Rush Limbaugh has passed

[luthervol]

Sarcasm? I have no issue with sarcasm. Having a song called “Barack, the magic negro.” Mocking 12 year old Chelsea Clinton for looking like a dog. Then turning an “apology” into a chance to call her a dog again. Having an “aids update” and mocking deaths. I’m not debating his political views, many of which I agree with. I’m speaking to his tone, which was ugly. Millions of listeners feeding off this for decades and this explains the Trumpers.

Great post, once again.
I disagreed with almost all of his policy positions; but that is not the reason I disliked him.
I disagree with a lot of people I actually like and find to be good and decent people.
I agree with a lot of people who I actually dislike and find to be scum.
Rush legitimized and promoted scuminess. The whole idea that it was just giving it back to the liberals is a cop out.
I viewed Trumpism the same way.
Neither had anything to do with policy. Both increased the divide, lowered overall civility, and hindered bipartisanship.

 

[05_never_again]

Sarcasm? I have no issue with sarcasm. Having a song called “Barack, the magic negro.” Mocking 12 year old Chelsea Clinton for looking like a dog. Then turning an “apology” into a chance to call her a dog again. Having an “aids update” and mocking deaths. I’m not debating his political views, many of which I agree with. I’m speaking to his tone, which was ugly. Millions of listeners feeding off this for decades and this explains the Trumpers.

Rush said many things that were totally out of pocket, but the "Barack, the Magic Negro" thing wasn't really one of them. David Ehrenstein wrote an LA Times editorial in which he criticized Obama, from the left, as being seen as a savior by white liberals not because of his political record but because he is seen as a "Magical Negro" stock character by white people. He even went as far as to say "If he (Obama) were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him." The song was written to poke fun at that column, which was seen as as unnecessarily race-baiting.

Rush also took heat for remarking once that he was going to say something in a "negro dialect," which was seen as racist. He made that quip right after Harry Reid was in the news for saying that the reason Obama became the first black President is because he was "light skinned" and "had no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." The point being that while Reid was allowed to apologize and move on, a conservative politician (or commentator) making the same statement would have been absolutely eviscerated.

Rush said a bunch of stuff he shouldn't have said, but there definitely was some politically-motivated faux outrage directed towards him at times too.

 

[McDad]

Rush said many things that were totally out of pocket, but the "Barack, the Magic Negro" thing wasn't really one of them. David Ehrenstein wrote an LA Times editorial in which he criticized Obama, from the left, as being seen as a savior by white liberals not because of his political record but because he is seen as a "Magical Negro" stock character by white people. He even went as far as to say "If he (Obama) were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him." The song was written to poke fun at that column, which was seen as as unnecessarily race-baiting.

Rush also took heat for remarking once that he was going to say something in a "negro dialect," which was seen as racist. He made that quip right after Harry Reid was in the news for saying that the reason Obama became the first black President is because he was "light skinned" and "had no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." The point being that while Reid was allowed to apologize and move on, a conservative politician (or commentator) making the same statement would have been absolutely eviscerated.

Rush said a bunch of stuff he shouldn't have said, but there definitely was some politically-motivated faux outrage directed towards him at times too.

Excellent recall.

I mistakenly attributed Reid's description as coming from Biden earlier in this thread.

 

[05_never_again]

Excellent recall.

I mistakenly attributed Reid's description as coming from Biden earlier in this thread.

Biden said something similar that was even worse than Reid's comments. He said that Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Not only was allowed to apologize, but was picked as Obama's running mate a couple years later, which springboarded him to eventually being elected President himself. lol

 

[Carl Pickens]

A mature, thoughtful, and kind approach. I was absolutely sure yesterday evening I would not hold back on the next RIP [rando politician] thread. Now, I am not so sure. Darn you, CP.

Once again I have stepped on your feet.... not intentionally.... should you decide to rail on a dead liberal it will not change the way I feel about you..... you’ll still be my bro

 

[Orangeslice13]

Are you a New Yorker?

Negative by a significant number of family are.

 

[GVF]

You’re missing it. I don’t disagree on those points. I’m conservative. But if you’ll note the left has become MORE exaggerated and radical. Has the right made progress or lost ground? I think Limbaugh (among others) with their large audience, has fueled the left to be more exaggerated and radical. This didn’t happen by making good political points. It happened because of the all the ugly sketch and satirical content where he ruthlessly attacked liberals, often in a tasteless way. This isn’t one thing, but decades of antagonizing the left. So, is it any wonder we’ve seen the explosion of similar tactics by the left?

Don't disagree with that also. My point was he began his meteoric rise in retaliation to the left. Doesn't make it justifiable for him any more than the left. Just fueled each side in like kind.

 

[GVF]

How is that working?

Not real good for the childish on either side.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Reagan had class and almost everything seemed great at the time, but in hindsight, he was kind of a dope.

