From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:44:01 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham) writes:
>>>Rush's show is not a forum for Republicans, a news show (though it does 
>>>feature current events), or an attack on the Liberals of this country.

>>    I see. Is that why Rush so often repeats his signature catch-phrase 
>>that liberalism is "heinous"? Is that why Rush's show which "has no guests" 
>>has recently hosted discussions with several influential Republicans 
>>(ncluding Bush, Quayle, Buchanan, and Bennett)?

>Rush makes no secret about the agenda of his program. He is a self-described
>convervative commentator.

    Quite so. I agree.

>>    Is that why Rush spent several minutes in yesterday's show practically 
>>sputtering that he couldn't believe that a whole 2% of his Monday poll 
>>respondants were "stupid and idiotic" enough to say that they plan to 
>>vote for Clinton? Since I plan to vote for Clinton I found that segment 
>>more than a little insulting.

>You were supposed to.

    Perhaps so. I have to say that I've found it ironic in the last 2 days 
as Rush tries to elicit calls from Clinton supporters saying that he's 
not going to try to trap them or call them names (not for a little while, 
at least; not to their faces, but rather politely after they've left the air 
and can't respond any more).

>Make no mistake about it. Rush, and a healthy percentage of his mostly
>conservative audience, have no love lost for liberalism.

    Neither do I. I'm a liberal, but I'm also a cynic and I have no 
illusions about the nobility of liberalism or the Democratic party. Neither 
do I have any love lost for conservatism. I have no illusions about the 
nobility of their cause either. I guess the difference between Rush and 
me is that I don't go around saying that large segments of the US public 
are stupid on the one hand, and then go around saying that name-calling is 
a trait of the other guys. I also don't tell people that I'm going to 
refrain from name-calling and then start doing it as soon as their backs 
are turned. At this point I would have a little more respect for Rush's 
intellectual honesty if he would call some of these Clinton supporters 
stupid idiots to their faces (or at least to their ears since he can't 
see their faces).

>If you don't like it, *why* do you listen? 

    Rush's show runs the gamut. Sometimes it's light-hearted and amusing. 
Lately it's been fairly heavy and despondant. Rush just can't believe that 
his beloved American public would let Clinton even get this far and he's 
now convinced that the issues they think are important aren't even issues.
This is the line he's been repeating over and over like a mantra between 
each call. The call comes in. The Clinton supporter lists his/her issues. 
Rush tells him/her that those aren't issues (silly little stuff like 
abortion and the economy), and then he repeats his mantra again. "Bill 
Clinton cannot win on issues... Bill Clinton cannot win on issues..."

    This in itself is sort of amusing in a strange heart-wrenching way. 
Rush is taking this election much too hard. I forget where I heard this 
advice, but I think that maybe it applies; Rush should "Lighten up".

>*Why* are you posting to Rush related newsgroup. 

    Can you suggest a better place for a Rush-related post?

>If someone got on my nerves that bad, I simply wouldn't listen/watch/read.

    Normally I find Rush very amusing; he's just been moody recently and 
it seems to have affected his form. 

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