... to weevils.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 1:50:40 PM

  (0+)

I'm amazed at how quickly people react to the theatrics of Rush's comments and usually disregard the content because of the theatrics.  And Rush knows he has to entertain to get his message across to the audience.  That's why his program is so successful; he knows his audience. 

People, context, context, context... Rush's comments were said in a parody of what, in essence, the journalist was planning on doing to Rush with the publication of the article Rush alludes to in the transcript - http://mediamatters.org/items/200710160001?src=item200710160001 .

Rush states shortly thereafter, "And [after being confronted by what would be done to him and his life] the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- 'You can't do that.' We said, 'Watch us.' And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. But nobody does that to these people. Nobody does it to them. And that would be so much fun."

Note the admission that nobody does that to people like the journalist in question and the conditional tense of "would be" and not "was".

And I'm confused about the article and its "tit for tat" approach.  Do you condone, then, Rush's behavior via his comments because you're using them as well toward the end of the article?  Or do you condemn them?  The article seems to do both with a twist of "I'm better than you" because it FIRST condemns and THEN condones... like a parent to the child.

And denying an obvious fact by saying cutely "When you’re a known celebrity [Rush],..." in light of the article's tone is in and of itself just childish.  Of course, we all know that Rush is a known celebrity; otherwise, he would not be mentioned by both the Left and Right as often as he is.

Rush could choose to use different words to get his message across but that would loose some of the audience.  And in this wayward but politically correct world we've constructed, don't confuse symbolism for substance, or put more commonly don't make the mistake of taking the bait.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 3:13:46 PM

  (0+)

Given Rush's history, I'm not prepared to cut him that much slack or offer him any benefit of doubt.

The sword he wields cuts both ways.

And his absolute joy in squashing free press and speech speaks more to his mindset than his words do.

Rush has gotten away with being a blustering, bullying blowhard for too long.

by Brian Wolf (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 3:32:31 PM

  (0+)

Sorry Tom,

It's not about any 'ism' its about the border between right oand wrong.

I can sometimes see your point but here his tactics are indefensible. Those sorts of tactics to hold an audience from people who claim the moral high Christian ground are positively Subterranean here. They are deliberately appealing to the lowest hysterical mentality.In any other country the tactic would rightfully earn them a charge for incitement.Having an opinion is one thing but incitement to victimization wrong, wrong, wrong  to then imply that involve the persons children is  beyond discourse , it’s simply obscene .His comments/tactics in this case are both irresponsible and an abuse of power that both threatens his critics  by almost encourages the idiot fringe. American democracy in fact anywhere  relies on  checks and balances and in the case of power and privilege comes responsibility. RL’s abrogation here is  at best petty, brittle to criticism, bullying at worst beneath contempt .

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 8:09:05 PM

  (0+)

Rush and his right wing cronies are preaching to the converted so nothing we say or do will change their audience's mind about how "right" he is. therefore the best thing to do is ignore him. All we do by challenging their preposterous position is give them a greater audience. Let them spout off to their old and ignorant followers and don't help them spread their venom around.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1757 comments [112 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 4:34:59 PM

  (0+)

I will never understand how these people can do and say the things they do.

Worse, where's the common sense, reasoning and logic skills of their followers.  The dumbing down of America is working while Americans aren't working.

Hannity is a genius at dumbing down his audience, and at the same time derides them for not knowing who the veep is when he does his silly man in the street interviews.  Ironic, huh?

Threatening the kids isn't a threat no longer; it's reality.  The far right nutsies really are going after the kids.  Keith Olbermann just did three stories where the kids have been the objects of their own brand of terrorism.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 9:34:34 PM

  (0+)

and some excellent points you made.

by Brian Wolf (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 13 comments) on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:27:16 AM

  (0+)

There's an old saying in Ireland,  "I woldn't give him the steam of me pish." What these people hate more than anything is NO attention.  Why do we continue to give it to them?   

by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 2:36:53 AM

  (0+)