Rush Limbaugh profile in NYT magazine

[SockPuppet]

NYT Magazine, home base for the liberal, left-wing media that has helped lead this country to the sorry place that it is today, has profiled conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

I hate that gaseous wind bag know it all piece of feces for his superior attitude. In the article, Limbaugh says that he doesn't even know where to find NPR on the dial.

Here a couple of quotes from the Fat Man:
* "I assumed there was a fraternity of broadcasting guys in New York. I thought my success would launch me into a circle of accomplished people. Look, I admired these people. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather. I thought they would welcome me as one of them. I was wrong. I realized that my professional achievements were discounted because of my conservatism and my constant criticism of those who I thought would welcome me."
My take: Aw, poor Rush assumed that the talk show blabbering of a non-journalist who religiously ignores the other side of the story would be welcomed by real on-air journalists. I feel so sorry for him.

* "When you saw my house today, you probably noticed that it isn't filled with pictures of me and famous people. That's not me. I don't have a home that says, 'Look who I know!' No, you have a home that says, 'Look what I have.'"
My take: Hmmmm, he says "That's not me" when it comes to pictures with famous people. Yet in the previous quote it seemed as though he was put off by not being accepted by famous people in New York. Effing hippo hypocrite.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

O'Really has many of the same perceptual problems.

It goes with working that particular territory.

Both will continue to rake it in -- but their stunning, sustained disingenuousness doesn't lend to broad credibility.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

* "I assumed there was a fraternity of broadcasting guys in New York. I thought my success would launch me into a circle of accomplished people. Look, I admired these people. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather. I thought they would welcome me as one of them. I was wrong. I realized that my professional achievements were discounted because of my conservatism and my constant criticism of those who I thought would welcome me."

So after years of trashing Jennings, Brokaw and Rather, he was hurt or disappointed they didn't start taking him to dinner?

 

[DanOregon]

I think you see that from a lot of conservatives. They weren't welcomed in to "the club" and spent the rest of their lives in seething resentment over it.

And what's the deal with Limbaugh always being pictured with a cigar in his mouth?

 

[SockPuppet]

It's the favorite pacifier/penis replacement of the Conservative Fat Man. Instead of driving a $200,000 sports car, they suck stogies to show how manly they are and superior they are to be able to enjoy something produced in a Third World country.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

And what's the deal with Limbaugh always being pictured with a cigar in his mouth?

That's not a cigar on the way in, it's a turd on its way out.

I've always wondered if Limbaugh -- and Michael Moore, for that matter -- believe even half the crap they say or whether it's like pro wrestling, all an act.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Sock-

You have established that you looked at the story.

Sometime, try reading it.

If the NYT can take the subject seriously, you might give it a shot, too.

 

[MartinEnigmatica]

Nothing really makes me want to go off the grid than **** like this. Oh, it's a good story. Limbaugh's definitely an interesting cat, and I laughed when he called O'Reilly "Ted Baxter". But it's still a story by the media, for the media, like the Chris Matthews piece earlier in the year -- except about a person with a much more devoted, and large following.
I kept asking myself throughout the thing: who gives a ****? I did a fascinating thing a while back - I turned off the tube, turned off the radio. Save for weather and the occasional sporting event, I didn't watch a damn thing (though, didn't go so far as to turn it off when someone else has it on). My head was clearer and less full of stuff. I tried to pick news from the most objective places possible, and avoided political 'news' altogether.
And then you turn all the circuitry back on, and this is what you get: left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, network vs. network. The shouting and arguments get faster and more ridiculous, more devoid of worth, interrupted only by five minutes of slick advertising -- aligned, of course, with the ideals of the network that runs the spots. It's Hannity, it's Jon, it's Colbert, it's O'Reilly, it's snarky, it's Fair and Balanced, it's HARDBALL ONLY ON MSNBC, it's Olbermann's kooky glasses.
Which leads to Rush Limbaugh, screaming into a microphone at 1,000 decibels, bloviating about this and that. It this really how the democratic process should go? Am I supposed to get news spun from this guy, a dude who is paid to toss around his opinion with vigor? A dude who lives on a property that has five houses, has millions of dollars worth of automobiles, planes, considers himself a businessman, will shill for you on air for the right price?
I couldn't care less that he's conservative. I wouldn't care if he was liberal. I mainly care that he's falsely defined the dichotomy between conservatism/liberalism, ignored the shades of gray, furthered this adversarial political climate, upped the furor, and care how it's helped absolutely no one except himself; then wonder why I'm supposed to give a ****.

 

[tonysoprano]

I guarantee he enjoys the fact too that he pisses you all off so much.

Frankly, I admire the man. Sure, you're not going to agree with what he says, but at least he doesn't back down like a cowardly little ***** when the heat's on. He's a man of conviction, not someone who will whimper and quickly apologize just cause what he says isn't P.C. or offends someone. I find it refreshing.

