• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

How Limbaugh has changed?

J

jayantoniou

Guest
Going back many years I was a big listener and fan of Rush's. Although I didn't always agree with him his show was brilliant radio. Recently I've started listening again but I am curious what happened to the show. He seems to spend hours on rather obscure topics. What happened to his great updates and update themes? Did he stop the da da lup..dada lup..da da lup intro's into the update themes?
 
I can share your perception that the Rush we hear today is somehow different than the Rush of say 1990.

But I will also say that some of "the change we hear" is not only how RUSH has changed, but how each of US has changed. I suspect new listeners who are discovering Rush for the first time are impressed much the same way we were years ago.

Like you and me, several years from now, many of today's new listeners will be saying: "What happened to Rush. He doesn't sound like he used to."

And many of us will smile politely, nod our head, and say: "Welcome to our club."

Remember: You only get one chance to make a first impression.
 
The big difference between the Rush of 5+ years ago and now (yes, the change is THAT recent), is that the old Rush seemed to cut corners off of square pegs to fit them in round holes, factually speaking. All with the intent of making his "side" always seem right, while the evil Dems seemed wrong. Rush was clearly too smart to believe his own arguments, simply because he read the facts, yet chose to maipulate them for his own advantage. A form of pandering, if you will.

These days, he goes far beyond cutting corners off of square pegs, but rather tends to give creedence to and sometimes even validate some of the most wacked out far right wingers on the political stage.

Before, he was pandering to the right, yet with entertainment as his primary goal. Now, he seems to spend his time pandering to out conservative conservatives.

Maybe he perceives this as a way to survive. I just see it at as a desperate attempt to stay relevant in an ever-increasingly outlandish right wing land of Oz.

Pathetic, actually.
 
I saw an ad for his tea on the Drudge Report and it had a picture of the Marines raising the flag over Iwa Jima. While I guess some of the proceeds go to a military charity, i wonder if it a little tacky to use that image to sell a for profit product?
 
Either Rush has gotten lazy in his later years... or he's into a power trip.

In years past, there'd be plenty of humor in his shows. There'd be song parodies, there'd be Femi-Nazi and Homeless Updates. He was always trying to turn the nation more conservative and make his conservative fans more rigid.

But now he holds such power in the Republican Party that there's no time for humor anymore. No song parodies, no silly updates on "Tree-Huggers."

Of course, other big men in broadcasting get lazy in their later years too. I remember when David Letterman would do produced material in the day for showing later that night... get a group of models in a convertible and go to the beach with them. Or he and Paul might walk through Central Park doing crazy things. Now Letterman does nothing more than let his staffers do those things. He does his monologue, then talks behind his desk, then interviews a guest or two, then the show is over. I guess he realized he gets the same pay whether he knocks himself out or shows up a few minutes before the show starts.

So is Rush simply too successful for his own good? Or in his mind he thinks he has to do everything in his power to bash Pres. Obama and the Democrats non-stop so we'll elect a Republican President and a Republican House and Senate... and make sure all those Republicans move from moderate to far right?

As you might tell, I'm a liberal and I can't figute out how Rush became so successful and so powerful. I think he tells half-truths and even withholds information to push his agenda. I live in NYC where we have a liberal talk station and I feel sorry for the 80% of the country that has no such outlet on the radio. You're stuck with either Rush and his clones or music or an all-sports station. NPR is good but it can be dry and some NPR stations also play Classical or Jazz music so maybe Rush is all that's available in some markets. Too bad.



Gregg
[email protected]
 
Gregg said:
Either Rush has gotten lazy in his later years... or he's into a power trip.

Yes and yes.

In years past, there'd be plenty of humor in his shows. There'd be song parodies, there'd be Femi-Nazi and Homeless Updates. He was always trying to turn the nation more conservative and make his conservative fans more rigid.

Rush got old, rich, and lazy. So did his audience (other than the "rich" part). They, and he, have become a bunch of bitter old geezers and it shows in his performance. He used to be funny, regardless of whether I agreed with him or not (about 50-50 in my case). Now, he's the radio equivalent of the old man screaming "Get off my lawn" at the neighbor kids.

