Why Rush Wins (Talk Radio Is A Business Stupid, Alert)

National Review ^ | 07/19/2007 | Byron York

[lentulusgracchus]

So Libs, please, go right back to pushing your “Progressive” wares, when everybody but you knows it is secret code for “Liberal”.

There's actually a difference between "liberal" and "progressive" within the camp of the Left. I'll let them explain it some time. But the rough, practical version is that the "liberals" were the people who nominated Hube the Cube in 1968 and rode in the buses down South during the "Freedom Rides". The "progressives" were the ones who rioted at the '68 convention, chanted "the whole world is watching!" and formed up the Mobe to try to bring down the foreign policy of the United States. (They also supported Stalin's man, Henry Wallace, in their 1948 rump convention, and met often with Ted Kennedy, Armand Hammer, and the KGB types who repped the Soviet government to the illegal kaffeklatsches that Kennedy and Soviet mole Sen. John Tunney of California had together, to plan out common strategies to oppose and defeat Ronald Reagan. Begin to get the picture on what "progressive" really means? Oh, yeah -- and despite the DLC/Blue Dog posture, Slick Willie really is, and always has been, a "progressive" -- and so is his hag.)

[gridlock]

Liberal = Patiotic but misguided

Progressive = Soviet Front

Nowadays, since the Soviets have been consigned to the Dustbin of History (thank RR!), the stigma attached to being a Soviet Front is less than it once was. But the goal has not changed, even if the Soviets have disappeared.

[Theodore R.]

I have found that I don’t miss Rush any more, having once heard him at least an hour every day. I find that his attachment to the GOP establishment too much for me though he did break on immigration. Had Rush stood with GWB on immigration, I believe that he would have lost half of his audience permanently. I once listened to a local conservative talk host who wanted to send little Elian Gonzalez back to Castro. When he took that position, I never listened again and never missed a thing. Some matters just become “breaking point” issues. And Rush knew from his business acumen that he had better break on immigration. I bet GWB was “not happy” with him.

[lentulusgracchus]

Check out the Young Tur(d)ks on Air America sometime, or Randi Rhodes, if you can stomach her. Listen for the liberal point of view to be explained, and you will be listening a long time.

The AM station that first brought Rush to Houston (he's on another one now) and still carries Mike Savage and Mark Levin and others, runs Ed Schultz's show in the evenings. Good slot, too, 7pm and later. He's kind of a liberal Rush. A real brawler, and he's plugged into the labor movement, but not really resource-rich like Rush (in terms of info sources, and so on). I listen to him sometimes, but he's 90% attitude and doesn't bring the arguments -- just the hortatory stuff, throwing a few names out of liberal candidates who need help, that kind of thing.

I've wondered why that station runs his show, maybe some other Houstonians can explain it; they're more plugged-in to the local AM radio story than I am.

Pinging some Houston/Galveston-area conservatives for possible interest and info.

[gridlock]

“50’sDad Brand Conservative Pork and Beans.”

Beautiful and bookmarked. I may have to steal that from time to time.

[Theodore R.]

I thought that I once read that Henry A. Wallace apologized for being duped by the Soviet Union, but I have never been able to verify that. I may have confused him with another popular-front kind of leftist.

[murrie]

Hey-all I know is that when 11 o’clock rolls around here
in Nashville, TN I thank the good Lord in heaven for
blessing us with Rush. I work in a very, very liberal
place and fortunately have been able to get away with
cranking up the AM radio when he comes on. Every day is
a better day when Rush is on. He has been a blessing to
this country and to my sanity!!!

OK. Off my soapbox now......

[gridlock]

So the question is, does Rush tailor his politics to what will succeed, or does Rush succeed because he has the bedrock politics that people want to hear?

And the answer is, it doesn’t matter.

[lentulusgracchus]

Concurring bump.

The "theoretical" issue dividers I'll let the Leftists explain (if they can) in detail, but you said in short form what I took longer to spell out.

The National Lawyers' Guild is a case in point, supporting your post. An old Red front group, they're still active, and maybe they're more active now than they were in the 1960's when the heat was on.

Ditto the bunch that is trying to get Bush tried in The Hague.

