• 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

Is there a back-story on how-Rush-is-mispronouncing "Mondale?"

H

Holland Cooke

He's consistently saying "Mondle," vs. "Mondale," as-though-he's-unfamiliar-with-the-person-he's-referencing.

This might be one-of-those-Rush-isms that you-had-to-be-listening-on-day-one to "get," like "drive-by media," which isn't re-explained for new tune-ins.

Does he know better, and he's doing this deliberately to be derisive?

Or is it this a Missouri-accent thing, like when he was calling that-product-he-was-advertising "Greezed Lightning" (then had to re-cut the spots to say "Greased Lightning")?
 
mondle= mon-dull, as in mondale is boring. He's been doing this since the beginning of his show.
 
Aha!

jh said:
mondle= mon-dull, as in mondale is boring. He's been doing this since the beginning of his show.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, he should hold the "Ls" longer at the end of "...dull," so his point is more self-evident...since he seems to be naive about the value of RE-EXPLAINING sustaining bits for-the-benefit-of listeners-who-didn't-happen-to-be-listening when-the-bit-began. Heck, I listen to talk radio FOR A LIVING...and I didn't get it.

"Drive-by media" is NOT self-explanatory, and is actually counter-intuitive.
Institutions-he-damns, i.e., New York Times, are, after all, INSTITUTIONS.
Talk hosts, bloggers, and other less-consequential/substantial voices fit the "drive-by" monkier better.
ANYONE-risking-less-than a big newspaper or TV network has at-stake can toss-lit-matches, drive-by style.

And (HONEST!) I offer all-of-the-above APOLITICALLY.
My point is about the craft of radio, the value in someone-tuning-in INSTANTLY "getting it."

Now about Glenn Beck mumbling-the-call-in-number-too-fast-to-be-understood...
:)

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

PS for-Mondale-fans-only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvqxuhEXzY
PPS for-Arbitron-nerds-only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNU3l4GapXw
 
Re: Aha!

Holland Cooke said:
"Drive-by media" is NOT self-explanatory, and is actually counter-intuitive.
Institutions-he-damns, i.e., New York Times, are, after all, INSTITUTIONS.
Talk hosts, bloggers, and other less-consequential/substantial voices fit the "drive-by" monkier better.
ANYONE-risking-less-than a big newspaper or TV network has at-stake can toss-lit-matches, drive-by style.
Click to expand...
Does anybody find it funny how much stuff he and the rest of the jaw bone media use from the drive by media to support their claims?
 
RE "I haven't listened to El Rushbo in years. "

I listen almost every day...more than the average diarykeeper would.

But I still managed to miss the show where he explained why he calls Sen. Reed "Dingy Harry."

What's the back-story on that?
 
RE "Maybe it's a 'Dirty Harry' quasi-reference."

That was my initial guess.
But the-context-in-which-it's-uttered doesn't "go there."
So I don't "get it."
I can't, visually or otherwise, connect-the-dots from Reed to the Clint Eastwood character.

And -- with listeners' attention now SO divided -- "maybe" is scary.
What's-coming-out-the-speaker needs to be as-self-explanatory-as-possible.
Arbitron punishes riddles.
 
It's simply a play on words.

I don't think anything more should be made of it more than what it is....a play on words. Why even bother to attempt to unravel it? The Rush listeners get it. Or get what he wants them to get which is something less than complimentary about Reid.

It's nothing more than the Keysters, the McCainiacs of his use of the Herman Munster theme when talking about John Kerry. His listeners get it.
 
Say what?

del_griffith said:
Why even bother to attempt to unravel it?
Click to expand...

Join us for the just-announced Consultant Fly-In conference December 4 and 5 at Arbitron HQ in Columbia MD.

For-all-the-years I've been attending, I still always leave humbled by what a memory test the diary-based methodology is.

To-be-remembered-later, it'll still help to-be-understood in-the-first-place.

The Coleman Research analysis of Rush Limbaugh PPM data (www.ColemanInsights.com) offers jarring evidence of INSTANT tune-out when he's babbling. Check it out.
 
The "Dingy Harry" play on words was just something mildly interesting to discuss, like whether or not it should be discussed and unraveled is a mildly interesting topic of discussion to some people.
No harm in brainstorming or sharing what might be true if there were to be some Rushphile who "knows that truth," is there?
 
FYI, from the source...