But now he holds such power in the Republican Party that there's no time for humor anymore. No song parodies, no silly updates on "Tree-Huggers."

I think the problem is that he doesn't have the power he used to have 10-20 years ago. The Tea Party movement doesn't need Rush Limbaugh anymore. They can get people elected without his so-called "help."

Of course, other big men in broadcasting get lazy in their later years too. I remember when David Letterman would do produced material in the day for showing later that night... get a group of models in a convertible and go to the beach with them. Or he and Paul might walk through Central Park doing crazy things. Now Letterman does nothing more than let his staffers do those things. He does his monologue, then talks behind his desk, then interviews a guest or two, then the show is over. I guess he realized he gets the same pay whether he knocks himself out or shows up a few minutes before the show starts.

Letterman's been lazy for years. He was his best at NBC, when he was younger and somewhat hip. But he's at CBS and is as old and tired as the rest of the network.

So is Rush simply too successful for his own good? Or in his mind he thinks he has to do everything in his power to bash Pres. Obama and the Democrats non-stop so we'll elect a Republican President and a Republican House and Senate... and make sure all those Republicans move from moderate to far right?

I thought the election of Barack Obama would be the thing that would rejuvinate Limbaugh, just like the election of Bill Clinton put him on the map in the first place. But he's more angry now than the humorously-sarcastic Rush Limbaugh of 1993. Also, I've never previously believed the racist charges that have been leveled at him over the years, but quite frankly, now I'm not so sure they aren't at least a bit true. It's not that I think he'd join the KKK (he wouldn't), and he's never tolerated bald-faced bigotry from callers, but part of his problem with Obama seems to be that he's black, not just that he's a Democrat or that he's even more liberal than Bill Clinton.

As you might tell, I'm a liberal and I can't figute out how Rush became so successful and so powerful. I think he tells half-truths and even withholds information to push his agenda. I live in NYC where we have a liberal talk station and I feel sorry for the 80% of the country that has no such outlet on the radio. You're stuck with either Rush and his clones or music or an all-sports station. NPR is good but it can be dry and some NPR stations also play Classical or Jazz music so maybe Rush is all that's available in some markets. Too bad.

I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal that liked Limbaugh for 20 years (even if I didn't agree with him) but can't take him anymore. In fact, I don't listen to any talk radio - liberal or conservative - anymore. Nor do I watch Fox News or MSNBC. I want facts and intelligent opinions based on facts, not wacko-nutjob propaganda from either side. It's the Sunday morning news shows and websites like The Hill or even the Washington Post for me.

And my problem with NPR isn't that they're liberal. It's that they're excruciatingly boring. Listening to them is like having a root canal done.
 
Rush has been doing his act for over 20 years. He's aged, his act has aged. His hearing problems also have contributed to some of his problems. I too used to be a big fan, even though I don't agree with him a good deal of the time. I do enjoy the song parady's, but he doesn't do as many as he used to. I guess his budget has shrunk with the economy (maybe less spots), and doesn't want to pay Paul Shankin (sp) more to make more new parodies. Of course Rush could play the oldies but goodies (but they may be on a pay per play basis and he doesn't want to spend his own cash).

Rush's voice sounds like an old man's. He sounds tired. He probably has gotten lazy and as a result of doing this for so long and being so wealthy (he really doesn't need the money), no environmental wacko updates, no SUV updates, no femi-nazi updates, no Justice Brothers updates. All the fun stuff that made his show fun to listen to. Of course when the Clinton's ran the nation, he had all sorts of parodies, mini dramas, etc, about them, really great stuff. That's the sort of thing that made his show special. He thinks its his big mouth. I can tune in to any right wing talker and hear the same stuff. Those parodies, mini dramas, updates, etc, are what made Rush's show interesting and entertaining. Now, it's just a three hour "secular GOP sermon" by pastor Limbaugh and his church of right wing thinking ( he thinks he's a professor, he's wrong he's a preacher). If I want to hear preaching, I'd prefer to hear the real thing about Jesus, not the Republican view of the world and there's a world of difference between the two (Jesus and the Republican Party). Just to be fair and balanced (unlike Fox News), there's a world of difference between Jesus and the Dems also.
 
