertaining, and may be informative from time to time, but he is not interested in a full and fair debate, or admitting his mistakes, or changing his mind on anything. For the people out there who treat him as a "news" source (rather than as infotainment or opinion), that limits their thinking. That's all I'm saying. It would be like someone who only reads Michael Moore books and sees his movies--entertaining, yes, lots of facts, yes, but not obective analysis or interested in a full debate of all of the issues, and loaded with opinion.

It's easy to pick at a sore and bitch and moan, but actually healing the wound requires serious thought and effort. I think these guys are mostly pickers/bitchers/moaners.

Summary: Rush Limbaugh claimed that "the militant pro-abortion crowd" is "behind" efforts to legalize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, "because you need abortions to get these [embryos]." In fact, embryonic stem cells "are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro ... and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors."

I won't even mention the word pro-abortion, because anyone who is pro-choise is called that on blogs like this and radio shows like his.

But he makes a connection that is false, in order to tie the stem cell debate to abortion and inflame the issue. Not informative.