:crickets:
Just kidding. Someone will be along here in a little bit.

Oh. I thought we were talking 80s rock…

I must admit that I … have never listened to his show. Ha! Fooled ya.

Let’s call him for what he is – an extremely effective prophet of the political right. And let’s be clear what he is not – a prophet of the Jesus-shaped Kingdom of God.

I know that this post is a re-direct, but let me perhaps re-direct it a bit further, since I’ve stated most of what I wanted to say in the previous.
Rush espouses conservatism, a certain socio-political set of principles and values. He does this quite well, and has gained a tremendous following of those who agree with him and believe that conservatism is a better approach to the commitment of traditional Constitutional values. I happen to agree with him that more people live by conservative values in some aspect of their lives than vote for Republican candidates (GOP and conservative are not one in the same . . . for example, McCain’s presidential bid). I do not need to stick up for Rush – and do not intend to do so here – because he can take care of himself.
NOTE: I am not suggesting that this has happened on this blog, nor in any particular post . . .
What bothers me is the constant barrage of personal attacks and character bashing that happens with the Rush phenomenon. Some people call him stupid and irrelevant, others can only point to his personal difficulties and failures. In some way or another it seems that the discussion rarely stays within the realm of socio-political ideals and quickly degenerates into these other things.
The problem here is that the ramifications of this attitude reach further than poking fun at those who choose to listen to his show (BTW – I have no idea what value or character is found in those who proudly proclaim they have never listened to him . . . e.g., “I’ve never listened to Beethoven’s 7th because I already know it’s stupid.”) Along with many other people I listen to Rush not because I feel that I echo what he is saying, but that I believe that he is a loud voice able to echo what I hold to in my conservative principles. So when someone calls him stupid, at best they are calling me stupid for holding the same values; at worst they are calling me stupidER for listening to him say them.
I do not agree with him (or anyone else) all of the time. But enough to know that his principles are my principles, his faith in God and country sound an awful lot like my faith in God and country. And the outworking of my faith always looks more like socio-political conservatism than the alternatives . . . No matter what I think of the President, I refuse to call him stupid or say that he is leading a bunch of mindless sheep. But I will articulate the principles which I hold and evaluate his activity by that standard. What is wrong with this? Nothing. But that is what Rush does and I am finding that I have increasingly little time for listening to the barrage of attacks against my values, however they come.

Anyone who denies Rush Limbaugh’s brilliance in political commentary is living in denial in my opinion. This does not necessarily mean he is always right, in fact I find myself disagreeing with him more as time passes.
In essence and principles, Rush has a lot of really good things to say: small government, small business, freedom, constitutionality of the federal approach to power, etc. With that said, it has been a long time since Rush has said anything about compassion…instead he is mocking those who do discuss compassion (although sometimes he rightly does so as the Left has hijacked the issue of compassion for political reasons). It’s very easy for someone making 300+ million dollars per contract to speak as he does, so I find his approach a bit disingenuous.
Rush is the epitome of American success. He has never attended college with the exception of one semester, or received any other high education of any kind. Therefore, to attribute his success to accident or demagoguery alone is misguided. He is a very smart man, able to influence a great number of minds.
Make whatever you will of it….that’s just my opinion

Bc he pisses farther than anyone else in the grand pissing contest of political pundits (i honestly don’t mean in an offensive manner, I just think it articulates it well… let me explain).
It’s our society in general, and i thought about this the other night. I was watching an interview with Christopher Hitchens. The man seems that he might be intelligent, but he’s certainly not intellectual, only articulate and loud. He has no clue what the Bible actually says, or what any true Christian actually believes, yet he runs his mouth as the authority and does so more loudly and obnoxiously than the rest. The extremes win… it’s kinda like “Who can yell the loudest.”
I don’t buy that a lot of what Rush says, he doesn’t mean quite that way. I really think he (and ann coulter) really do mean every word. I just think those who wouldn’t go all the way, hear it work like hyperbole. So, for those who like him, that’s fine. However, It would seem to me that the vast majority (not all) who listen to him do so because he resonates with a certain worldview which is very strong in our culture, and for some reason, Christians have latched onto… even though it has very little to do with the Bible.
I also think this is why so many people are so angry or sound so “mean” about it. They are angry! We don’t like when people like Rush, O’Reilly, Coulter, or anyone else like them claim to be the “Christian Opinion.” The reason we don’t voice as much disdain over the far leftists that we equally disagree with (Olbermann, et al), is because they don’t attach Christ’s name to their agenda and fool so many into believing it’s true.
In our country the moderates, the intellectuals, never get heard. They’re usually too busy doing good things and not running their mouths. I’ll end on this…
In Rome, debates were public spectacle. The art and job of a rhetoric was to articulate your position more eloquently than the other. It didn’t matter if your argument was correct or even made great sense, as long as you articulated better, you would win. I feel we’re not too far removed from that today in our society. Whoever runs his mouth better, people follow.
It’s almost like we actually think in this country, that if the Dog barks loud enough, we can believe the cat came down from the tree (and even tell everyone he did) when if we’d actually look hard enough, we’d realize it never left the tree.