KeithE4 said:
I think the problem is that he doesn't have the power he used to have 10-20 years ago. The Tea Party movement doesn't need Rush Limbaugh anymore. They can get people elected without his so-called "help."

I thought the same thing about the Tea Party not really needing Rush, until I had received the following email yesterday; here is a link, that I hope works, it it works for you like it does on my browser, you will need to scroll down a bit until you see the black box with the salutation: Dear Patroit:

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/961007/f27d4ac376/TEST/TEST/

If the link doesn't work for you; please PM me and I will send you a copy of the email.

Here is a very small part of the email:

Despite being a key figure on the political landscape for decades, Rush was one of the first and most ardent supporters of the Tea Party movement. He regularly defends the movement from the vile and vicious attacks launched by the establishment both in politics and media. It is nearly impossible to underestimate his impact on modern politics, which is why when his team contacted us about possibly teaming up with the Rush Limbaugh Show, we were deeply honored.


drt,
st. petersburg,fl
 
This must be what Rush was talking about the other day. He said he hadn't contacted any Tea Party organization about teaming up with them, and not to believe anyone who says he has. I suspect that anyone who clicks the "contribute" box and provides the requested information will immediately have their money transferred to a foreign country that won't co-operate with U. S. authorities to recover their funds.
 
On common complaint I have heard from many conservatives is that once you heard one Rush show, you heard them all. Same thing day after day, hour after hour.

El Rushbo seemed to go downhill as far back as 1996 when Clinton got re-elected and Democrats gained seats in Congress despite Monicagate at the time. The Golfer believed his own press clippings about what an influence he was on American society. When he failed to live up to his clippings, he just seemed angier and kept repeating himself every day.

Perhaps the fact that while El Rushbo's professional life has been a success, his personal life hasn't been as successful with four marriages and no children. That could explain part of his anger. Wallbanger and Beck have TV show, but Rush's show was a failure.
 
UpstateNYBill said:
Wallbanger and Beck have TV show, but Rush's show was a failure.

It was on for four seasons, so I can't call it a complete failure. But he never did TV very well. The tone for his TV career was set in 1990, when he subbed for Pat Sajak and it was an unmitigated disaster. The later ESPN debacle didn't help either. He should stay off TV completely.
 
When Rush was on (1992-1996) he consistently had the #4 rated late night talk show. He was always ahead of Arseneo Hall (also syndicated), occasionally ahead of Nightline (ABC), but never caught Jay Leno (NBC) or David Letterman (CBS).
 
By the way, the man who created Rush's TV show is Bob Turner. At the time he was President of Multimedia Entertainment, a division of Multimedia, Inc. Now he's the Congressman representing New York's District 9, replacing Anthony Weiner.
 
MikefromDelaware said:
...no environmental wacko updates, no SUV updates, no femi-nazi updates, no Justice Brothers updates...

And don't forget the "condom updates" with The Fifth Dimension's "Up, Up And Away (In My Beautiful Balloon)" as the "news theme"... though I was partial to Rush's "homeless updates" backed by Clarence 'Frogman' Henry's "Ain't Got No Home"...

Too funny about the person who created Rush's TV show replacing Anthony Weiner - though I thought it was actually Roger Ailes (who also created Fox News) that created the show; his "API - Ailes Productions, Inc." produced the show which was distributed by Multimedia. So it was the fourth most popular late night show? Not too shabby. If you browse the "retro" TV listings on the "Classic TV" board, you'll see that stations that ran Rush's TV show did so at various times. Some opted to air it at 6 AM in the morning, or even at around 12 noon (which cuts off their nose to spite their face, since it's a day-old Rush TV show competing with a live Rush radio show). In New York, WNYW/5 ran Rush's show for three years of its four-year run; in its latter days, I believe they aired it at 11 AM. But in its debut year of 1992, WWOR/9 carried Rush's TV show - right after Arsenio Hall.
 
