30 March 2009

The Limbaugh Challenge

all the cool kids are talkin'bout it

so anyway, I first saw this over at Cold Fury, now it looks like all the VRWC bloggers are weighing in on "The Limbaugh Challenge".

It seems that one Andrew Klaven of The Los Angeles Times fame has "served" the libtards thusly:

"If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!".....

......By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh......

.....Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do....."
Spot on, Sir. Read the whole thing.

Like Klaven, I listen to Rush every chance I get. But, as I work for a living at my thankless Stoopid Business™ job, my opportunities to listen in are few and far between.

The critisims of Rush Limbaugh haven't changed much in the twenty-plus years he's been on the air. The critics have expanded from attacking Rush's audience (we're all just "mind-numbed robots") to attacking the man himself. And not just any old attack, no, it's an attack from our President, turning the full force and fury of the bully pulpit on a private citizen who just happens to be in the public eye.

Jebezus Christo, it's like Rush is Rick Wagoner, or some siht.

Limbaugh's audience doesn't listen to him to be told how to think; we already know how to think, thank you very much. Rush's popularity stems from him espousing a conservative viewpoint that was seldom heard on the airwaves prior to his debut on the scene. We don't listen to Rush to know what to think; we listen to Rush because he endorses what we think.

It's all about causal relationships, kids. We listen because 'he's saying what we think', not 'we think what he's saying'.

I had a "global warming" metaphore to tie all this up in a nice, tight bundle, but it's left me. There's always tomorrow.....

more soon


Post a Comment

<< Home