Rush Limbaugh became famous not because he goes on the air and tells people how to vote, or how to think, or what to do with their lives. He became famous because he is an entertainer.
Limbaugh has even admitted many times on his program, and in his books, that if he were out there trying to get voters for the republican party, then his rating would be in the pits and, more than likely, he would have been off the air years ago.
So it only makes sense that he speaks out against George W. Bush and the republicans when they support an amnesty bill that only 20% of Americans support. If Rush’s agenda were to get as many voters for the republican party as he could, he would not be able to speak his mind on this issue.
Rush has become famous because he’s honest with his viewers on issues like this. He believes in traditional American values first, and he’s a republican only as far as the republican party supports the issues of traditional America.
Thus, when the republican party and George W. Bush want to reward people for breaking into our country, Rush speaks out against it. That’s not unlike what many of you do in your homes every day.
Which goes to show, Rush Limbaugh is not out their trying to get people to become republicans. He is not out there trying to recruit voters for the republican party. He’s speaks behind that “golden EIB microphone” speaking what he honestly believes to be true.
And, regarding most issues, he talks about things that most people believe to be true but don’t read about in their local newspapers, or watch on the evening news with Katie Couric, or on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. The American people are not stupid, and that’s why they are turning away from the elite media and toward the new media, which would include Rush.
That was one of the main problems of all the democrats who tried to create their own Rush Limbaugh programs, the majority of which were off the air within a year. Even the one that remains on the air, “Air America”, is not even close to the ratings of Rush. In fact, Air America is running in the red.
One might ask: why is this? Why has Rush done so well on talk radio while others have failed? The reason is simple: Rush entertains first, and he educates second. But he never tells us how to think; never tells us how to vote.
What he does do is take the exact words of politicians, judges, city officials, popes, pastors, writers, etc., breaks them down in a simple format, and has us listen to what they said so we can see for ourselves how goofy what they said is. In this way he is not only entertaining, he is educating.
In essence, Rush, on his show, does what the media used to do. He breaks down the news, he examines it from all angles, and comes up with a conclusion about what was said. Or, Rush might ask, is the speaker speaking from his heart, or is he simply being political? Is the speaker being honest with the American people, or is she saying something in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.
Basically, Rush does not go on air simply stating his opinions. He is analyzing the news that’s out there. When a politician says something stupid, or an anchor asks a bias question, he calls them on it.
As a perfect example, Rush recently talked about an interview of Jack Murtha by Chris Matthews on Matthew’s show “Hardball.”
Matthews asked, “"Hey, General Petraeus says that we're fighting the central front against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Is that true?"
Murtha said, “This whole…war, ever since they diverted the attention away from where Al-Qaeda started, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, where we should have stayed. Ever since that time, they were… trying to tie this in to terrorism. All of us know that… there's… terrorism all over the world.”
Up front, this looks like a fine and dandy quote. Murtha is just telling us his opinion. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing.
Now, Rush knows, as most watching that interview, that Murtha is against the war, and he knows that Murtha is going to say anything he thinks will show that the war is bad for America. But there is a problem with this question and answer sequence. Look back and see if you can see what I’m talking about.
That’s right. Matthews did not call Murtha on what Murtha said. Matthews did not say, “Hey, Murtha, where’s your proof.”
Isn't that the purpose of good journalism, to get all the news out? Thousands of Americans watched Hardball that day and didn’t catch that something was fishy about that interview, and some of those people may even have become anti-war supporters because of that.
The majority of that thousand were well educated Americans like you and me who simply don’t have time to break down the news. That’s supposed to be the job of guys like Matthews. So, you can see how these journalists are letting the American people down, and why they might turn to Limbaugh.
Likewise, there were many well educated people watching that show that day thinking, “Okay, Jack, where’s your proof. Come on Chris, ask him where his proof is.”
Um, and then Chris never asked him. So, what’s up with that?
