Social statification is for neocons, $25 million a year insulates Rush from what most Americans have to deal with on a daily basis. Like, retirement, living paycheck to paycheck, etc,... Ditto-heads argue that Rush pay's most of his paycheck to taxes. I think $25 million/year is like winning the lottery/year regardless.
Identify these people! Chickenhawks, "I had other priorities" 5 deferrments Chenney, Ted Nugent(1 deferrment) now I hear! "Double Live Gonzo" is going in the garbage.
On gay issues for example, he walks the fine line between playing to typical RW homophobia, supporting Bush talking points....but softpedaled because he doesn't want to chase off gay listeners. Also, I think Rush may be a closeted gay guy...and doesn't want to say anything that could come back on him, should he be outed.
Also, if you make $25 mil a year...and the top tax rate is 39%...that leaves at least $15 mil after taxes. That is more than the salaries of the entire US Senate combined! I hope he can eek out a living on that.
2. Would it be wrong to say that about 10 to 12 years ago
Rush almost mades sense. Not that I agreed with him, but he was a more reasoned opposition. I remember folks telling me when he first came on: Yeah, he's right wing, but he has an interesting perspective.
Am I just more awake now? Or did he make more sense when he talked 10 years ago? Now he's just a bundle of talking points and tortured logic and half truths. I resent that he's the only thing our troops get to hear. He tells them we liberals hate them and think they're a waste of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. We support them. Just not the war itself.
6. I agree. I remember listening to him driving to school in the early 90's
The Rush of the early 90's had plenty of hot air and bluster, but on occasions he made me think, and he made me laugh. He was a bit like some ultra-conservative relative...I'd disagree most of the time, but they'd be pretty rough on their own side too. But, I can't listen to him anymore. You're right, he is little more than an amalgamation of talking points now.
I think it all changed when people realized that his show actually affected the outcome of elections. Before that, I think he had fun going the air and saying whatever came to mind. Today, I wish he would just suck it in - go on the air - and announce that Bush is really an dangerous idiot who is destroying this country.
His ratings would go through the roof....and he'd be saying something that 90% of Americans, in their hearts, know is true.
"Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.
Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government."
They don't envision a corporatist state in the style of Hitler or Mussolini. The neo-conservatives aren't concerned with the size of government, but a number of other conservatives are, at least in ideology if not in practice. There are many conservatives unhappy with Bush's huge deficits and expansion of government bureaucracy. Neo-conservatives are a small group, congregated mainly in think tanks, conservative magazines, and of course now the White House and Pentagon. Their influence is much greater than their numbers. There is a tendency of people to use the term neo-conservatism far more broadly than the term actually means. I often see on DU, for example, posters mistakenly refer to the Christian Right as neo-cons. The concerns of the two groups couldn't be more different.
Here's a discussion of fascism from Wikipedia. The neo-cons may fit half of this definition, relating to the use of state power abroad, but not to the domestic elements of building a corporatist state structure.
"In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative...."
10. Rush is whatever Bush tells him to be...(long post,)
I've listened to Limbaugh since the late 1980s.
Back then, Rush was an entertainer discussing conservative politics. Up until the mid-1990's his show featured more song parodies, jokes, skits, etc. The man didn't take himself as seriously.
When Rush began his show in the 1980's, he was a welcome drink of water for conservatives who thirsted for the MSM to validate their views. Rush's colorful and humorous approach made conservatism palatable and painted liberalism as absurd. The formula was successful.
However, Rush's tone drastically changed in the mid-1990s--during the Clinton era. Limbaugh's show completely lost its sense of humor and became vicious and vitriolic.
It appears that Republicans realized, during the 1994 congressional-election campaign--that Limbaugh could be a deadly weapon in the conservative campaign arsenal. In the '94 campaigns Rush appeared to spew campaign talking points verbatim.
Rush took a great deal of credit for Gingrich and Company winning so handily in 1994. He propped up the "Contract With America". He also spread rumors, dirt and conspiracy theories on Clinton--which tore into Clinton's credibility (at one point, Rush actually claimed that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton).
Since 1994, Rush has evolved into a humorless lemming for the shill right-wing propaganda machine.
I believe Rush is an extremely insecure man who is just happy to be at the table with the big boys. Rush is probably a critical piece in all White House PR strategies. There is no doubt that Rush steers his show down whatever roads the Republicans choose.
Rush is, I'm sure, aware that he is being used, and that he has become a neocon lap dog.
Interesting that Rush develops a chronic drug addiction, during the peak of his success--when he should be happy and content. In my opinion, the drug addiction is fueled by the sick role he is mandated to play. Rush was always a pure conservative, but now the conservatives in power are power-mongering, evil neocon sociopaths. Rush is their water boy--and I imagine carrying that polluted water for 15 hours each week is grueling. I imagine Rush does agree with much of their agenda. However, what used to be entertainment is now a propaganda-talking-point machine--mandated by some very caustic individuals.
The beginning of the end for Rush was when Bush 41 invited him to stay overnight at the WH during the '92. At the time, many of Rush's listeners wanted him to endorse Perot...and at times, he seemed to almost toy with the idea.
Thinking back, that was quite amazing. These conservatives actually cared about things like the budget deficit and jobs going to Mexico. But look at how times have change!? It's like these people are all now in lock step...it's like all conservatives have the one voice. Freaky!
Since then, the republicans bought Rush, cloned him into Hannity, Coulter, etc., and then programmed them to pursuade all conservatives to support the neo-conservative Bush 43 agenda. They are truly mind-numbed robots.
You also tapped into something very interesting with the drug story. That made no sense to me. It's almost like some part of Rush's shriveled soul tried to escape. It's like he's sold out bit by bit, and realized there was nothing left.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.