 

[MartinEnigmatica]

It's not him, necessarily, that solely irks me...it's the whole bunch. It's the whole commentator system.

Here's something I wondered in his case. If he's such a tent-pole of modern American conservatism, and such an agenda-setter, why doesn't he run for office? If his following is larger than anyone's, and would likely gain support, why wouldn't he?

 

[dooley_womack1]

In anything but the reddest of red states, he'd be DOA. The Hillbilly Heroin ad campaign would be instantaneous upon the announcement of his candidacy.

 

[T2]

Here's something I wondered in his case. If he's such a tent-pole of modern American conservatism, and such an agenda-setter, why doesn't he run for office? If his following is larger than anyone's, and would likely gain support, why wouldn't he?

Compare what he's doing now with what he'd have to do as a campaigner or an elected official. From his point of view, his present occupation provides a whole lot more personal satisfaction, leisure time, and MONEY. Also, he feels he can advance the conservative agenda more effectively on the radio than as an actual office-holder. Why would he want to switch?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Here's something I wondered in his case. If he's such a tent-pole of modern American conservatism, and such an agenda-setter, why doesn't he run for office? If his following is larger than anyone's, and would likely gain support, why wouldn't he?

Compare what he's doing now with what he'd have to do as a campaigner or an elected official. From his point of view, his present occupation provides a whole lot more personal satisfaction, leisure time, and MONEY. Also, he feels he can advance the conservative agenda more effectively on the radio than as an actual office-holder. Why would he want to switch?

Not to mention that 4-8 years of pure red meat is on tap for the load. Why should he work?

 

[jgmacg]

Sure, you're not going to agree with what he says, but at least he doesn't back down like a cowardly little ***** when the heat's on. He's a man of conviction, not someone who will whimper and quickly apologize just cause what he says isn't P.C. or offends someone.

So was Father Coughlin.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Sure, you're not going to agree with what he says, but at least he doesn't back down like a cowardly little ***** when the heat's on. He's a man of conviction, not someone who will whimper and quickly apologize just cause what he says isn't P.C. or offends someone.

So was Father Coughlin.

. . . the closest modern parallel. And Coughlin's run was not indefinite, to put it mildly.

 

[Alma]

Some interesting takeaways from a decent (and subtle) profile.

*The rejection of higher education. The trinity of current conservative thought - Limbaugh, Hannity and Rove - loathed college. What do you make of that? Compare it to O'Reilly, who went back to Harvard, no less, in the middle of his life. And before everyone here gets snide, don't act like you didn't learn more in one month on the job than you did in four years of j-classes.

*That moment where Limbaugh chose to keep at his craft instead of becoming a potato chip salesman. Had he taken that second path, where would he be? Would he have kids? Still have a first marriage? Where would America be?

*The repeated use of the word "conservative" as juxtaposed to Limbaugh's behavior and quotes. What, really, is "conservative" about the man?

* I was very happy to see Limbaugh bring up the ads, because his show is chock full of them. At least he admits where his success lies. Interesting that his shows actually owns five minutes of time per hour…<i>just for ads</i>! The article is incorrect in claiming Limbaugh talks for three hours…it's much closer to an hour and 45 minutes. That's how stuffed his show is with ads.

This is the real dirty secret of talk radio - I'm not even sure how dirty it is, really. Ratings are nothing compared to ads. I've often speculated that Cowherd, as an example, must be a wizard out in the affiliate field at drumming up ad support, because his show is a miserable cur that would get wiped by any number of hosts…if they worked for ESPN.

 

[Alma]

Frankly, I admire the man. Sure, you're not going to agree with what he says, but at least he doesn't back down like a cowardly little ***** when the heat's on. He's a man of conviction, not someone who will whimper and quickly apologize just cause what he says isn't P.C. or offends someone. I find it refreshing.

Oh come on, a man of conviction. Men of conviction don't (admittedly!) spend 15 years of their national radio career courting affection where it won't be found. Limbaugh frankly admitted he was a man chasing after empty treasures; that's part of why he had a drug addiction. With the cars and the house, I'd say it's still happening.

He's a man of opinion, yes.

Conviction? I tend to judge that by one's actions, not their words.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

He's something . . .

Married three times . . . 2 1/2 years . . . 7 years . . . 10 1/2 years.

No kids.

 

[Pastor]

I guarantee he enjoys the fact too that he pisses you all off so much.

Frankly, I admire the man. Sure, you're not going to agree with what he says, but at least he doesn't back down like a cowardly little ***** when the heat's on. He's a man of conviction, not someone who will whimper and quickly apologize just cause what he says isn't P.C. or offends someone. I find it refreshing.

As to "not backing down"... well, I have never seen him debate anyone. He routinely cuts off callers and will never go on another program that will challenge him.

So, I guess, when you say that he "never backs down" you mean that he never really stood up to begin with.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Married three times . . . 2 1/2 years . . . 7 years . . . 10 1/2 years.

Damn the gays for destroying sanctity of marriage!