BenB
How can you possibly claim that moderates and intellectuals never get heard? Every time I turn around they are touting around the ‘undecided’ voters and praising the ‘moderate’ candidates for their indecisiveness. This is, frankly, an absurd claim. We are told now that we have ‘genuine’ intellectual elites in the administration (since they don’t come from ranches in Texas) but rather represent the Ivy Leagues and what-not. I don’t believe you have captured it much at all – and don’t sound like someone who listens to Rush (approvingly), as this particular post assumes. We should know by now why people don’t appreciate him . . . but there are others who articulate the same ideals.
Scot, on comment #21 on the other blog: This is well and good, but does it account for the simple presidential electoral movement – Reagan swept; then as the party has moved further from such conservative values the electorate has become slimmer (accounting for third party disruptions of the 90s). In this perspective, then Steel will want to reconsider some of his comments.

:mic,
Well, this is a first for me: carrying on a conversation at this post about another one! I’m not a political history guy, but the sense of trying to be more like Reagan fails to account for a new day and the need for a new way by Republicans. My own view is that Repubs have tried to stick with the “tried and true” but I don’t think they’ve recognized that Reagan spoke so powerfully to a specific condition — and it no longer exists. Clinton mastered this by being a new kind of Democrat.

I’ll take a little different approach and say this about Rush: he is the quintessential Modernist.
In his view, the idea of utopia is achievable if we all would only fully embrace his political and social agenda.
This doesn’t sit entirely with thinking Christians, because we’re all at least a little bit Premodern. In fact, it doesn’t sit well with many of us because most of us are also at least a little bit Postmodern.
It is only the pure idealist Modernists who really resonate with Rush entirely. But there are many of them around; I have some in my church, and you probably have some in yours too.

Funny how a good many arguments on this (and the other) thread against Limbaugh seem to devolve to: “He (and his supporters) are clinically insane and/or evil.”
It’s always unwise to analyze your opponents using a demeaning basis, e.g. psychoanalysis; it makes for a very nasty atmosphere.
Full disclosure–I’ve never listened to Limbaugh, and probably never will; but the tone of some here is really irritating.

Limbaugh feeds off of division. He lives to set up straw-men so he can (supposedly) eloquently and effectively cut them down. I’m honestly a little surprised that Scot would even want to give him “air-time”. Limbaugh represents everything that is contrary to the “3rd Way” approach that Scot has so often espoused. RL is an idealog of the worst kind and is completely out of touch with the reality of the average person. I also believe he is painfully out of touch with the growing edge in this country – and even more so, around the western world. I think he’d like to believe he’s a compassionate person. But he simply seems unable to actually connect the dots between his political views and the plight of the poor and marginalized. Believe me, I understand the conservative take that compassion must be forged from a supposedly balanced and realistic, versus idealistic, view of human nature. But, quite simply, I just don’t buy it. Let’s move on… Whether we call it the 3rd Way, or something else, please, let’s just get off the road that leads nowhere good. Jesus would ask nothing less.
Strong words, I know. But that’s just how I see it.

:mic,
Ivy League folk are not more intellectual than people from ranches in Texas. This, again, is another false claim set up by people who like to run their mouths (liberals on MSNBC). Also, as far as whether their voice will REALLY be heard, will be proven by what comes out of the next four years (or 2 with congress), and from the beginning of what I’ve seen… it doesn’t look like the moderates’ voices have been heard all too well.
Also, “indecisiveness” of moderates is a rather sweeping statement, wouldn’t you agree? While I agree that they are out there, that shouldn’t correlate to those who consider themselves “independent” or “moderate.” In fact, I think independent is the better term, since moderate has caught this silly idea that moderates want to do something, but not enough to accomplish anything.
The point remains that yes, Rush has some good things to say, but most of it, I don’t think is that good.
The point isn’t to say that he has nothing good to say, but that overall, he represents an extreme which isn’t followed because it’s “good,” but because he’s good at talking about it, and good at insulting people who disagree.
As I’ve said before, there are plenty of other people on the other end i can say the same about.

