Why Rush disses Mitt Romney?

[Holland Cooke]

For you, the living, this mash was meant too...

you aren't real good with analogies, Holland.

Thank YOU, my anonymous friend.
Perhaps a radio-info.com ghost?

Then again, That Spooky Night is nearly-upon-us:
http://getonthenet.com/MonsterMash.mp3

 

[Silkie]

Glad my point was made.

 

[jas2525]

If that statement in its entirety came from Chris Matthews the fact that it is some obnoxious kid with a cowlick, who never makes any sense anyway

That statement alone rips from you any iota of credibility.

 

[Silkie]

Not at all.

 

[Lazy J]

So Holland, are you implying that either...

A) Rush is lying when he says believes Obama will destroy the economy and ruin the country?
Or
B) Rush is just so Greedy and Narcissistic that he will knowingly help Obama get re-elected, just to keep his show #1 ?

Because if he honestly thinks Romney will get the nomination, he should be doing everything he can to build Romney up and help swing "fence-sitters" over to the Romney side. Instead he trashes the "eventual nominee" relentlessly. My personal analysis is that the Tea Party arm of the GOP is the most vocal. As we all know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Rush believes that most of his listeners must be ulta-conservative because they squeak the most. And to that End, he is driving away myself and other moderate conservative listeners.

Goodbye Rush... we had some good times, didn't we!

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE So Holland, are you implying that either...""

So Holland, are you implying that either...
A) Rush is lying when he says believes Obama will destroy the economy and ruin the country?
Or
B) Rush is just so Greedy and Narcissistic that he will knowingly help Obama get re-elected, just to keep his show #1 ?

BOTH.

And not "implying."
Outright OBSERVING.

Were you thinking that Rush CARES what happens to anyone-but-himself?
He's got his, you get yours.
That's the daily drumbeat.

Because many here are joining-in-progress, by reading-the-thread most-recent-post-first, here's the post that kicked-off this one:
http://open.salon.com/blog/holland_cooke/2011/10/16/why_rush_limbaugh_disses_mitt_romney

As for "#1:" WHERE? When you're a 5-share act, 95% are listening-to-something-else.

Even with iPod/Pandora/et al eating-music-radio's-lunch -- note "2009" on data @ http://getonthenet.com/nielsen-audiominutes.jpg -- music FMs are still beating Limbaugh most places.

 

[MC]

Limbaugh does not think Romney is that conservative anyway, so I don't think he cares that much if it is Obama or Romney... and his show is easier to do if Obama is re-elected. Some politicians take a scorched earth policy anyway e.g. Jim DeMint.

 

[Rusty Muck]

I'd like to see a Gary Burbank-type personality show up again, mostly comedy and lighter topics, but the ability to skewer both sides of the aisle without being all that blue humored. Who is out there who could even do that?

The closest thing to another Gary Burbank has been Phil Hendrie. And while Phil can be funny, that's not a ringing endorsement by any stretch of the imagination. Especially when he takes his shtick too seriously or unnecessarily interjects politics into the mix.

Glenn Beck - more specifically, the 2000-2002 era Glenn - might have had potential. But then he started to take himself far too seriously, and that was that. It could have been because so many CC outlets were willing to drop a tape-delayed Dr. Laura for his show, which caused him to immediate leap onto the national stage. (And no, I don't consider his former Fox News show to be a comedy program... well, not in the applied definition of the term. )

But that's the problem. Few if any want to do a Gary Burbank-style program on the radio. But then one sees the similar approach taken by The Daily Show or Red Eye and see the same formula at work... comedy, some light stuff, but a fairly even-handed skewering on both sides. (Yes, I consider ceteris paribus that Jon is, or at least makes a concerted effort to be, even-handed.)

 

[borderblaster]

The people who are out there doing anything even distantly related to what Burbank did are doing it on morning shows on FM music stations...not talk radio. Which I guess begs the question of whether one could have a successful talk station that does back to back morning shows all day..not delayed but morning-type teams or hosts in all dayparts with no music.

 

[Open Source]

Yes, I consider ceteris paribus that Jon is, or at least makes a concerted effort to be, even-handed.

I could consider cats to be dogs and it wouldn't make that true. Same with Red Eye, even if they are a tiny bit more "fair".

 

[FreddyE1977]

I don't know that Rush is necessarily "dissing" Mitt Romney either.
(at least not the way he used to dis John McCain, playing parodies that
make him sound like a snarling chihuahua, etc.). It is well-known that
the bad blood between Rush and McCain was real and it was palpable.