Shut your dirty whore mouth fun boy

 

[GVF]

Great post, once again.
I disagreed with almost all of his policy positions; but that is not the reason I disliked him.
I disagree with a lot of people I actually like and find to be good and decent people.
I agree with a lot of people who I actually dislike and find to be scum.
Rush legitimized and promoted scuminess. The whole idea that it was just giving it back to the liberals is a cop out.
I viewed Trumpism the same way.
Neither had anything to do with policy. Both increased the divide, lowered overall civility, and hindered bipartisanship.

That's a two way street. The left has been far from bi-partisan themselves since the dawn of the PC and Limbaugh era. He fought a just battle with sometimes questionable means. Not always, but a fair amount. But, you have to have something you rose up against in order to fight that battle. I do not disagree what he could have accomplished had he taken the high road in some, if not all cases. He had a very strong and influential voice. If he had fought with his tenacity and Paul Harvey's tact, he'd have a bronze statue somewhere.

I did enjoy his stuff in the early years, but I could say the same for Scarbrough when he first left politics and went into TV. But, I eventually moved on from both. What I wish was still on were the Fleecing of America segments. I forget who did those. Rooney maybe. Or maybe that's what got me watching Scarbrough in his early years.

 

[05_never_again]

You’re missing it. I don’t disagree on those points. I’m conservative. But if you’ll note the left has become MORE exaggerated and radical. Has the right made progress or lost ground? I think Limbaugh (among others) with their large audience, has fueled the left to be more exaggerated and radical. This didn’t happen by making good political points. It happened because of the all the ugly sketch and satirical content where he ruthlessly attacked liberals, often in a tasteless way. This isn’t one thing, but decades of antagonizing the left. So, is it any wonder we’ve seen the explosion of similar tactics by the left?

It's really hard to trace anything back to the point where it began. It ultimately is pretty subjective. I do think that the antagonistic side of the right does have roots in the notion (which I do think is correct to a certain extent) that the mainstream media was and still is biased in favor of left-wing political causes while claiming to be objective.

Conservative talk radio and especially Fox News was created in large part due to a perception that the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, had a left wing/Democratic Party bias. In their eyes, they would view the left as having started the fight.

 

[Roustabout]

It's really hard to trace anything back to the point where it began. It ultimately is pretty subjective. I do think that the antagonistic side of the right does have roots in the notion (which I do think is correct to a certain extent) that the mainstream media was and still is biased in favor of left-wing political causes while claiming to be objective.

Conservative talk radio and especially Fox News was created in large part due to a perception that the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, had a left wing/Democratic Party bias. In their eyes, they would view the left as having started the fight.

We can see where it's led. People on both ends that have lost rational thought.

 

[GVF]

It's really hard to trace anything back to the point where it began. It ultimately is pretty subjective. I do think that the antagonistic side of the right does have roots in the notion (which I do think is correct to a certain extent) that the mainstream media was and still is biased in favor of left-wing political causes while claiming to be objective.

Conservative talk radio and especially Fox News was created in large part due to a perception that the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, had a left wing/Democratic Party bias. In their eyes, they would view the left as having started the fight.

That is exactly true. And the basis of my point of where people like Limbaugh and Trump originate. The lefts assault on the right grew out of the 60's and early 70's, and many of those those flower children that were anti-establishment (and liberal) eventually cleaned up and became you gray haired politicians of today. The inception of this left-right war has been in the crock pot slow cooking far longer than some of these younger folks in here know about. You have to be in your early to mid 50's to understand the deep rooted and long brewing left-right discords you see today.

 

[GVF]

We can see where it's led. People on both ends that have lost rational thought.

True. The moderates of both parties are who need to step up and take control. The old adage that things are safe in moderation holds true in politics as well. The far left and far right battles are fruitless and damaging, and to your point irrational.

 

[05_never_again]

We can see where it's led. People on both ends that have lost rational thought.

The people who have lost rational thought I don't think had much capacity for rational thought to begin with. It comes down to do you think that the media has created the environment we have today, or does the media simply reveal human impulses and desires that have always been there?

I think the answer is probably that the media reveals human impulses that have always been there, and once they are revealed to be there it creates a snowball effect that leads to more of that behavior.

 

[n_huffhines]

**** your dirty whore mouth fun boy

Hey man, some people like debt, scandals, and expanding the war on drugs. Not for me.

 

[luthervol]

It's really hard to trace anything back to the point where it began. It ultimately is pretty subjective. I do think that the antagonistic side of the right does have roots in the notion (which I do think is correct to a certain extent) that the mainstream media was and still is biased in favor of left-wing political causes while claiming to be objective.

Conservative talk radio and especially Fox News was created in large part due to a perception that the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, had a left wing/Democratic Party bias. In their eyes, they would view the left as having started the fight.

I think the (free) media has been viewed as to liberal in every country throughout history.
There is a reason why that is so.

