Anyone who makes Keith Olbermann and his ilk uncomfortable can’t be all bad.
It will come as no surprise to some readers of this site that I often disagree with Rush Limbaugh.
For starters, I don't consider him a serious political thinker, and find it amusing that some people (both admirers and detractors) take him as seriously as they do. (I am not sure that Rush takes himself all that seriously, but I do know his bank account is very serious.)
His views on the environment are incomprehensible. He is a corporate capitalist who only occasionally appreciates issues of traditional conservatives. He will poke fun at popular culture, and rightly so, but rarely holds corporate America accountable for its role in creating that culture. He can be glib, pompous and wrong.
And yet I keep listening to him. Why?
That's easy, too. He is funny, channels Bill Clinton better than anyone around, and demonstrates a consistent ability to entertain in a semi-thoughtful way. At his best, he is a brilliant satirist – consider his corruption spoof on Senators Hollings and Byrd, which still ranks as one of the funniest pieces of radio I have ever heard: "whole lotta corruption going on round here . . ."
Hannity gives us confrontation, Michael Savage angst raised to an art form, but only Jim Rome and Limbaugh have the ability to single-handedly entertain for half hours at a time without missing a beat. That is either a testimony to their gifts or their lung capacity. Either way, they are still the best on radio.
Most important, Limbaugh, whatever his personal and professional limitations, plays a vital role in today's political culture. He holds the feet of the Left and the liberal mainstream (including the media) to the fire. That is why millions of us tune in regularly. We want to join Rush in occasionally thumbing our noses at a leftist/liberal establishment that treats anyone even a little right of center as if we failed to clean up after doing number two on the dining room table.
Case in point. Wednesday of this week, Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated was a guest on the Dan Patrick show. He took Limbaugh to task for saying that professional football (the NFL) was starting to remind him of the Crips and the Bloods, two notorious gangs of longstanding.
Never mind that Limbaugh obviously was taking some license to make a larger point. Never mind that Patrick and Reilly had only moments before been discussing the shame of the Cincinnati Bengals, a team that has to its discredit nine player arrests in the past year. Never mind that half the NFL players sport tattoos of the kind routinely worn by gang members and prisoners. Limbaugh, Reilly charged, was a racist.
Patrick, when pressed by Limbaugh fans to disown Reilly’s inflammatory charge, demurred. Limbaugh has a right to his point of view, he explained lamely, but isn’t it going a bit far to say all of the NFL is like the Crips and the Bloods? By taking Limbaugh’s general observation and translating it literally, Patrick dodged the larger truth and protected his flank with liberal buddies like Reilly and Keith Olbermann.
While I am on the subject of Olbermann, MSNBC’s answer to Bill O’Reilly, I thought I would share with you one of his sterling interviews.
Olbermann: Don't you think that at this point the President's policy is totally bankrupt and without merit?
Democratic liberal: Yes, Keith, I think you're exactly right.
Olbermann: Isn’t it true that Dick Cheney secretly smokes weed.
Democratic liberal: Yes, Keith, that is a brilliant observation.
Olbermann: Isn’t it true that I deserve to make more money than Bill O’Reilly and that George Bush is the reason I don’t?
Democratic liberal: Rich people are bad, Keith. Unless they make millions on network and cable news.
Olbermann: Yet more brilliant analysis from our MSNBC analysts.
This has become the template on MSNBC, where even Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan have made bashing Bush a daily sport while giving a pass to the Left. (I will give Chris Matthews credit for occasionally asking a liberal a tough question, but it is still rare enough to be noteworthy.)
MSNBC has clearly set out to be the liberal answer to FOX News, but the truth is the cable network is far more biased than FOX, which at least tries to seriously debate issues. Okay, serious debate on television today is an oxymoron now that Buckley, Peter Robinson and Charlie Rose are gone, but you get my drift.
The problem with many in the left-leaning media is that they can only smell hypocrisy when it drips off a conservative. Another case in point: Chris Matthews a month or so ago interviewed Robert De Niro and Matt Damon about their CIA movie, The Good Shepherd.
Damon started off reasonably coherent, but could not resist eventually ripping Bush for not serving in combat (even though he had served in the military). He then smugly suggested that his daughters ought to enlist if their father was going to send other people's children off to war. Yet, when asked if he would fight for a war he believed in, Damon responded: well, that's a complicated question. De Niro likewise evaded.