Darren, how exactly is your description of Rush any different than what you are accusing him of? You just zealously espoused a bunch of very strongly held opinions and beliefs…that makes you an ideologue – you are just at the other extreme.
I find your comment very ironic!
But back to Rush, yes…ultimately his style takes away from his substance. I’ll amen that one Scot.

:mic,
Let me anticipate a coming comment which i deserve…
“he represents an extreme which isn’t followed because it’s “good,” but because he’s good at talking about it, and good at insulting people who disagree.”
Yes, this likewise is a sweeping statement that talks about folks who listen to and appreciate him. I don’t apply this to everyone, and certainly not to you (or any other individual whom i don’t know), but rather it has been what I have seen to be true in the LARGE majority of those whom I know that appreciate him. It also seems to be the way our culture works. I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue with me (and my overall point of the first post) on this issue. Divisiveness and extremes rule the media, and dominate the mindsets of most people. It’s obvious on every corner.
Just look at what the Media says about creation/evolution. The people who get to talk on the issue on the news are the Creation museum people and Richard Dawkins. When in reality, most “moderate” Christian scientists and theologians are doing what we are doing here at Jesus creed, who discussing the issue seriously, and honestly, faith and science don’t have to butt heads. I wouldn’t call that indecisive, would you?

BenB
Fine for your perspective. I do not wish to say that you are misunderstanding me here, but I would ask that you ensure you know when I am asserting and when I am pointing out that others are asserting. Knowing many farmers and ranchers, I of course know that they are much more intellectual than what the typical Ivy League product is (this is a light-hearted comment, folks – go easy!!); and I do not claim that moderates are indecisive. But that is what the mainstream media seems to admire about them, or else we wouldn’t be overrun with focus groups made up of undecideds just hours before an election when there should be no question.
I will admit that I see semantics as not always a miniscule endeavor – words have meaning. ‘Moderate’ is one that bothers me considerably, because I see it tends to be more of a nice and disarming way of self-description for many who simply don’t have the moral character to take a stand. Again, I do not mean this as a complete sweep of the field, but more often than not . . . I suppose that as a Christian I have difficulty with being a ‘moderate’ – there seems to be nothing in the kingdom for such things, and one’s view of the kingdom necessarily shapes one’s view of socio-cultura-political ideals.

um, Rush evokes a reaction?
i wish it were more of a call to action v. a call to arms.
i’d like to snuggle his arsenal until there’s nothing left but love. because if he could call people to love this country the way he calls us to differentiate ourselves from one another-well, that would be pretty. when we talk about conservative, maybe we could roll back total old school to straight up vintage Gen 1& 2 humanity. I’d like to conserve-restore-that. if only that’s how he used his broad, strong voice. if only society were healthy enough that we merely needed to conserve rather that repent and restore. sigh.

Ok. Honest appraisal of Rush.
His views are pretty stock Reagan conservatism. His style is clownishly pompous and his way of tweaking liberal sensibilities is infuriating to liberals. He is a lightning rod. But he’s also very bright and he has tapped into a lot of frustration in middle America. A lot of folks agree with stock Reagan conservatism and Rush says the things they are thinking but not bold enough to say.
Personally, I prefer to listen to Hugh Hewitt or Michael Medved or Dennis Prager. They make the same points with a little less of the over-the-top showmanship. Actually, I prefer reading Thomas Sowell or Charles Krauthammer and occasionally Dick Morris. But if Rush is on when I’m driving, I listen. On occasion I cringe at the delivery, but I often agree with the general drift.
I will say that for everything Rush says that gets us conservatives trashed in the media, there is far, far worse said on the left. The “Kill Bush” placards and the stuff said about Sarah Palin make anything Rush has said seem trivial. There is a double standard – no doubt in my mind. Conservatives are generally criticizing policies and get accused of attacking persons. The far left directly goes for character assassination quite often. Ever been “borked”? They even invented a word for it. (I watched those hearings, not the network news soundbites. Ted Kennedy was pathetic).
For now Rush is a campaign issue to keep the left energized – that’s what this recent new cycle is all about.