Bill Thompson -- now anchoring news on WMAL/Washington, and hosting www.EyeOnBooks.com -- worked for me THREE times (WTOP/Washington, USA Today, and WSNE/Providence). So I BELIEVE HIM when he writes...

HC!!

I couldn't figure out why eyeonbooks.com was getting a ton of hits, way more than usual .. so I followed the breadcrumbs back through the web, and discovered that it was because somebody had used audio excerpts from my Eye on Books vintage 1995 interview with Barack Obama in a YouTube video that's going wildly viral.

But ... then .....

It turns out, RUSH LIMBAUGH played some of those sound bites -- from MY interview -- on Friday's show!! (I'm told that Mark Levin did, too, but I can't confirm that). He didn't say where they came from, though.

Funny thing is, though, the YouTube video takes the excerpts out of context, and makes Obama look like a race-baiting neo-socialist. I wrote to Rush and asked him to PLEASE listen to the full interview on my website.

Bill: I'm sure Rush will get back to you real soon.
("NOT!")
 
Rush has those "Rushisms" that he likes to use, usually about someone he isn't partial to: The Reverendddd Jackkksonnn, The Justice Brothers (both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson together for their musical parodies), Hillary's testicle lockbox, For those of you from Reo Linda this means...., Dingy Harry, Solomon SmithBarney Frank, Shkool (for school), The Bill Clinton Presidental Library and Massage Parlor which consists of a Hooters with a magazine rack, The Executive in Sleeze (when Clinton was President), Clinton in the Oval Bedroom, ALGORE, Drive-by media, Calipso Louie (Louis Farrakan), etc, etc.

The Mondul thing doesn't come across as well. Even with the explaination, I'd drop using it, if I were Rush, as it sounds more like he's made a pronunciation mistake rather than being funny.
 
Rush sounds unglued lately, angry, like HE'S losing an election.

"Operation Chaos" was good shtick during the primaries; but why isn't The Doctor of Democracy trying -- RIGHT NOW -- to rally Republicans, instead of scolding them for nominating John McCain?

Why wouldn't Talk Radio's top show be reminding Dittoheads that "WHAT DID WE LEARN IN 2000? EVERY VOTE MATTERS!"

If El Rusbo's entire cume voted for McCain/Palin, wouldn't they win?

Or -- notwithstanding his denials about the-value-of-being-the-party-on-the-outs -- right wing talkers HOPE they'll have a President Obama to kick-around for the next 4 years? Undeniably, the Dems' would be better material than a McCain regime.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
Oh that's why he says "Talent on loan from Gaawwwed" then [or at least he used to].

Good point. I don't listen to Rush every day so I've never heard him ever offer his personal testamony about his faith. Just from listening to his show, when I do tune in, I'd classify Rush Limbaugh as a economic conservative, as he seems most concerned with paying too much tax and having a too large government. He also makes some "suggestive sexual innuendo" type comments at times that generally people who are serious about their walk with Christ would tend to not say. It's not my intention to be judgemental, it's just an observation from listening to what he actually does say on the air. One day, he made some sexually suggestive comments about Hillary (they were in poor taste, in my opinion) and two different female callers who called themselves Christians, complained to him about those comments and he was very rude to both callers which really surprised me. elRushbo doesn't take criticism very well apparently.

My definition of a social or moral conservative would fit more often with a Born Again Christian (Evangelical Christian or possibly a Roman Catholic or even a conservative person of the Jewish faith). Their concerns tend to be more toward helping the less fortunate, abortion (being Pro-Life), anti-gay marriage, etc. I've never really gotten that view point from listening to Rush (interestingly his brother David Limbaugh appears to be a Born Again Christian as his writings seem to reflect that viewpoint more so than his more famous brother elRushbo. Sean Hannity (a Roman Catholic) would be an example of a social or moral conservative as he's very vocal about being Pro-Life and being against gay marriage. Dennis Prager (Salem radio network), is a conservative Jew and he appears to be a moral or socal conservative, based on when I've listened to his show.

Holland Cooke makes a good point as well. Rush never was excited about McCain (not as conservative and anti-cooperative with Democrats as Rush would like). My guess is he'd rather have Obama/Biden win as that would provide him with far more material for his show than having to defend McCain/Palin as he's had to try to do with Bush Jr these past 8 years. Rush probably had hoped that Hillary had won as he always had a good time going after the Clintons.
 
I don't know about Rush's soul destination. Hope he's got it all together in that area, but the evidence for that is at best mixed.

I was mostly just making a play on words. :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom