Your scenario seems kind of pre-loaded: Option 1 is expresses disapproval in its very description (filthy rich, mocking the plight) Option 2 is imbued with sympathy (speaking on behalf, less fortunate, filthy rich) Option 1 is more offensive because I am part of the target!?!? :grin: It's always in poorer taste to target anyone who struggles in any way... but that doesn't make it off-limits and it doesn't "prove" anything.
"Filthy rich" and "mocking the plight" seems pretty accurate in reference to Rush Limbaugh. I can't think of a way to describe what Limbaugh does without their being an implicit expression of disapproval. And I do I think comedians that poke fun of the more privileged sectors of society, even if the generalizations are crass, are appealing to our sympathies towards the less-privileged groups. I agree. Which is why I find it strange that you would consider the likes of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle more offensive than Rush Limbaugh. And this is even discarding the fact that those two are professed comedians, while Limbaugh is a professed political commentator. You're not supposed to take the words of comedians too seriously. That is the point.
A true compassionate would. To me making fun of rich people just shows the true colors of materialistic jealousy. Its just more liberal hypocrisy.
I don't "see" Rush mocking the plight of anyone as much as he mocks their awaiting of a government fix to their problem. The rub is that we do expect and need the government to fix some problems... it's just that we disagree on what is to be included and excluded on that list... so no one can ever really be "right." I think it is more a question of which group do we identify with or even outright belong to. I think you would discover that Rush considers himself first and foremost an entertainer. He has carved out a kind of unusual niche and so people don't exactly know how to take him. It's hard to take him as a serious commentator because he is very reckless (although nowhere approaching Rock or Chapelle or their ilk) and, by himself, he's not funny enough to be considered an outright comedian. He's just kind of relentless, clever and off-beat from a very strongly conservative POV.
He is not a "serious" commentator, in the journalistic sense, but I don't think it is accurate to call him an entertainer either. He is a political commentator. That is his function. His audience listens to him for political perspective, not to laugh.
This is like saying that making fun of someone for being beautiful and enjoying (consequentially) more popularity is just as bad as making fun of someone for being ugly. Because I think otherwise, I'm a hypocrite? Seriously?
It's been awhile, but I believe "entertainer" is the way he describes himself. It's not my assignation. What he is is up for debate. Here's another chance for Obama to burnish his image: <object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FLOST_FANS_ARTICLE_1_13_10.jpg&videoid=100222&title=Final%20Season%20Of%20'Lost'%20Promises%20To%20Make%20Fans%20More%20Annoying%20Than%20Ever" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FLOST_FANS_ARTICLE_1_13_10.jpg&videoid=100222&title=Final%20Season%20Of%20'Lost'%20Promises%20To%20Make%20Fans%20More%20Annoying%20Than%20Ever"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/final_season_of_lost_promises_to?utm_source=videoembed">Final Season Of 'Lost' Promises To Make Fans More Annoying Than Ever</a>
But what he is is a big part of this issue. If he was just some "entertainer" who's political perspective no one took seriously, who cares what he says? This guy has incredible pull in the Republican party. He is a star at conservative pep rallies. How can we ignore that?
No way to measure his pull. I asked the question earlier, if Rush is so all-powerful in the Republican Party why did they nominate McCain last go-round-- a politician Rush does not respect. Has Rush ever been a part of any national Republican event? Has he ever been part of their convention. I don't recall that. Jon Stewart is similarly influential for the other side.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/ RNC Chairman Michael Steele: [rquoter]On Monday, however, after a blistering response from the conservative talk-radio kingpin, Steele told the online journal Politico that he "was maybe a little bit inarticulate." "There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership," Steele said. He added, "There are those out there who want to look at what he's saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That's what I was trying to say. It didn't come out that way."[/rquoter] Any politician that felt he needed to apologize to Jon Stewart about not intending to diminish his "leadership" would be rightly laughed at. This isn't the same at all. [rquoter] "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment," Steele told CNN. "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly." iReport.com: Limbaugh and Steele show divisions in GOP Limbaugh fired back on his radio show Monday, saying the Republican chairman appears to be supporting President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He said Steele appears "obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds." "I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda," Limbaugh said. "I have to conclude that he does, because he attacks me for wanting it to fail."[/rquoter] Why would Limbaugh need to "fire back" at Steele for being called an incendiary entertainer? According to you, that's what he does and his listeners already see him that way. According to you, he knows he's not to be taken seriously.
Yeah, according to me and Steele I guess. I couldn't tell you in detail how Rush sees himself other than hearing him in years past describe himself as an entertainer period. I only speak for myself not his entire audience. Anyone with 20 million fans has a voice and is a leader. Not sure what Stewart's audience size is but it's been fairly well documented that a large segment of younger generation(s) get their news from The Daily Show which has an obvious leftward leaning. I said they were similar not equal and they are similar. Rush has a big head start though... and radio is different from cable television. Is Air America still broadcasting?
There are portions of any large group that you can say the same thing about. It does not make lumping all of any group together any more accurate or acceptable.
Bush Pushes Back Against Limbaugh's Obama-Haiti Remark Former President George W. Bush pushed back Sunday against criticism -- levied most prominently by talk radio host Rush Limbaugh -- that his successor, President Barack Obama, was somehow politicizing the disastrous earthquake in Haiti. "I don't know if -- what they're talking about," Bush declared during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I've been briefed by the President about the response. And as I said in my opening comment, I appreciate the president's quick response to this disaster." This past week, Limbaugh insisted that the Obama White House would use the catastrophe in Haiti to "burnish" the president's standing and credibility "with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country." "It's made-to-order for 'em," Limbaugh said. "That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there." Joined by former President Bill Clinton during a series of interviews on the Sunday shows, Bush also touted the need to get relief to the Haitian people, in both a streamlined and responsible way. Asked by host David Gregory if he drew any lessons from the recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina (widely regarded as tragically bungled), Bush replied: "First of all, it takes time to get the supplies in place. That shouldn't deter them. In other words, there's an expectation-- amongst people that things are going to happen quickly. And sometimes it's hard to make things happen quickly. Secondly, there is a great reservoir of good will that wants to help. And that's why he asked us to help, and we're glad to do it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/17/bush-pushes-back-against_n_426248.html
So Bush and Rush agree that Obama made a speedy response? I'm not sure how that is "pushing back." Let's not overlook the heavy-handed construction of Rush's remark which parrots the unfortunate remarks uttered by Harry Reid that made the news in the week prior to the earthquake in Haiti.
At this point in time, Rush is a political animal; Bush is not. BTW, Rush has had very prominent HAITI DONATION buttons on his website. Is that helping?
Yes it is helping. Rush is a saint. There is no way in the world he's capable of saying racist things, and is most definitely a saint. What a great, caring human being.