Virgil,
Believe me, I’m no idealogue. Recognizing one doesn’t make me one. I’m personally pretty centrist. There are extremes on the Left that I feel are problematic as well.
Peace,
Darren

I used to live and die by the words of Rush. But I grew up and am now able to think for myself politically and biblically. In the late 80′s and early 90′s i listened to him every day. I thought he was right about everything–a true prophet.
What’s scary about that is that i surrounded myself with only one opinion and one particular political view. And i compared all other opinions with his. (sort of a political, ideological idol)
At this point in my life, i have moved away from conservatism because of how cut-throat and divisive the language is on talk radio and some TV. There is glee in finding some dirt on Democrats in Rush’s broadcasts while overlooking one’s own areas of weakness. I don’t like how Hilary was treated. I don’t like the way Rush speaks about women. (the PMS brigade for starters)
In the name of humor and satire, Rush is very disrespectful and viscious in his portrayal of people he opposes.

:mic said: “I suppose that as a Christian I have difficulty with being a ‘moderate’ – there seems to be nothing in the kingdom for such things, and one’s view of the kingdom necessarily shapes one’s view of socio-cultura-political ideals.”
I think you’re conflating two very separate categories here – politics and the Kingdom of God. I, for instance, would call myself a political “moderate” – but that doesn’t mean I’m moderate when it comes to the Kingdom of God and its ideals. I agree that our understanding of the kingdom should shape our socio-cultural-political ideals – but that’s actually why I consider myself a political moderate. Because when it comes to the current two-party system in the United States, I don’t believe either party fully represents a Kingdom of God perspective. So I prefer to chart a middle way between the parties – realizing that at times I will agree with one, and at times with another. But this in no way means that I am somehow “wishy-washy” when it comes to the Kingdom of God – far from it. Yet that seems to be the implication of your comment above, albeit with some qualification. The idea that political moderates are people who don’t have the moral character to take a stand is simply offensive, and quite wrong-headed.
As far as Rush goes, I agree with several who have commented already. Rush may well espouse conservative ideals, but he does so in a way that is inherently divisive. Most political commentators do the same – their livelihood is dependent on the polarization between political conservatives and liberals. Sadly, whatever good ideas they may have are ultimately cheapened by the fact that their entire approach lowers the level of political discourse in our country by constantly demonizing and ridiculing those who think differently than they do.

#19 Joanne
“At this point in my life, i have moved away from conservatism because of how cut-throat and divisive the language is on talk radio and some TV.”
I’m not picking on you personally but statements like this are maddening to me. William Easterly wrote at his blog today:
“However, beware of the fallacy called ?Affirming the consequent.? If you are a Nazi, Then you like Wagner?s operas. It does not follow that: If you like Wagner?s operas, Then you are a Nazi. Similarly, suppose we agree: If you are a free market ideologue, Then you will defend free markets. However, it does not follow that If you defend free markets, then you are an ideologue.”
That Rush Limbaugh may an objectionable carrier of the conservative message has little to do with the merits of the message itself. Whether we embrace or reject message carriers is different from our evaluation of the merits of the message. Sometimes the correct response is to keep the message but reject the messenger and become a better messenger ourselves. That is true of conservatives and liberals.
I’d also add that the flip side is to not embrace a message because of the charisma and civility of the messenger. Nasty people can be delivering an accurate message while nice people lead us astray. I just don’t relate to the mindset that rejects/embraces political positions based on the messenger’s demeanor.

Here are the names of two Newspapers still in operation in the Northwest Missouri: Bethany Republican Clipper and Marshall Democrat-News. These papers are (I believe) more than 100 years old. You will find papers all across the country with similar names. Why? Because it used to be that there were multiple papers in towns and they took partisan views on issues. They had their slants on the news, published editorials, and presented political cartoons and humor.
The degree to which partisan rancor has been present has ebbed and flowed over the years but the idea that Limbaugh is the emergence of some never before seen phenomenon, or that his tactics are unprecedented, is just silly. So is the idea that his tactics are somehow unique to conservatism. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated audio version of what the old newspapers used to be: Slanted news, editorials and humor that promotes one agenda and attacks others. This is what happens in democracies in place of bullets and tanks.