I don't get the sense that he has such deep personal negative feelings towards Romney.
Probably more so towards some of the GOP insiders who are pushing the Romney candidacy.
He is just pointing out what most of his audience is thinking....Romney is not
as conservative as most of them would like. And until he can better explain
his muddled positions on Romneycare and Climate Change, those misgivings are
likely to persist.

 

[Lazy J]

I am willing to bet that most Americans see themselves as Moderate-Left or Moderate-Right. I think Mitt Romney is actually doing himself a huge favor by not denouncing some of his moderate views. It will be easier to sway Democrats toward someone like Romney than to someone like Perry, Cain or Bachmann. It doesn't do us any good if we nominate an ultra-conservative who can't win the general election.

It only takes one look at satellite photos from the last 20 years to know the polar ice caps are melting fast. For Republicans to flat-out deny global warming makes us look very ignorant. We ought to be denying that it's man-made or can be reversed.

As for health care, my son was in the hospital for a week with pneumonia. The final bill was $84,000 dollars. Luckily we had Children's Health Insurance through the state and it only cost us $1,500 out-of-pocket. What would we have done without gov't health insurance? We would have gone bankrupt and lost our home, all because my kid got pneumonia?! Maybe RomneyCare isn't the best answer, but NO is also not a good enough answer.

Romney can beat Obama, if the Republicans don't destroy him first.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I am willing to bet that most Americans see themselves as Moderate-Left or Moderate-Right. I think Mitt Romney is actually doing himself a huge favor by not denouncing some of his moderate views. It will be easier to sway Democrats toward someone like Romney than to someone like Perry, Cain or Bachmann. It doesn't do us any good if we nominate an ultra-conservative who can't win the general election.

May your tribe increase!

My congressman is one of those ultra-ultra somewhere-beyond-the-horizon conservatives newly elected to congress in the backlash-vote of 2010. He recent sent me a newsletter explaining one of his votes and I got a real good serving of somewhere-beyond-the-horizon thinking.

I doubt it if did much good but I wrote back and suggest what he was selling as foundational economic truths reminded me of some voodoo religious practices of the natives on some island in a Bing Crosy/Bob Hope "On the road" movie.... a religious practice involving a lot of chicken entrails. And that if he was successful in passing the bill he was writing in support of, I expected to spend the rest of my days living off a retirement diet of chick entrails and their equivalent.

How does either party really hope to win elections if we continue with political rhetoric that has stooped to the point that I feel compelled to write a letter that stoops such a low level? Will we have a nation for our children and grandchildren to even worry about if we go to some of the extremes proposed in either direction?

And to bring this conversation back to broadcasting: If radio continues to be the pipeline to feed the liquid fertilizer to help grow the crop of political thinking that cannot be separated out from the chicken entrails in the cook's pot... is there a future for broadcasting to worry about? News headline for 27 years from now: "Satellite photos today revealed that just as the polar ice caps melted a dozen years ago, scientists today today announced that 23% of the United States has now melted down into what has been dubbed the "Appalacheepoochee Gumbo Marsh". Tonight Show centenarian host Jay Leno announced in his monologue: "It tastes like chicken."

 

[Jimme]

Limbaugh WANTS Obama to get re-elected:
http://open.salon.com/blog/holland_cooke/2011/10/16/why_rush_limbaugh_disses_mitt_romney

Very late in that article, you make a reference to Limbaugh still invoking Obama's middle name "Hussein".

Ironically, not only is that a really lame attempt still by some conservaclones to incite some "suspicion" about Obama ('cause that worked so well: 65 million votes), but the name "Hussein" for me, only stirs up memories of how the last administration misled us into a very expensive war in Iraq.

That whole "Hussein" thing, if anything, helps reasonable people quickly identify a moron on the air.

The on;y time I ever hear Rush refer to Obama with Hussein is when he follows it up with an "MMM MMM MMM" making reference to the ssong school children were singing in a classroom. Use of Hussein is still employed by other hosts. It isn't nice, but nobody seems to complain when MSNBC refers to "Willard M. Romey" instead of "Mitt Ronmney">

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The on;y time I ever hear Rush refer to Obama with Hussein is when he follows it up with an "MMM MMM MMM" making reference to the ssong school children were singing in a classroom. Use of Hussein is still employed by other hosts. It isn't nice, but nobody seems to complain when MSNBC refers to "Willard M. Romey" instead of "Mitt Ronmney">

Those who find the use of Hussein (with a vocal emphasis on the H word) a bit vulgar and tasteless see it as an effort to paint the President as connected with a people and a religion that is unpopular with some
Americans.

If nobody complains about MSNBC folks using Willard, maybe it is because there is not a comparable vulgar and tasteless quality to the quip. The quality of the conversation on MSNBC would probably be slightly more mature without the Willard.