 

[05_never_again]

That is exactly true. And the basis of my point of where people like Limbaugh and Trump originate. The lefts assault on the right grew out of the 60's and early 70's, and many of those those flower children that were anti-establishment (and liberal) eventually cleaned up and became you gray haired politicians of today. The inception of this left-right war has been in the crock pot slow cooking far longer than some of these younger folks in here know about. You have to be in your early to mid 50's to understand the deep rooted and long brewing left-right discords you see today.

Yep. I remember seeing a lot of think pieces during the Trump presidency that spoke about conservative opposition to the "mainstream media" as though it was a recent phenomenon, or something that originated with Trump.

Liberal media bias has been a conservative grievance for decades, at least since the 1980s.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Hey man, some people like debt, scandals, and expanding the war on drugs. Not for me.

Declaring war on everything is not the greatest idea when trying to reach a resolution.

 

[05_never_again]

I think the (free) media has been viewed as to liberal in every country throughout history.
There is a reason why that is so.

What do you mean by "liberal?" If you mean classical liberalism and concepts like freedom of speech, then I agree.

However there was a reason I didn't say "liberal" political bias on the part of the media - conservatives I think have been right over the years to allege that the mainstream media (NBC/CBS/NBC, CNN, the NYT, etc.) has a left-wing, progressive, and/or Democratic Party bias. It also has a bias towards the establishment in both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party.

 

[theFallGuy]

What do you mean by "liberal?" If you mean classical liberalism and concepts like freedom of speech, then I agree.

However there was a reason I didn't say "liberal" political bias on the part of the media - conservatives I think have been right over the years to allege that the mainstream media (NBC/CBS/NBC, CNN, the NYT, etc.) has a left-wing, progressive, and/or Democratic Party bias. It also has a bias towards the establishment in both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party.

Luther mean's "liberal" as in the "progressive modern" sense because he identifies with that form of liberalism and thinks everything he says is correct.

 

[ButchPlz]

What do you mean by "liberal?" If you mean classical liberalism and concepts like freedom of speech, then I agree.

However there was a reason I didn't say "liberal" political bias on the part of the media - conservatives I think have been right over the years to allege that the mainstream media (NBC/CBS/NBC, CNN, the NYT, etc.) has a left-wing, progressive, and/or Democratic Party bias. It also has a bias towards the establishment in both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party.

He's going to come back and tell you you can't prove that, while ignoring the Newsweek thing that said the claim that 'Biden said there wasn't a vaccine before he got into office' is false and made up, despite it being on video. Or my favorite, where they made Trump out to be a rube right after he got into office because he dumped koi food wholesale into the pond, had on all kinds of experts saying how disrespectful he was and how he had just killed all the fish, and on and on while they cut the clip of Abe doing the same thing (in Japanese tradition). Or my other favorite, where they used years-old gun show footage from Kentucky to show how Trump was causing a war in Syria.

 

[hog88]

True. The moderates of both parties are who need to step up and take control. The old adage that things are safe in moderation holds true in politics as well. The far left and far right battles are fruitless and damaging, and to your point irrational.

The far right has no power, the moderate Rs (demopublicans) are in control of the party and have been for decades.

 

[GVF]

The people who have lost rational thought I don't think had much capacity for rational thought to begin with. It comes down to do you think that the media has created the environment we have today, or does the media simply reveal human impulses and desires that have always been there?

I think the answer is probably that the media reveals human impulses that have always been there, and once they are revealed to be there it creates a snowball effect that leads to more of that behavior.

I think the media overstepped their boundaries. No network should pick one side over the other. But, they did, mostly due to the execs in power being of the same anti-establishment liberal movement that laid down their hippie roots and took it professional, as the ones that went into politics. I don't disdain liberals existing, balance is a necessity in a secular/religious blended society. But, they didn't put that aside. The dumbing of America on both extremes has been happening for sometime, and they have been able to manipulate the young and vulnerable on both fringes. At some point, one generation raised a bunch of thoughtless, incapable wussies. For all of their entertainment value, the Crisley's kids are the epitomy of what's truly wrong with America. I hope they are not as inept in real life as they are on camera.

 

[05_never_again]

The far right has no power, the moderate Rs (demopublicans) are in control of the party and have been for decades.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but the far left doesn't really have any power on the other side either. Look at what they did to Bernie twice. They like the enthusiasm and attention that a group like The Squad brings out, but you see the "stay in your lane" attitude that people like Pelosi give them. Establishment pols like Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, etc. run that party.

In fact, despite it's reputation as more of a reform party or a party of wanting to change things, the Dem establishment has more control over its party than the Republican establishment has over its party. A Republican anti-establishment candidate (Trump) actually co-opted and controlled the party for 4 years, and still have a lot of influence even though he's out of office. Trump was able to get way more influence in his party than Bernie was ever able to get in his.