From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:11:21 GMT

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> I believe that the focus of 
>   Rush's show *is* changing and that Rush's goals have recently been shifted 
>   so that entertainment is now subservient to the primary goal which is to 
>   make Clinton look as foolish as possible. Perhaps he believes that those 
>   two goals are one in the same thing, but that's certainly not what his 
>   conservative lady caller thought.

>Of course he thinks making Clinton look foolish is entertaining.  I think
>so too.

    In that case I'm sure that you will continue to be well-satisfied by 
Rush's program, but I would imagine that there are a few people besides 
me who sort of miss homeless updates, condom updates, animal rights 
updates, and calls from the high mountains of New Mexico. I suppose it's 
just too bad that all of that other great material has to sit on the shelf 
so that you and Rush can get your jollies by joking about Clinton telling 
his wife that he needed to use the restroom before she went on with 
whatever she was telling him. I'm not sure if you're married or not, but 
if you are then try walking away from your wife while she's talking to 
you and see what reaction you get. IMHO Bill was only being diplomatic  
so as to preserve his own domestic tranquility. If you think that makes 
Clinton look foolish then I think I would assume that you're either not 
married (like Rush), or that your wife is an angelic telepath.

>       Well, also unfortunately many of his observers on the net are 
>   handicapped by their near-futile attempts to take Rush at his word. For 
>   a long time I believed that there was sufficient evidence to justify 
>   Rush's claim that he's not trying to be a reporter, but his remark last 
>   week about "good reporting" has convinced me that Rush's previous claim 
>   is no longer applicable.

>Let's see if we've got this right.  The man says he has a political
>position, screens his calls so they make him look good and is there to
>make money and we're not supposed to take him at his word?

    Yep, that's Rush.

>  When was the last time the New York times or Dan Rather said they were 
>trying to make money? 

    I'm not aware that I've ever heard Dan Rather or the New York 
Times wasting air time or column space on a point as self-evident and 
unnewsworthy as that one. Of course they're in business to make money.

>What do you want? Do you want him to stop saying he's an entertainer and 
>really claim to be a reporter so you can say "I told you so"?

    What I really want is for Dittoheads to grasp that Rush is both an 
entertainer *and* a political commentator so that when guys like me and 
Tom Peregrin (sp?) come along and point out some of Rush's inconsistencies 
the Dittoheads won't immediately slam us with the bogus argument that 
Rush is just an entertainer and that our sense of humor must be lacking 
just because we disagree with Rush's politics.

    Another thing I really want is for Dittoheads to stop being so freaking 
over-sensitive at hearing criticism of their hero. I agree totally with 
Rush's assertion that liberals are going to have to get used to hearing 
criticism of our people. I definitely don't agree however that we have to 
keep perfect smiles on our faces even when we're responding to petty or 
mean-spirited criticisms just because Rush claims that intended them as 
jokes. Liberals will certainly be punching bags for Rush over the next 
four years, but I don't believe that Democrats have any intention of 
being passive punching bags any more than Republicans were when they held 
the White House.

>       IMHO Rush now views himself as a news reporter in his role as mouthpiece 
>   of the "Loyal Opposition" (as opposed to the old Democratic opposition which 
>   was presumably "Disloyal"). If Rush is still an entertainer then all I can 
>   say is that he's turned into a much more mean-spirited one than he was last 
>   year about this time when he and everyone else thought that Bush had the 
>   election in the bag.

>He may or may not be more mean spirited but I just don't understand your
>problem.  He says he's an entertainer.  Why do you want him to pretend to
>be a reporter????????

    Actually, I'm not interested in Rush pretending to be a reporter any 
more than I'm interested in him pretending to be an entertainer. In the 
final analysis, neither term is sufficient to describe what he does. My 
interest in this discussion has been to try to convince Dittoheads that 
when Tom or I bring up points on which we disagree with Rush that it's not 
automatically a case of liberals having no sense of humor.

    To the extent that some part (perhaps an increasing part) of Rush's 
show is comprised of political commentary I would think that it ought to 
be fair game for Tom and I to give our opinions of what we think about 
the weight and substance of Rush's criticisms. I try not to pick on 
instances where Rush is obviously making a joke, but it's not always 
immediately obvious when jokes begin and political opinion ends.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc