He espoused principled ideas clearly and passionately, rooted in traditional values which resonate well with many people. Charges of ‘blind sheep’ are shallow and unfair – which usually come from people who choose not to interact with his ideas.
But beyond that . . . regardless of your politics, you must agree that he has single-handedly revived the AM radio dial, introduced a new forum for social discourse, revolutionized television talk show formatting, and brought the philosophy of politics into daily life for many.
And if the first amendment can survive the next 2-4 years we all will benefit from his free speech, along with that of those who most vigorously oppose him. For that is the essence of a free nation under God.
“Dittos”

I listen because he exposes the hypocrisy of left wing politicians and the mainstream media, though I myself am a moderate on many social justice issues and regulatory policy. It has been getting a lot harder lately, though, as he continues to attack more moderate Republicans who don’t share his more extreme laisez faire capitalist views, among them Michael Steele, whom I admire a great deal.

Maybe he appeals to the natural, base instincts of people. You know, the name calling, the nastiness, the equivocation, the bullying, the bombastic self-righteousness. I think it’s known in most quarters as sin. People enjoy that for some reason.

Rush calls himself an “entertainer”, but I just don’t find him entertaining. I don’t care for the hyperbole, the ranting, the deceiving manner of taking comments out of context made by the person who becomes his object of contempt of the moment. My husband sometimes tunes in just to keep up with what the other side has to say, and while I accept Rush’s right to freedom of speech, I don’t have to pretend that I’m not offended by much of the less than ethical presentation of his comments.
Having to put up with the likes of the Rush Limbaughs or Ann Coulters of this world is a small price to pay for the freedoms to express our opinions.

Scot et al,
It is because people like the very emotional and anti-intellectualism of his show. It appeals to their most basic emotions. It’s populist. But his message is also very inconsistent. Promoting small government, while espousing big gov’t militarism and gov’t intervention on morality.
I do find it really sad that it is he who may be the greatest voice of the Republican party.
I am not a Republican, but it saddens me that the likes of Ron Paul are not the strongest voices of the Republican party.

Although I want to give credit to the first comment, in particular, for an articulate description, I find that the first sentence of #3 (without the “sin” judgment coming immediately afterward) rings more true.
To put it another way, Rush appeals because he says things that cause other people to say to themselves “At last! A guy who can voice the kinds of things that I’m thinking! I’m not crazy after all!” (please note that this is not intended as an endorsement nor a rejection of Rush’s ideas). Rush is popular because he knows what his audience wants to hear, and he delivers.

I wonder if he provides an outlet for people’s latent fear and anger. They’re angry about the massive cultural shifts we’re all experiencing and the way those shifts affect their lives. They’re fearful of the future and what will come because of all these shifts. I think many people feel like life in American is spinning out of control. Listening to someone like Mr. Limbaugh who has all the answers to all our societal ills (or seems to have all the answers, anyway) perhaps helps them to feel more in control.
I’m no expert. Just guessing.

Rush is an entertainer. He takes an extreme view to highlight his philosophy. Many people tune into him to hear his view on issues they are unsure of to hear a side the major media will not tell you.
I think Rush has lost his power. His ratings are down, his dialogue is not as strong, and his rants are often non-coherent or at least lead to no where.
I still enjoy Rush when a major bill or development is going through just to hear what no one else will tell me much like I like to listen to Alan Combs for the same reason.

i want 2 hours on cnn to humanize what was undone on saturday.

Why do people listen to Keith Olberman and his “worst person in the world” schtick? Why do they listen to Rachel Maddow? Why do they listen to Chris Matthews? Why do people watch the dishonestly edited “60 Minutes” after all these years and lawsuits later? (See Westmoreland-Vietnam). Why do people read Huffington Post or the Daily Kos? Why do people watch “The View”? Why with all that left leaning vitriol out there is it that Rush is such an issue and the left is calling for a “fairness” doctrine? Anyone notice D.L. Hughley comparing the Republican convention to Nazi Germany on CNN?
Rush brings balance. That’s all.

I don’t think your trying t be rude, Scot, but the questions does seem to imply a certain disdain for both Rush and those who choose to listen to him. The tone of the question is very close to those like “What kind of people, idiots, jerks listen to…” or “why do so many people listen to ‘that big fat idiot’ Rush Limbaugh.”
However, to answer the question as to why Rush is the the single most listened to talk radio show host of all time, and why he has a larger audience than even most television shows is because what he says and how he says it strikes a cord. Clearly, he entertains. Clearly, many people agree with him. Clearly, he advocates for those who don’t feel they have any other advocate.
He also advances the new gladiatorial games of modern times – politics/public policy discourse. The player/managers don’t care ultimately which team wins or loses, but only that as many spectators are glued in – spending and consuming as they go.
DJ
AMDG

Well, I sure hope I didn’t ask that question with any disdain. All of this is your insinuation and not mine: “The tone of the question is very close to those like “What
kind of people, idiots, jerks listen to…” or “why do so many people
listen to ‘that big fat idiot’ Rush Limbaugh.” Really, none of that is from me and it’s a bit unfair to suggest it is.
I found him to be so aggressive and unreasonable that I can’t see why so many are attracted to him. Those are the words I’d use.
By the way Dan back2center, I feel the same way about Olberman and the other strong leftists. I get my news by reading online mags and newspapers and try to find something of a via media in all this chatter. And I suspect you do too.

I’m with #1, #2 and #8 … who actually sound like they listen and have some appreciation for him. As with any other entertainer, I have to take what he says with how he says it in order to “get” what he’s trying to communicate.
Yes, sometimes I think his humor goes way over the top … but I really do appreciate hearing the other side of what’s the MSM is trying to pass off as true by fiat. Contrary to what some think, listening to Rush does make me think about issues in a broader way — and contributes to a better sense of balance concerning what’s going on.
And with every “personality” — radio, writer, blogger, teacher, coach, preacher — there are those who do “mindlessly” follow … but that does not mean that everyone does. Or that only those who are “anti-intelligence” resonate with him.
Scot, I’d love to see this conversation be had by more of those who actually do listen, rather than by those who are just using conjecture… Kind of like last summer when you asked why different folks were thinking of voting for the various candidates. Let’s not use this as a mode to attack, but an opportunity to understand.

The same voices surfaced during the last depression. People have a deep-seated need to blame someone, anyone, and Rush fills that need.
But, people like him are the reason I left the GOP. It’s no longer the party of Buckley. It’s anti-intellectual and filled with hate.
And it’s corrupted evangelical Christianity, making it but another arm of the party.

Scot, “Can someone explain” adds an air of incredulous. If you had asked, “I was listening to Rush last night and was wondering what you all think of him? Do you listen? Why or why not?” might have sounded less disdaining. (I agree with Dan on that.) And your use of the words aggressive and unreasonable are no surprise by the wording of the question.
I find few commentators/journalists/entertainers that I would actually say I enjoy listening to, but with all the left leaning “reporters” you need some extreme from right leaning as well. To me, Rush and Glenn Beck fit the bill. I do not agree with everything or the way they act, but the information is often helpful. Very few are middle of the road or actual reporters who just report, even on-line.

Peggy (#13):
Perhaps you could have said, “Mega-dittos to #1″ . . . ?????? )
:mic

I believe that he knows that Obama is the right person at the right time and after the mess the Republicans made of everything, his days as a talk show host are numbered. He’s holding on tooth and nail to keep as much of his “popularity” (and job) that he can. And that brings us to why people listen to him. The people listening to him and going along with everything he says know deep down that the last administration did fatal damage to their party and they are in fear of losing their identity as Republicans. Of coure, they are the very same people that derided us Democrats and cast suspicion on our patriotism over the past 8 years. Hmmm, I guess it’s like the song says. ” Instant karma’s gonna get you….”

I’m with Dan #10.

Yes, it’s interesting that people who didn’t support Bush were “traitors” according to Rush, but now it’s patriotic to hope and pray that Obama fails.

It’s quite simple, Scot–shock sells. When given the choice between a well-balanced, thoughtful, intellectual argument and some guy on the radio spewing hatred and ignorance, guess which one is going to get more attention. Sad, but true.

Here’s what I will say: I doubt very much Rush is helping Republicans, and Steele has the better grip on these things.

Rush to me represents slash and burn politics. It makes me think of how some NT writers got so exasperated by the “Sophists” of their time. Its not their point of view, which deserves to be heard, but they way in which they mischaracterize their opponents and self-aggrandize. Its the method, not necessarily the message, which to me is diametrically opposite of how a Christian should conduct him/herself in politics.

For whatever good we can get out of such talk radio, I’m troubled over the culture it brings, or the culture from which it comes. Though such brash, in-your-face kind of approach is nothing new in American politics. But something far better should come from us who are of the kingdom of God in Jesus.
I do appreciate that some get some good from Rush, and indeed I’m sure there’s good to be gotten. Just not sure for most people whether listening to such (whether right or left) is helpful for who we are as those confessing “the Jesus Creed.”

I have listened to Rush for nearly 20 years. In the early days he was much funnier, doing spoofs and musical comedy bits; while at the same time articulating the beliefs held by many conservatives.
Many people don’t “get” Rush’s humor or sarcasm (the same could be said for Coulter). He used to say that he “illustrates absurdity by being absurd.” Some of his statements are intentionally provocative; full of hyperbole. This is lost on someone who tunes in for the first time.
Over the years Rush has become increasingly acerbic. However, he still communicates the frustrations of conservatives. I think the reason he is despised by the left and the MSM is because they can’t counter his arguments. Rush has said many times that today’s definition of a fascist is, “a conservative winning an argument with a liberal.”

I find it amusing that calling the activities I listed in #3 “sin” is seen as going too far into “judgment,” like making a judgment of someone who is consistently and unapologetically divisive, dishonest and vicious is a bad thing? It is what it is, friends!

rush has mastered the art of winning an argument with himself! and he’s funny.
i do think it is scary that so many people take him SO seriously though.

I see Rush as the Master of Ceremonies of the Ideological Carnival of the Right in America. He is the alter image of Michael Moore on the Left (at least Michael Moore since he became famous. I knew him in Flint, MI before “Roger & Me” when was a serious activist). Thus, he is primarily an entertainer. However, entertainment is never innocent, it always betrays a perspective. This perspective is clothed in such buffoonish colors (which each side can see clearly in the other!), though, that only “true believers” take it seriously. For other listeners/viewers it provides the “goods” entertainment usually provides (which ought to trouble us in its own way in view of Augustine’s comments on entertainment in the “Confessions” (see my blog leewyatt.blogspot.com for Augustine’s comments). After all, we all want to be entertained, right?

I began listening to Rush because I found he would talk about news stories and issues that the mainstream media/press would not cover. They were usually issues important to me. I don’t always agree with his take but found he would discuss events and news that others buried.

I’ve never really liked Rush. I have friends who religiously listen to him. Why? Because he epitomizes the valueset of the conservative, and he does so in a way that captivates those who hold his same views. He is a master of conservative rhetoric and knows how to sell himslef really well.