I will admit to being a fan and daily reader of Michelle Malkin. I admit to being a new listener to Rush Limbaugh. I also admit that I don’t know much about Michael Steele to really form an opinion about him, but one may be forming because of Steele’s publicized comments about Rush.
I consider Limbaugh more than an “entertainer.” He is an American with an opinion that gets sent out via the airwaves and through the internet. Much of what he says speaks to me, especially now with my grave concerns about where America is headed under the direction of President Obama.
While Limbaugh’s opinion of Mike Huckabee is a disappointment, even an irritant, I still like to hear Rush’s take on the world of politics. It made some Republicans happy to hear that Steele had made public comments about Rush Limbaugh. With my post I offer up what Michelle Malkin had to say in her article “A note to Michael Steele.” I share it here.
Filed under: Politics, callmecrusader | Tagged: Michael Steele, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh
Well when I heard Rush was now supposedly the leader of the GOP— i about fell of the couch and thought “oh crap”. While Rush does have a place in the party, if he is the leader, we are in BIG trouble. Good for Steele for calling him out.
I’m with you POD. I don’t trust his motives. I believe Rush had good intentions for the conservative movement when he first started out, but those intentions are now back seat to his new number one priority…..success and $$$$$. I believe he actually wants Democrats in the White House so he makes more money. If Republicans were in control not as many people would tune in because they couldn’t hear his rants. I believe him and the other big names in the conservative media are only out for their own name and not the movement.
I just think it’s sad that the worst thing a Republican can do is cross Rush Limbaugh. Why aren’t we this hard on a Republican when they go against the principles of the party? I didn’t hear this big of ruckus when Steele cozied up to the pro-gay, pro-choice wing of the party. Do whatever you want Republicans, just don’t cross El Rushbo.
Good post, CMC. I understand you opinion also. I just get a little bent out of shape when it comes to a talk show host’s prominent place in a party where many people have given their heart and soul to advance conservatism but never get paid one dime for it.
I would tend to agree with Steele that Rush Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer.The fact that the subject of his opinions is politics and that he touches on many current gut wrenching issues does not make him any less of an entertainer. And an entertainer is basically an artist. If you don’t believe Rush is an artist, just watch and listen to his CPAC speech the other night , and you will see how he uses his voice and hands like the talented speaker he is, focusing the audience on his every word and playing them like a fine instrument. Listen to his cadence and pay attention to his silences. He is very talented!
What else to call Rush but an entertainer–he’s not a newscaster, journalist, historian, teacher, preacher, or politician. He is a person who gets paid for a show in which he broadcasts his opinions in a manner that is enjoyable in large part because– apparently a very emotional individual himself–Rush strikes many emotional chords in his listeners: frustration, patriotism, helplessness, sentimentality, scorn, anger, sometimes laughter, etc.
Many forms of art — such as painting and music and theater– do the same, and that is all to the good. Emotions serve the purpose of engaging us and giving us a sense of flow and a respite from the humdrum of daily life where we often feel unfocused or disaffected. At the same time, art can serve to inform us and provoke not only emotion but also deep thought and firmer convictions. And Rush is also capable of this.
To me the fact of being an entertainer does not mean that Rush lacks conviction or core values, but I don’t think these are the moving forces behind his show. The main thrust of Rush’s show is Rush himself, Rush’s opinion, Rush’s emotion, and Rush’s bombast. I’ve never had any particular indication that Rush serves any purpose other than himself, which is another reason the description of entertainer seems to fit. Ultimately Rush doesn’t seem to have put himself in service to anything or anybody but Rush. Worst of all, his fluctuations of emotion have not always put him in touch with the truth, which for many of us IS a form of service.
Rush talks often about “core principles” which I can understand. There was a great discussion on O’Reily last night about the Rush/Steele issue and why the Obama administration is calling out Rush.
In my opinion, there is more to this story than meets the eye.
Most people who know me would be surprised that I would give 2 seconds to listen to a man with such ego and exaggerated opinion of himself, yet there is something about what Rush is saying now about the course our country is taking with Obama in the leadership position that does speak to me.
I appreciate the discussion here even though we are not in agreement.
If not Rush to speak out loudly and strongly in opposition to Obama then someone else better do it and soon.
If Rush is just an entertainer, why is he so agitated about the Fairness Doctrine? Does it apply to entertainers?