Scot,
Thanks for being willing to attempt a discussion of why folks listen to Rush … sorry that it doesn’t seem to be working too well. :^(
Super Mega Dittos going out to :mic — for this post and the previous one, where I was remiss….
Thanks to Michael Kruse’s for framing the heart of my request. For those of you who don’t believe him, take a gander at reading the stuff that went on with political competitors back in the early days of our Republic. Makes Rush look like a kitty purring….
Not that I approve of the messenger’s demeanor at all times. But I do understand why he is so frustrated. And I heard it again here in #21, where Michael states so well that truth that sometimes wolves are dressed in sheep’s clothing. And other times it is the wolves themselves who are crying wolf….
I appreciate Rush because he provides a push back to much of the liberal media’s perspective that seems off to me. As I said in yesterday’s post, that doesn’t mean that I agree with him at all times, or that I find his humor always in good taste. But the humor he at least attempts is more enjoyable that those who just are loud and brash and have no tongue in their cheek….
I am looking for more of those voices who listen, though. I have, however, heard from a few others here a confirmation of all my reasons for listening. Now, I don’t listen every day, but I do check in when something “big” is happening, precisely because I know I will hear a different story from what I will see carried on the news. I value hearing a different perspective and am willing to extend grace as a filter through which I sort out that which is good from that which is not.
Discernment, like deep thinking, is something that is all too often overlooked, or under-exercised. C.S. Lewis’ professor might say: “What do they teach in the schools these days?”

I listen to Rush on occasion and enjoy his show when I do.
I think of Rush as being similar to Flannery O’Conner – an artist/entertainer who uses grand, over the top and, some might say, grotesque hyperbole to pierce the consciousness of his audience.
I also listen to NPR a lot. Not too much hyperbole there. You really have to peel back the layers to discern their angles. I like NPR, but they pretend to not be biased and I find a certain amount of arrogance in that position.
Maybe we could have a post on why people listen to NPR.

Chad,
You are not the first to bring up Rush’s rhetoric. Others think his entertaining overstatements are rhetoric. I wish I could believe this. What I’ve heard, and I’ve heard some and read more, makes me think his over the top rhetoric is not hyperbole but frequently not only what he thinks but what his listeners think he thinks and what they, in turn, somewhat internalize.

I don’t think the appeal of him as a counterbalance to other news outlets can be understated.
As Peggy #23 said, “I appreciate Rush because he provides a push back to much of the liberal media’s perspective that seems off to me.”
Enough people are frustrated with the news establishment enough to overlook Rush’s overstatements and listen to what he has to say. Being one of the originals to counter the news outlets, he is seen as a leader.
Personally, I prefer Bill Bennett’s style of radio (and his CNN contributions).

Scot,
I guess art is in the eye/ear of the beholder. My dad (who listens to Rush daily) thinks Rush believes what he says. He and I have gone round and round about this, with me saying Rush must first be understood as an entertainer and only secondarily as a conservative spokesperson.
That’s not to say I think Rush doesn’t believe his core message, I think he does. But I interpret his over-the-top rhetoric as showmanship. It’s like, as a Carolina fan, I can say “Go to Hell Duke” knowing that’s an over-the-top statement that has a true conviction at it’s core.
Again, this is my interpretation. I tend to laugh at Rush’s rhetoric. And when it gets too much for me (usually about 22 minutes in), I just tune out.
A good conversation is whether a bold showman like Rush is good for political discourse or harmful.

Not a huge fan of the guy. BUT, I don’t listen to his show so I can’t say anything with complete fairness. The things I have heard him say are provocative and irritating.
Chad Hall,
I agree. Rush is an entertainer first. The kind of comments he makes are built to inflame the people who love him and get him in the news. Like that Michael Savage guy. Savage is way worse.

I’ll also add that Limbaugh, along with Oprah Winfrey, are two of the most successful “life-view integrators” that exist in our culture. Our choices in the past were relatively constrained. We have an explosion of information and unprecedented options available to us. How do I sift the information and choices I’m bombarded with in order to have a coherent life?
Limbaugh and Winfrey don’t just offer commentary and information. They are connecting communities of people with shared values, showing them to each other, and helping them feel part of a bigger reality. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, they are one response culture has taken to a lost sense of local community.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying their followers are mindless (though every charismatic leader has some such followers.) Rather I’m saying that Limbaugh and Winfrey take a cluster of already loosely held sentiments by their followers, help their followers to explicitly connect the dots so they can articulate the connection between sentiments, and then intensify their sentiments by making them a part of community that shares those sentiments. They are almost life-coaches.
We are dealing with far more than just political commentary with Limbaugh and those who think of him in purely political terms are missing his significance. I also think a reason the left has such a hard time countering him at his own game is because they have not fully grasped this.