DToTheJ said:
MikefromDelaware said:
...no environmental wacko updates, no SUV updates, no femi-nazi updates, no Justice Brothers updates...

And don't forget the "condom updates" with The Fifth Dimension's "Up, Up And Away (In My Beautiful Balloon)" as the "news theme"... though I was partial to Rush's "homeless updates" backed by Clarence 'Frogman' Henry's "Ain't Got No Home"...

What can be spoken about openly (as "regulated" by our social mores) has changed radically in my lifetime. And I am not crying the blues over that... if you followed me around for a week or so you would recognize that my speech pattern and my writing pattern would have gotten me into a lot of trouble 60 to 80 years ago.

One of the more amusing aspects of any discussion of who is Limbaugh, has he changed, and where might he be headed next, is the fact that he is the darling, the soul-mate if you please, of the "Family Values" wing of politics and that wing of politics is the one incubated in the Evangelical/Conservative theology churches of America. Those of you who have never been exposed to the social patterns of the conservative/fundamentalist church life of the Jerry Fallwell crowd probably can't imagine the humor of watching their offspring, Rush Limbaugh, making condoms and feminazis and some of his other illustrations part of everyday language for the little churchy kids riding in the back seat of the soccer mom van.

::)
 
Maybe he hasn't done the condom schtick in a while because soccer moms were turning away?
I'm no soccer mom, but for a while there, every time I listened in, it wouldn't be five minutes before he was saying "hell" or "damn" and not in a theological sense. So...automatic scan.

I haven't noticed that as much lately, but then again I haven't been keeping score.

I see Rush Limbaugh held up as the darling of the right by the left more than I see him talked about in the right, churchy, soccer mom fundamentalist side though. I guess it's all in the perspective.
 
quadraphonic said:
I see Rush Limbaugh held up as the darling of the right by the left more than I see him talked about in the right, churchy, soccer mom fundamentalist side though. I guess it's all in the perspective.

We get locked in on what WAS happening at a given time and assume that continues, even if we haven't checked in lately to confirm. (I'm saying that about ME... I don't know about you.)

I echo the first phrase of that sentence. I hear a lot of people talking about liberals, and all they know is what conservatives say about liberals... so that must be who they are. I hear a lot of people talking about conservatives, and all they know is what liberals say about conservatives. That is MY BIG BEEF with society today. Too many of us are not digging into topics ourselves... we simply trust the observations, the research and the claims of people around us that we like as observers.

And, I also concur that "the right, churchy soccer mom fundamentalist side do not mention Rush by name. But if I sit down at a Wednesday night dinner at the church and there are people in the circle that I don't know, I listen for a few minutes. With out naming him, I will hear him quoted by some sweet lady and then I know that this is a table where one may want to talk about anything BUT politics tonight.
 
Great many spot-on comments and observations here.

Count me...politically independent with a voting record to prove it...as among those who once found Rush witty, entertaining, and insightful. True whether I agreed with him or not...which frequently I did. I thought he was at his best during the first Clinton administration. Razor-sharp, biting, and thought-provoking. I looked forward to listening to him.

Even in his best years Rush was always full of himself. Now that particular personality trait...which at one time was part of his appeal...has gone to the extreme. And along with that, he's become lazy, lost his wit, and his once-keen insight has turned into pure vitriol.

He lost me about ten years ago. Fast forward to just yesterday, while on a road trip, I hit the scan button on the rental car radio and heard Rush come up about a half dozen times.

Hard to understand that....and more than a little scary.

Also by a million to one coincidence during the scan, I heard a taped excerpt of Eisenhower addressing the nation at the close of his presidency in 1961. Presumably the speech in which he coined the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex". He also talks about preserving social security and the obligation we have as a nation to take care of the less fortunate among us.

The speech was a perfect illustration for me of the extent to which the fringe has hijacked the republican party. Aided by the likes of "El Rushbo". Today, I suspect Eisenhower...one of the the truly greatest of Americans...would likely have no voice in his party. Let alone get a presidential nomination.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom