Posted on 10/30/2003 9:44:33 AM PST by billorites
Look, I am a longtime listener of Rush Limbaugh because I'm a fan of AM radio. I've listened to radio since childhood. I was in anguish for a week over what was happening to Rush. It began with the flap over his remarks about our Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb being "overrated" because he's black -- an ill-advised intrusion of racial controversy into a tightly scripted jock show that wasn't the right forum for political debate. Then within days, news broke of the National Enquirer's cover story on Rush's abuse of prescription pain medication. The news stunned his fans. For me, it was almost like when Diana had her accident or when Natalie Wood was found drowned off Santa Catalina. That's the level of deep emotional upset that admirers of Rush had -- not because his private life contradicted his public code but because of the revelation of the desperate, agonizing subterfuges to which he had been driven by his addiction.
Now, I do not agree with Rush on most political issues -- I voted for Ralph Nader! And I definitely don't agree with him on Iraq. But Rush transformed the media landscape in America. He resurrected AM radio. From coast to coast, AM radio is buzzing and vibrant because of what Rush did. He is a master broadcaster, a master of the microphone. Anyone who is a true student of media should respect his achievements.
Is his show what it was, say, in the early '90s? No. When anyone makes it big and is suddenly hobnobbing with the rich and famous, of course he or she no longer has that fire in the belly. The outsider becomes the insider. This happened to Howard Stern too. But I've been saying to friends for several years that something was happening with Rush's show. There was less air space and free-form rumination, less comedy and satire. At times, it felt like he was going through the motions, working himself up into a partisan fever because he thought his listeners expected it. I just assumed he was relaxing more, playing golf -- which he deserved!
In the beginning of his career, Rush was an odd character who did nothing but devour the news all day long and give his take on it -- and his audience kept expanding. Since Bush was elected, the show turned too much in an Us vs. Them direction -- "us" being conservative Republicans. But Rush's fan base crosses party lines. I now see that it was the drugs that were affecting the show. Rush was functioning amazingly well, but he was losing his original wide range of ideas.
When the McNabb flap broke, Rush could have caught himself and demonstrated his genuine erudition in football -- which he's shared with his audience for years. But suddenly his isolation became dramatically clear. Where was his staff? Callers to his show challenged him, asking who exactly in the media had ever overrated McNabb? Rush kept saying vaguely, "the Philadelphia media," and I winced. The Philadelphia media have fried McNabb! For heaven's sake, a radio star here even took a mob up to New York to boo McNabb on the day he was drafted! McNabb is personally very popular, but his uneven skills as a quarterback are constantly being hashed over here.
Days passed when Rush should have been getting research data from his staff -- chapter and verse to support his position. His inability to manage basic crisis control amazed me. But through all of that public abuse and exposure, he emerged not diminished but with the dimension of a major Hollywood star, like Judy Garland, who attained semi-divinity through her drug overdoses and suicide attempts. It's as if Rush stepped over from pugilistic political commentator to mysterious, tortured myth in just a few days.
When Democratic candidates like Dean attack Rush, they don't realize how they are alienating millions of people. By blaming the messenger, all they're doing is showing that the Democrats have no answer to the policy dilemmas of our day. And that Newsweek cover story hatchet job on Rush was a total disgrace! After two years of intense debate about whether the American media is biased toward liberals, for Newsweek to produce such a pathetically underreported piece of crap is mind-boggling. Rumor has it that Newsweek stringers had gathered more positive comments about Rush's career that were junked by the top editors.
Of course the newsmagazines never honestly covered Rush Limbaugh as a major force in American media and politics since the early '90s, but Newsweek finally put him on the cover for his drug scandal. That's fine -- it's breaking news -- but then shouldn't they have interviewed some longtime Rush fans who know the show? But who do they call? Maureen Dowd -- that catty, third-rate, wannabe sorority queen. She's such an empty vessel. One pleasure of reading the New York Times online is that I never have to see anything written by Maureen Dowd! I ignore her hypertext like spam for penis extenders.
The nerve of Newsweek to be portraying Rush as a "schlub" -- as if that wouldn't describe half the big enchiladas in Hollywood! In 1992, at the glittering 25th anniversary black-tie party for "60 Minutes" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I dined at a small table with Rush Limbaugh. He was a jovial, witty, commanding figure who offered me a cigar. The distorted portrait of him in Newsweek was vile and meretricious.
< snip >
I wasn't really referring to the question, but to the twelve paragraphs that follow of Camille obsessing, yet again, about the importance of being Madonna and her true place in the greater scheme of things.
It's a bit difficult to take this sort of stuff seriously.
Buckley was considered rather irreverent when he first appeared on the scene. Accused of the routine liberal jive of being a fascist, racist, and Nazi, etc. What liberals can't tolerate is real debate and diversity of opinion. They are cultural and ideological dictators. If you disagree, you are "evil" or a "racist." They slander their opponents and go wild with the Hitler allusions. Nixon was "Hitlerian" for liberals. Reagan was. And so on and so on. They love to fantasize about themselves as always running against Hitler and the Nazis. They want to slaughter the unborn and then complain about the "mean-spirited" lack of civility in political discourse when their boy is outed as a "rapist." People who think it's fine to slam scissors into an infant's brain have a lot of nerve complaining about "mean-spirited" anything... What weirdos!
Hey Pup, what do you think of that line? If that's original, then it's definitely a keeper.
Of course the newsmagazines never honestly covered Rush Limbaugh as a major force in American media and politics since the early '90s, but Newsweek finally put him on the cover for his drug scandal. That's fine -- it's breaking news -- but then shouldn't they have interviewed some longtime Rush fans who know the show? But who do they call? Maureen Dowd -- that catty, third-rate, wannabe sorority queen. She's such an empty vessel. One pleasure of reading the New York Times online is that I never have to see anything written by Maureen Dowd! I ignore her hypertext like spam for penis extenders.
Camille's alright in my book. Her take on the Dowdy one is priceless.
That was not a remark by RUSH, it's what these people who didn't liwtened "think" he said.
BTW, McNabb sucks.
There you have it. Notice she liked Hillary, then she hated Hillary, now she likes her again. Not based on any substantive content of Hillary's positions, but based on....what? The nuances of Hillary's public persona? Come on. This is not serious thinking. It's People magazine, in polysyllables.
And that is why Paglia is fun to read but you don't take her too seriously, because she can say exactly the opposite thing next year.
She really is a bright, articulate, honest person, who is well-educated, but who lacks an intellectual center.
She could vote for Jesus today and Stalin tomorrow, and justify both votes in a 10,000 word essay.
Nice phrase. Another example: Paglia likes Condi Rice because she looks like an eagle. It is unsettling to hear her talk like that, though we would never deny that persona is important in a politician.
I haven't read all the source material, but off the top of my head I think she detested Hillary as victim/first lady and thought Rush nailed that one. I think she digs Hill as a female Presidential candidate. Different context.
On issues in her area of expertise, I take her as substance-based and consistent.
Rush's brother said today he's at the half-way point. I can't wait to hear what he has to say, either. His ratings are going to be through the roof. I'd bet he will inspire many thousands to kick their drug or alcohol problems.
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.