I posted about Michael Steele and El Rushbo today.. interesting phenomenon these days.. GOP leaders asking his forgiveness on a fairly regular basis.
I agree with what Jake said about how Rush’s approach lowers the level of political discourse in our country. I wish that people didn’t feel the need to constantly demonize views different than their own.
Also thought that Michael’s contrast between Rush and Oprah is a good one. Interesting that Oprah’s candidate won last year.. maybe she is the one with the greater political influence in our country?
Bob @ http://kansasbob.com

I’ve listened in the past extensively. I don’t listen much any more. I think several comments are accurate, specifically that he voices ideas that do not get equal airtime in the primary media outlets, which many including myself percieve as strongly biased to the left – remember Dan Rather’s botched slash-job on GWB? – and that as over the top as some of his rhetoric can be, it pales compared to the vitriol that the left has poured on conservative leaders – like the deeply offensive things said about Sarah Palin, which would never have been tolerated if said about a female Democratic candidate.
As I said I don’t listen much any more. I am looking for a 3rd way. Which is part of the reason I am here.

There’s no left in this country. There’s middle, right, and far right. For left, you need to look at other countries.
Rush is in no way an entertainer. Read sites like freerepublic.com. They worship him. He is the literal and spiritual leader of the Republican party.
When he placed a picture of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on the air and asked if his audience knew there was a White House dog, or when he called veterans of the Iraq war who supported ending it “phony soldiers”, or when he compared torture of Iraqi prisoners to a fraternity initiation, that wasn’t entertainment.
Comments like those are designed to motivate and incite his conservative base, not to make people laugh. He is THE leader of the modern GOP. And if you don’t believe that, ask all the Republican leaders who’ve been forced to apologize to him.
And, FYI, the so-called liberal media has been proven time and time again to be nothing but a myth.

:mic,
Thanks for your conversation. I understand you were pointing out what others say. I just wanted to make sure that I don’t buy what other say (i wasn’t necessarily assuming you do).

Michael wrote: ” I just don’t relate to the mindset that rejects/embraces political positions based on the messenger’s demeanor.”
I relate to it. Political positions can be very hard to evaluate for oneself. A serious evaluation requires the ablity to predict the consequences of things that most experts are unable to predict the consequences of. Evaluating whether the person promoting a position is trustworthy or honest, however, is much easier. So much easier that one might think we had evolved special skills to do so…
This used to frustrate the heck out of me back in my science-nerd days, when I thought it was the listeners’ duty to ignore all social factors and evaluate the ideas being presented as ‘rationally’ as if we were computers the propositions were being typed into. But in fact, the more I studied, the more I realized I was incapable of doing such analysis for any but a tiny subset of ideas in which I had specialized for years. Yet my trackrecord for deciding whether the speaker was honest was much better. So that is one method I use now, when confronted with a policy position on which I must take a stand and which I know I am not capable of rigorously evaluating. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than pretending I can analyze things I can’t.
Complaining that it’s not fair to adherents of a position for people like me to require that they make sure that position is advocated by honest, reliable persons is sort of like complaining that people like you require logical argument and data. We both demand the information we find most useful for making decisions.

Pat #35
“Complaining that it’s not fair to adherents of a position for people like me to require that they make sure that position is advocated by honest, reliable persons …”
I complained about no such thing. Nor have I suggested that method and tone of delivery should not enter into evaluation of the information from any given messenger. By all means, reject the intemperate messenger if you haven’t the time to sift deeper.
My target was the person who reasons, “Rush Limbaugh is a jerk. Limbaugh espouses conservatism. Therefore, all conservatives are jerks and I therefore reject conservatism.” I might reject the messenger but I wouldn’t necessarily reject the message. That is what I explicitly objected to. Maybe there are other messengers that can do better. Maybe I need to be one of those messengers.
I fully sympathize with what you said, that we can’t be experts about everything. Relative to what we could do to impact most issues it is not a wise use of our time to all become policy wonks. We have to use other filters screen what might or might not be useful information. While I do listen occasionally to obnoxious people on the right and left, I don’t consider them primary sources of information about positions, just like you don’t.

I think that the larger issue with Rush is the lack of leadership in the GOP. I think that it is a time of transition and rediscovery for the GOP. Two factions that seem to be loving it right now are the Dems and Rush. Somehow the GOP needs to wrestle control from these two beneficiaries of this silliness and find a message that it wants to communicate.