Much has been made in the last few days of Rush Limbaugh speaking at the CPAC confrence last weekend. Rush speaks his mind without reservation - no "PC" editing here - and some think this is a bad thing. And liberal pundits and the DNC wasted no time in trying to annoint the "polarizing" Limbaugh as the new head of the Republican party. This seems to be right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - set-up a figure to demonize and try to connect political enemies to him in hope they will bow to fear and distance themselves.
They call Rush a "pied piper" leading a herd of mind-numb robots who'll do whatever he says, a master manipulator of the masses. If he had that kind of power, would liberals be in control today?
They call him a great "entertainer" as if we should believe it's all an act for our enjoyment so don't take it too seriously. If it's just an act, why worry about it? Maybe they should apply that reasoning to Sean Penn, Al Franken, George Clooney and others.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND - he can't be both.
Rush is entertaining because he is passionate about what he believes. Mixing serious discussion of issues with irreverent humor, and never afraid to poke fun at anything or anyone. He has built a large audience over 20 years on the air. And all of the liberal pretenders combined can't come close to that. And over those years I have learned much from him.
That being said, Rush doesn't speak for me. Why? Because I speak for me. I'm a big boy and can speak for myself. I only went to public school, I may not be smooth or famous, but I can find a way to get my point across.
Rush does, however, speak to me. As an equal. Allowing me to take what he says and form my own opinion. Which is something liberals have a problem doing. They speak down to me. I'm just a unenlightened boob in "flyover" country who should take everything they say as gospel and keep my dissenting view to myself. Or better yet, discard my beliefs altogether and follow them in a show of bipartisan cooperation. Talk about mind-numb robots !!
Our elected representatives should be speaking for us, but the longer they live in DC, the farther they get from us. Then they rely on aids and "community" groups to tell them what the "little people back home" are concerned with. And it always seems to be exactly what the aid or group's pet issue is, or the lobbyist with the big check.
Instead of trying to compete in the open market of radio (where they have failed over and over), liberals now want they call a "level playing field" by imposing some form of the old Fairness Doctrine - requiring radio stations to carry an equal amount of all opinions. But opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one. Some are nice, and some smell really bad.
It's impossible to have every opinion heard on every station. So the stations that carry successful shows like Rush or Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Laura Ingraham and others will have to either carry unpopular shows (like those from the failed Air America) for "balance", or drop the popular shows and go back to carrying bland , uninteresting, non-offensive shows. Neither would bring fairness.
Liberals need to learn a simple fact: Life ain't fair. Get used to it, because our Constitution guarantees free speech, not an audience. That has to be earned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For whatever reason, people can't get it through their heads that fairness and justice are separate entities. Fairness is just a Liberal fantasy, and Justice is a reality that can actually be achieved. Though it's apparently simply too unattractive and grim for people to grasp, it's an indisputable fact that we all have to live with. As long as the Libs are in power, the government will be striving for "fairness" and leaving justice in the dust.
ReplyDelete