Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Mike,

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. There just seems to be more uniformity among conservatives. Maybe it's just my take on it, but generally you have a segment of people who, at least the better part of which, tend view things in more rigid terms - often more in black and white. I'm not saying that's wrong (I have argued as much in the past, but I'm not doing it for the purposes of this reply), but it does lend itself to us vs. them, me vs. you, this vs. that rather than a quest for common ground or commonality.

No doubt many individuals have independently arrived at their respective viewpoints (possibly up to and including ideologies) separately from the Rush Limbaugh show. I'm not sure anyone would deny that. But at the same time, throw me the bone and admit that plenty of people have come to their understanding via that and similar programs. Just look at so many people wanting to call themselves "conservative" as if traditional conservative principles have any benefit whatsoever for them as citizens or Americans. Sure, the few privileged out there maybe. But it's a movement steeped more in anger than anything. That's certainly my opinion, but I know and run with many conservatives. They are not all bigoted, but there are some common themes and angsts that I'm sure you can't possibly chalk up to chance alone. :shrug:

>>TPS, very good points. But one of the things that you and others don't seem to want to even think about or admit is that Rush listeners do not get their thinking from him but that the precise reason for his lasting success is that he very eloquently(sometimes;) ) puts into words exactly how alot of his audience already feels about certain issues...

I understand that Purvis. I am a listener (occasional these days), and I don't take marching orders from him. And no doubt, he plays to his base. But where I think he loses credibility and where he goes wrong is with his meanspirtedness. He gets away with it, but he names most of his political and social adversaries in subhuman and derogatory terms which ultimately doesn't seem to foster a whole lot of good, diplomacy or progress for the nation. I understand that he's entertainment, and the majority of his base appreciates the way he attacks and dehumanizes others. But it's not an intellectually honest pursuit as far as I'm concerned. It's a way to railroad an opponent, tagging them as something which might not be farther from the truth. For instance, it was one thing to label former moderate Senator Paul Tsongas from Massachusetts "Paul Tax on gas" early in the '92 election. Hey, I thought it was pretty creative. But "Dingy Harry", "Senator Dick Turban", "Queen Bee Nancy" only serve to rile up even more hatred. He knows what he is doing and how it's going to play among the less savvy of his listeners. I harken back to the late 80's or early 90's when he did his April Fools schtick about taxing the poor as a joke on his audience who lapped it up so thoroughly that he had to end the assault early to remind them not to take everything he says completely seriously. I can respect that, many can not.

JMO

TPS