In bringing this to light on his program, Rush is doing what the media used to do: tell both sides of the story. Only, since the media like Chris Matthews on his program that day, support the democratic party, they will not ask the hard questions to a democrat like Murtha.
Bill O’Reilly does. Bill O’Reilly would have pounded Murtha on this, even at the risk of making Murtha mad. Murtha might get so mad at O’Reilly that he’d never go back on O’Reilly. That’s why you don’t see people like Murtha, Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Kerry, Gore going on Fox News for an interview. Or Republicans like Tom Delay. On Fox News, they’d be forced to answer the tough questions like, “Hey, Mr. Murtha, where’s your proof?”
I don’t know if Murtha was ever on the O’Reilly show or not. And I don’t know what he would have answered to this question, and Matthews is normally a pretty good interviewer, but what we learn from guys like Rush is that there’s more to the news than what you get by the elite media.
The only place you can find this out is to take the time to digest and fully analyze the news you are getting, or listen to Rush or other people who encourage you to dig deeper into the news, or, as my grandma us often, “Think for yourself.”
Consider this. If Bush is on the Chris Matthews’ show and said: “We went to war because Saddam was creating a safe haven for terrorists.”
You know Matthews would say, “Where’s your proof.”
Rush, on the other hand, simply makes us aware of Matthew’s bias. And, he asks the questions Matthews should have asked: “Where is your proof.”
The other day I read this in the newspaper: “Bush said Al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam.”
I thought, as many of you did, “Bush never said that. What he said was that Saddam was doing nothing to stop terrorists from hiding in his country. Since he wasn’t doing anything to stop terrorists, then he was harboring them. That’s what Bush said.
Funny thing, I listened to Rush for the first time in years after I read that, and Rush was talking about the same thing I had just figured out on my own. So, I guess you can say that Rush taught me to think for myself. Grandma would be proud.
Limbaugh has even admitted many times on his program, and in his books, that if he were out there trying to get voters for the republican party, then his rating would be in the pits and, more than likely, he would have been off the air years ago.
So it only makes sense that he speaks out against George W. Bush and the republicans when they support an amnesty bill that only 20% of Americans support. If Rush’s agenda were to get as many voters for the republican party as he could, he would not be able to speak his mind on this issue.
Rush has become famous because he’s honest with his viewers on issues like this. He believes in traditional American values first, and he’s a republican only as far as the republican party supports the issues of traditional America.
Thus, when the republican party and George W. Bush want to reward people for breaking into our country, Rush speaks out against it. That’s not unlike what many of you do in your homes every day.
Which goes to show, Rush Limbaugh is not out their trying to get people to become republicans. He is not out there trying to recruit voters for the republican party. He’s speaks behind that “golden EIB microphone” speaking what he honestly believes to be true.
And, regarding most issues, he talks about things that most people believe to be true but don’t read about in their local newspapers, or watch on the evening news with Katie Couric, or on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. The American people are not stupid, and that’s why they are turning away from the elite media and toward the new media, which would include Rush.
That was one of the main problems of all the democrats who tried to create their own Rush Limbaugh programs, the majority of which were off the air within a year. Even the one that remains on the air, “Air America”, is not even close to the ratings of Rush. In fact, Air America is running in the red.
One might ask: why is this? Why has Rush done so well on talk radio while others have failed? The reason is simple: Rush entertains first, and he educates second. But he never tells us how to think; never tells us how to vote.
What he does do is take the exact words of politicians, judges, city officials, popes, pastors, writers, etc., breaks them down in a simple format, and has us listen to what they said so we can see for ourselves how goofy what they said is. In this way he is not only entertaining, he is educating.
In essence, Rush, on his show, does what the media used to do. He breaks down the news, he examines it from all angles, and comes up with a conclusion about what was said. Or, Rush might ask, is the speaker speaking from his heart, or is he simply being political? Is the speaker being honest with the American people, or is she saying something in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.
Basically, Rush does not go on air simply stating his opinions. He is analyzing the news that’s out there. When a politician says something stupid, or an anchor asks a bias question, he calls them on it.