Which is fine. I don’t expect people who pretend for a living and never carry their own luggage to be deep or consistent thinkers. Otherwise, we might ask them how many Kennedys served in Vietnam, or for that matter how many Hollywood stars have enlisted to fight the war on terror, which both actors claim they support. It does bother me that Matthews never pressed the issue and giggled like a schoolgirl in front of a college audience that deserved to hear a serious discussion. If you are going to let them bash the President, at least hold them accountable for their inconsistencies.
Anyway, is it any wonder that those of us on Main Street who weary of the endless bashing of the President, our nation, and our faith, who tire of the endless litany of crimes we are supposed to plead guilty to simply because we are white males, black conservatives, drive an SUV or go to church, turn to Rush for relief?
Even when Limbaugh drives me crazy because I think he is so wrong, I am glad he is around. Because anyone who makes Keith Olbermann and his ilk uncomfortable can’t be all bad.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
Rush Limbaugh is sometimes bombastic, crude, and ridiculous. But he has done more for "mainstream" conservatism than anyone in the last 20 years. He can articulate a complicated concept in a way that most people will be able to comprehend. He is a brilliant extemporaneous speaker. He is a master of "illustrasting obsurdity by being obsurd."
It's easy to criticize some of the things he says, but with that much exposure, there is plenty of opportunity to misspeak, overstate, or overlook a salient point. I think it is remarkable that he gets so much right in such a way that riles his opponents and rallies his fans.
It is also easy to dismiss him by saying, "I don't consider him a serious political thinker, and find it amusing that some people (both admirers and detractors) take him as seriously as they do," but Rush is an influential political thinker wrapped up in an entertainment package. He is the perfect venue for our pop culture environment. He pushes the conservative agenda in a way that attracts, repels, outrages, and entertains. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm a fan. He was the catalyst for me to formulate my political philosphy, and gave me a means to articulate it in my daily life. I don't agree with everything he says, either, but that is not a requirement.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 25, 2007
I began listening to Limbaugh back in the early 90's, and since then, I've found it interesting that whenever people who listen to him get an opportunity to state their reasons for doing so, they almost invariably say at some point, "I finally found someone who thinks like I do!" And, those on the Left, no matter how many times they are told otherwise, still believe that "Dittoes!" means "Yes, master…Speak, master!" when all it really means is, "Keep up the good work, Rush! You are telling it like it really is."
It's also interesting to note that no matter how many times the Left attempts to do so, their "answer to Limbaugh/counterparts" never seem to get off the ground, let alone gain any altitude.
Rush is popular, because, as you put it so well, he entertains. But he also teaches, and since the Left already know it all, they don't want to learn anything more, so they dismiss him out of hand. But, they still haven't come up with a "viable alternative." For that, I thank Rush's huge audience, as well as his very dedicated mission to tell the truth whether we want to hear it or not.
Comment by Liz | January 25, 2007
How many Kennedys served in Vietnam?
Comment by starkravin | January 26, 2007
I need to get my Rush fix a few times a week, even if I don't listen for the whole three hours. I regard myself as a conservative libertarian much more than a member of the Republican party (I feel forced to stay put because there isn't anyplace else to go). He definitely provides mounds of entertainment, and I love when he imitates the typical liberal by sounding like Stuart Smalley. Other conservative talk show hosts give me a head ache after a while–such as Hannity and Savage. It's more the delivery than the conent of their message. As far as seeing Rush's show as a vehicle for learning, I have to agree. He has put the basic philosophy of conservatism into a palpable nutshell for the average person instead of letting it grow moldy in the realms of academia.
Comment by Brooklyn Dave | January 26, 2007
>> His views on the environment are incomprehensible
His views on the environment are exactly correct. What on earth could you be referring to?
Comment by Gunnar | January 27, 2007
The main thing that Rush brings to the table, aside from entertainment, is AWARENESS. He asks questions (rhetorical) that you NEVER hear in the Leftstream (LSM) media, i.e., CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS – perspectives that the public would otherwise be unaware of. I cannot tell how many times I saw an interview ended on one of the LSM without addressing the part of interest to me.
Comment by sedonaman | January 27, 2007