[Sloth]

He is deeply, deeply offended by the prospect of boring his listeners.

I find that hard to believe, when he is dismissive of people's complaints that they are bored by his golfing stories, etc.

[BobS]

Rush paints pictures with words. Yesterday he was talking about the Senate after watching C-SPAN all night. He said he went to bed with Nancy Pelosi and woke up with Hillary Clinton.

[Zechariah11]

Well, if you were a true, fawning fan, you’d beg him to regale you with more of this name-dropping tribble about his eventful weekend. You’d applaud his terrible conceit (”it’s just his schtick”) and disregard his many inappropriate sexual comments.

[SergeiRachmaninov]

I find that hard to believe, when he is dismissive of people's complaints that they are bored by his golfing stories, etc.

I see that you are replying to #1. I hope you stay with the thread long enough to see my #9 and #16 -- I believe "golf" got a mention in each of them. LOL

Actually, I do want to take the opportunity to say that I have nothing against golf -- used to play it badly myself. But "golf" is both a metaphor for the decline of Rush's relevance, IMO, and also the actual content that fills much of the wasted airtime.

[Suzy Quzy]

Thank you! Chivalry is NOT dead!

[Robert A Cook PE]

There are plenty of theories to explain his success, along with that of other conservatives who have followed in his footsteps. Some on the right argue that conservative ideas are simply superior, so they attract a larger audience. Others explain that the liberal audience has more listening choices — NPR, urban radio — so they never rallied ‘round a liberal Rush. And now, the Center for American Progress — the liberal think tank run by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta — has come up with a new explanation: corporate ownership. Big companies like Clear Channel, the Center says, own too many stations, on which they broadcast too much conservative talk. If station ownership were more diverse, the theory goes, there would be more liberals on the air, so the Center wants the government to force Clear Channel and others to downsize themselves to give liberal talkers a chance.

This (liberal) writer (and the liberal editor in NR) are STILL lying to themselves.... And, of course, to their readers and the world at large.

He ignores the ENTIRE remaining liberal bias and lies in the MSM: Deliberately not mentioning ABBCNNBCBS for example, but admitting the liberal bias in NPR (1/50 the audience of the 30 plus million every night who listen to the three network TV shows) and ignoring as well the liberal bias in nearly every print medium issued every week.

He repeats - as they have for YEARS the bromide that the (supposedly) conservative cooperate OWNERS of the radio channels control what the HOSTS say. And, since the liberal mantra is that the (supposedly conservative) owners are rich, they must be conservative business-domineated republicans. Also a lie.

Liberalism and socialism and big government can ONLY compete where there is no dissent, no opposing well-thought-out ideas and facts. It cannot compete where talk and ideas can be expressed: hence the McCain-Feingold act and the current efforts to bring back government control of radio.

A liberal host can only succeed when his/her ideas the only ones presented: because the illogic and lies that liberals spew can be easily proved false when a caller comes in with the facts. And a radio show with no callers dies.

[SergeiRachmaninov]

This particular hustle of Rush -- ”it’s just his schtick” -- is not unique to him.

Imus is a great martyr to many conservatives now, because he was brought down by Sharpton and fellow travelers. But other than being insulting to ~everyone~, which included liberals, Imus was no friend to our side.

Imus engaged in exactly this same business. He merchandised his obnoxiousness as schtick. It is the cheapest material in the world -- just go with your nastiest instincts. When anyone didn't play, he and sidekicks would claim that they "just don't get."

I got it. It was rude and moronic, and it made money.

Rush is not as bad, because his style of this "commedy scam" is not quite as unpleasant as Imus' version. It might even be enjoyed for a while.

[Buffettfan]

Most Americans don’t want to hear that the greatest and most successful country in the history of civilization is evil, because most Americans know that is not true. Bashing America does NOT sell well.

Semper Fi’
Jarhead

[SergeiRachmaninov]

Thank you! Chivalry is NOT dead!

I thank you, too. You got ~all~ that ugly business taken down. I do declare, sur, you truely ~are~ a chivilrous gentleman!

[libstripper]

Brilliant analysis. I just wish I’d come up with it.

[Christian4Bush]

“Talent on loan from God” bump