As a perfect example, Rush recently talked about an interview of Jack Murtha by Chris Matthews on Matthew’s show “Hardball.”
Matthews asked, “"Hey, General Petraeus says that we're fighting the central front against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Is that true?"
Murtha said, “This whole…war, ever since they diverted the attention away from where Al-Qaeda started, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, where we should have stayed. Ever since that time, they were… trying to tie this in to terrorism. All of us know that… there's… terrorism all over the world.”
Up front, this looks like a fine and dandy quote. Murtha is just telling us his opinion. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing.
Now, Rush knows, as most watching that interview, that Murtha is against the war, and he knows that Murtha is going to say anything he thinks will show that the war is bad for America. But there is a problem with this question and answer sequence. Look back and see if you can see what I’m talking about.
That’s right. Matthews did not call Murtha on what Murtha said. Matthews did not say, “Hey, Murtha, where’s your proof.”
Isn't that the purpose of good journalism, to get all the news out? Thousands of Americans watched Hardball that day and didn’t catch that something was fishy about that interview, and some of those people may even have become anti-war supporters because of that.
The majority of that thousand were well educated Americans like you and me who simply don’t have time to break down the news. That’s supposed to be the job of guys like Matthews. So, you can see how these journalists are letting the American people down, and why they might turn to Limbaugh.
Likewise, there were many well educated people watching that show that day thinking, “Okay, Jack, where’s your proof. Come on Chris, ask him where his proof is.”
Um, and then Chris never asked him. So, what’s up with that?
In bringing this to light on his program, Rush is doing what the media used to do: tell both sides of the story. Only, since the media like Chris Matthews on his program that day, support the democratic party, they will not ask the hard questions to a democrat like Murtha.
Bill O’Reilly does. Bill O’Reilly would have pounded Murtha on this, even at the risk of making Murtha mad. Murtha might get so mad at O’Reilly that he’d never go back on O’Reilly. That’s why you don’t see people like Murtha, Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Kerry, Gore going on Fox News for an interview. Or Republicans like Tom Delay. On Fox News, they’d be forced to answer the tough questions like, “Hey, Mr. Murtha, where’s your proof?”
I don’t know if Murtha was ever on the O’Reilly show or not. And I don’t know what he would have answered to this question, and Matthews is normally a pretty good interviewer, but what we learn from guys like Rush is that there’s more to the news than what you get by the elite media.
The only place you can find this out is to take the time to digest and fully analyze the news you are getting, or listen to Rush or other people who encourage you to dig deeper into the news, or, as my grandma us often, “Think for yourself.”
Consider this. If Bush is on the Chris Matthews’ show and said: “We went to war because Saddam was creating a safe haven for terrorists.”
You know Matthews would say, “Where’s your proof.”
Rush, on the other hand, simply makes us aware of Matthew’s bias. And, he asks the questions Matthews should have asked: “Where is your proof.”
The other day I read this in the newspaper: “Bush said Al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam.”
I thought, as many of you did, “Bush never said that. What he said was that Saddam was doing nothing to stop terrorists from hiding in his country. Since he wasn’t doing anything to stop terrorists, then he was harboring them. That’s what Bush said.
Funny thing, I listened to Rush for the first time in years after I read that, and Rush was talking about the same thing I had just figured out on my own. So, I guess you can say that Rush taught me to think for myself. Grandma would be proud.
It's not about being liberal or conservative, or republican or democrat. I don't agree with Rush on everything. I imagine most people who listen to him don't either. But Rush is one place you can go to get good, honest, traditional, friendly, optomistic, fair, and funny commentary. It's that simple.
If Matthews, if Air America, if the other reporters on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, your local newspaper, were not affiliates of the Democratic National Committee, if they were not agenda driven, Rush would be out of a job.
That's the truth.
If Matthews, if Air America, if the other reporters on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, your local newspaper, were not affiliates of the Democratic National Committee, if they were not agenda driven, Rush would be out of a job.
That's the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment