I don't know where anybody said he was insignificant. In fact, I think it is pretty clear to Democrats that Rush is somehow able to kowtow the RNC into following his every whim, basically through abject browbeating. Rush dictates policy to the RNC. He is very significant. He is significant like the fictional Elmer Gantry was significant. Like Huey Long was significant. Like Joseph McCarthy was significant. His significance doesn't necessarily indicate any measure of wisdom, or relative merit. He really shouldn't be, but no matter how much it hurts the country, his mean, hateful demagoguery is significant because of all the disafected angry rubes he leads around by the nose like a puppet master.
who said (or thinks) rush is "insignificant"? his enormous popularity and $50M a year salary would indicate otherwise.
Someone beat me to it, but since when is Rush insignificant? Just ask Michael Steele or any Republican who dares to question his influence.
"Only 20% of Americans now see themselves as Republicans", remember? So how is their anointed leader by the left significant?
By that reasoning, you are saying the Republican party is not significant. Maybe it's because El Rushbo is their most influential blowhard. When they toss him off the boat (or at least stop cowering at his every diabtribe), the boat will stop taking on water. I can't think of anyone else who excites the GOP "base" more than Limbaugh, except for maybe Sarah Palin. Can you?
I think there is pretty good data to prove this from back at the beginning of March, when everybody who dared speak against the fat junkie was grovelling and apologizing in short order, even as Limbaugh was directing more of his usual hot air and bombast in their direction. Did you not remember that, or were you not paying attention at the time?
I'm pretty sure Rush did something similar earlier this year, or maybe during the height of the election last year. Might have been the fake birth certificate that tricked all the birthers.
Why would anybody spread false quotes by Rush? He does a pretty good job of spreading real quotes all by himself.
From your very own article: I have never heard Rush state he was the head of the Republican Party or even allude to that assumption. I have not even heard that coming out of the republican/conservative camp or even most individuals. He admits he his a talk show host, entertainer first. If you're going to throw your opinion out about the subject, at least get closer to the target. Beck is much more aligned with the Republican party.
It is all straight from the movies, including the "aw shucks I'm just a showman" BS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Face_in_the_Crowd_(film) The simple fact is that attacking Rush is equal to touching the third rail among Republicans. When Rush and the head of the RNC went head to head, it was the head of the RNC that backed down and groveled for forgiveness, while Rush continued to lay into him. If that doesn't tell you that his "humble country entertainer" BS is a weak facade, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. To say that Rush isn’t aligned with the Republican part is absurd. I had my radio alarm tuned to him for 4 plus years (it used to take a real @sshole to wake me up). The guy absolutely ran one wing of the Republican party all through the 1990’s and 2000’s, while guys like Beck were still doing blow between segments on “morning zoo” FM radio shows. Rush and Newt Gingrich completely ran Republican ideology in the Clinton years. The only reason a hack like Beck has a job that doesn't involve serving a side of fries is that he learned how to copy from Rush, the master. He is like an unnuanced version of Rush (which admittedly sounds like an oxymoron). Rush claiming he is just a showman, reminds me of this: <div><object width="512" height="322"><param name="movie" value="http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.2.46" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="AllowScriptAccess" VALUE="always" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="flashVars" value="id=9476695&vid=3388136&lang=en-us&intl=ca&thumbUrl=http%3A//l.yimg.com/a/p/i/bcst/videosearch/4816/70667090.jpeg&embed=1" /><embed src="http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.2.46" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="322" allowFullScreen="true" AllowScriptAccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashVars="id=9476695&vid=3388136&lang=en-us&intl=ca&thumbUrl=http%3A//l.yimg.com/a/p/i/bcst/videosearch/4816/70667090.jpeg&embed=1" ></embed></object><br /><a href="http://ca.video.yahoo.com/watch/3388136/9476695">Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer</a> @ <a href="http://ca.video.yahoo.com" >Yahoo! Video</a></div>
Apparently name calling and personal attacks are allowed in this forum. That is too bad. It really does not speak well of this community at all when this type of conduct is condoned, even passively. Very weak.
Rush humble? He is one of the most arrogant pompass in the industry. I never listened to Rush back in the "good ol days", but he certainly doesn't represent conservative ideology. Thats like trying to say Bush represented conservative ideology. The only thing I ever hear Rush do is insult the left. You do that for a couple decades and you will most certainly draw up a crowd of sheeples.... and advertisers love sheeple. Rush is ONLY in it for the money. He represents everything that is wrong with conservatism. Steele groveling to Rush is only trying to save his skin from Rush's conservative buying power. Steele, like nearly every other politician in Washington, is only in it for the power. Its no doubt Beck and Hannity are in the game for the money too, but at least they try to back up their spew with some conservative principles.
Now you are changing the rules of the game. We were talking about whether Rush represented the Republican Party, not conservatism. As far as a "true conservative", that is a definition (along with "true liberal") that has always had some very quickly moving goalposts. In the 1870's, if you were in favor of unabashed free market capitalism, you were the opposite of conservative; you were a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. At that time, every conservative worth his salt would be squarely behind protectionism. Prior to World War 2, if you were in favor of a strong military, you weren't a true blue conservative. Barry Goldwater would tell you Ronald Reagan wasn't a "true conservative" because of his acceptance of crazy, unproven spendthrift supply-side economic recklessness. Bush pretty much represents several strains of things that are generally called "conservative" these days. He was a true "neo-con" and he took the "theo-cons" out for a dance on a couple of occasions. You would be hard pressed to call him a old school 1920's conservative, but then you could say the same about every Republican in the legislative branch, with one or two exceptions (notably Ron Paul). Rush definitely represents Republicans. If you want to write Rush and his listeners off as being not "true-conservatives", I'll defer to you. I am beginning to consider that to be almost a theological distinction, in that it many claim to have the "true religion" and most of them say everybody who disagrees with them is a foolishly misguided heretic.
