Posted on 08/11/2015 4:34:09 AM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
>> I’ve never heard Davis utter anything but obvious banalities or out and out mistakes <<
AFAIC, you’re 101% on target. The guy bores me no end.
But if Rush’s people are as careful about “metrics” as some on this thread have suggested, I’m flat-out amazed that the show keeps inviting Mark to return. Maybe you and I are in a very small minority of listeners.
Oh, I know that. $$$$$ talks. BS walks. I found Erickson boring, anyhow. Give me more Walter E. Williams.
Williams usually has one or more extra features that he shares, such as Thomas Sowell on the phone, or something of his own on economics, or the silliness and futility of the poverty pimps, and such.
Walter E Williams definitely needs to be a sub more.
I can’t stand Erik Erickson, even before all this, I usually change the car radio over to NPR and listen to the moonbats for the afternoon.
Would love to see Howie Carr (Boston radio host) sub for Rush, I know he’s subbed for Mark Levin so maybe he contractually can’t.
>> [Rush] almost always [thanks the guest hosts] after pretending his staff has made him do it <<
I can’t remember hearing it more than maybe a couple of times since I started listening back in 1992.
But kudos to you if you’re a more attentive and careful listener than I have been in the last few years.
(And BTW, Prager is so much more instructive and original that I listen to him increasingly during Rush’s time slot. But at least, Rush is not yet as boring as Mark Davis!)
My theory is that Rush no longer accepts guests hosts who want a full-time career in radio.
Too many of those people in the past went on to become full-time competitors based on the exposure subbing for Rush gave them. (Hannity, Michael Medved, Tony Snow, etc.) The business is too tough to keep breeding new competition.
Hence he only uses hosts who want to keep their day job....Erickson, Steyn, Walter Williams, etc.
Couple of theories, and these are JUST my theory: A: Rush wants some great guest hosts (Steyn) and some poor ones (Belling and Davis) - so that he keeps ratings up, but also to demonstrate by comparison that he's still way ahead. I wouldn't be surprised.
Another is that Davis has people call in during those pay per click programs and sign up with the RUSH promo, etc....thereby skewing that part of the metric.
And third, people may figure it's easier to get in with Davis so there may actually be more call attempts on his days than you might expect.
It's a very big and complex business model at this level.....
Davis has a nasty habit of saying something twice for emphasis. Very annoying.
First, you have a really oddball childish notion of "endlessly" - hell dude, it's just August of the YEAR BEFORE. It hasn't been ENDLESSLY yet. You're like "mommy are we there yet" right as the mini van backs out of the driveway.
Second - I've stated it many times...so here goes again: Several reasons: A: the nature of politics indicates that peaking early almost always comes back to haunt. It is hard to lead the whole way, and it's hard to lead early and come back and lead late B: Trump's huge personality is why he's where he is - and that's a good thing - but huge personalities generally do not wear well over time. C: His inner liberal will sneak out at some point. And then there's D, maybe - maybe he'll say something so over the top that it runs people off to some degree. So far he hasn't, but I thought his jab at Rand made him look bad, while he should have just basked in Rand's stupidity for attacking Trump.
Ditto.
Back in the mid-90s, Chris Matthews was a different man. I recall him as an angry populist, always dishing it out to the Clintons. This was before he got tingles up his leg.
“But to me it seemed Rush was distancing himself far more from Trump than from Erickson.”
He comment on Erickson is standard talk, but if you may want to reconnect the dots if you think he was distancing himself from Trump. He did surprise me, though; he says he had never heard the expression, “blood in the eyes”. I talked to a former prison guard onetime about his experiences. He said you could always tell which inmate was guilty of a violent act; his eyes were invariably blood red.
As I said, merely my opinion. The transcript might show he said something like, “He’s a friend...I mean I know him...” followed by a golf story not exactly flattering to Trump. But you may see it different.
Well we can hope but I got a little shaken on Limbaugh when he never mentioned the Bundy ranch. I won’t get over that one and I am a twenty-six veteran of Rush.
Though he did interview Cruz in the Limbaugh letter which was cool.
He might be getting a Bernie tingle. He raked Wasserman about Bernie’s spot at the convention.
The fact the man is now married has much to do with it. Said so at the time. Once he married, his show began to slip, only a bit, but found it was not as sharp as in years past. That he can still find the spirit to do what he does is truly surprising. I’ll not fault him for anything. This is only an observation. Without RUSH all these years, where, exactly, would we be? He is a light in the dark tunnel.
Glenn Beck uses that phrase frequently. He gets so angry blood shoots out of his eyes. When on TV countless times in his show he would state anger=blood shooting out of eyes. Now it is as common as bacon and eggs. And STILL correct...WTP are so angry that blood is shooting out of our eyes, nose, and everywhere else.
“First, you have a really oddball childish notion of “endlessly” - hell dude, it’s just August of the YEAR BEFORE. It hasn’t been ENDLESSLY yet. You’re like “mommy are we there yet” right as the mini van backs out of the driveway.”
First:
“Endlessly” here in not be be taken literally, of course, but as a figure of speech. I would have thought that someone who fancies himself as a writer would recognize that.
Your point A - If that is true, endlessly true, then it would require a serious candidate to delay his announcement until a short time before the primaries. No one does that.
Point B - He is where he is because of the stands he takes, not his personality. I never watched his TV show, and I am not interested in his personality, other than the way he uses it to pursue his stands.
Point C - As Ann Coulter documents, immigration is the only issue. If the candidate is 99% pure conservative, as you believe your man Cruz to be, (who somehow managed to vote for the Obama agenda twice, and has previously called for more legal immigration), and is unwilling to stop it, it won’t matter how conservative he is — conservatism, and the country, are finished.
Point D - Most of us don’t like Paul, and I throughly enjoyed his jab at Paul. I got tired of Paul’s yapping. He was trying to make himself taller by stepping on Trump, as the cliche goes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.