Limbaugh and Levin, and campaign 2016
I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh—or to any talk shows, actually—often. But I’ve listened now and then, often enough—to Limbaugh and also to Mark Levin—to get a basic feel for both of them. For example, I’ve noticed that for about a decade (that’s probably the first time I’d ever listened) Limbaugh has talked with growing rancor about the GOP establishment and how bad it is. I’ve only heard Levin for a few years, but he’s been even more vociferous on that topic.
I’m not saying there isn’t a reason to talk about the GOP’s failures and perceived betrayals—there is—but what I’ve heard has had the effect of fanning the flames of anti-GOP hatred higher and higher. It’s fun for listeners, it draws an audience and fits their mood, and gets the juices flowing. It seems a lot more exciting than talking about dry policy or law or the limitations of what Congress can actually do and all that jazz (which are certainly sometimes talked about as well on these shows). Such discussions feed into an already-existing discontent as well as giving it focus and growing it.
I believe that both Limbaugh and Levin are conservatives. I believe they both thought and still think they were creating a groundswell of popular demand for small government conservatism and respect for the Constitution. I believe they were and are sincere in the desire to do that. But the phenomenon they were instrumental in helping create, or at least to grow, has gone in a very different direction than they probably expected with the Trump phenomenon, and lately they’ve shown signs that they’re not sure how to handle it.
Neither Limbaugh nor Levin is in the habit—it’s against their policy—to formally endorse a candidate. Besides, since their listeners support a variety of candidates, it would alienate some of their listeners and shrink their audience were they to do so. So they won’t say “Yes” or “No” to one or the other candidates; what they do is more subtle. But I think that recently both of them (Levin much more than Limbaugh at this point) have become somewhat frightened by what they see happening, and its threat to the small government they hold dear. The situation is like some famous lines from Goethe, “Die ich rief, die Geister,/Werd ich nun nicht los.” “The spirits which I have summoned/I now cannot banish.”
Levin, who dissed Trump in 2011 but was very genial for a while towards him in 2015, began to get angry recently when Trump started attacking Cruz in Iowa, and then even angrier after Saturday’s debate. Limbaugh seems to be more newly upset about Trump’s anti-Bush remarks last Saturday. But unlike Levin, who is very clear in his disapproval of Trump at this point, Limbaugh tiptoes very gently around the subject.
But the spirits they have summoned they now cannot banish.
I’m not a regular listener to either, but I’ve listened to Levin a handful of times of late (and my son-26 is a daily listener) and I contend that he reports the facts as they are. When he replays Paul Ryan saying one thing while running and notes that it wasn’t ever done–that’s on Paul Ryan, not Mark Levin. Holding our elected officials accountable is obviously a very difficult thing in this bureaucracy. His take on Trump follows my own; thankful that he came along to change the narrative and then disgusted at his foolishness. I never thought Trump was presidential timber and that quickly manifest. So judging the man on the circumstances as they exist seems completely fair. My son sees Mark Levin as a townhall meeting each day. As a family we are Cruz supporters and that is how we will vote, but living in California, it won’t make much difference. I wonder what we would think of the likes of a Samuel Adams or a Thomas Paine in their time. Firebrands, perhaps.
“But the spirits they have summoned they now cannot banish.”
Ain’t that the truth. Or to quote Colin Clive (1931) …”It’s Alive!”
If Trump wins big in SC, then for the good of the country Limbaugh needs to come out hard against Trump. No more game playing.
Limbaugh could easily do a daily “Dirt on Donald” segment starting with the story that Trump told Howard Stern that his sleeping around in the 60s and 70s was his “own personal Vietnam.”
More at The Daily Beast.
To be fair, I don’t believe that Rush or Levin have a lot to do with inception of the Trump phenomenon. True, they’ve both stoked some anti-GOP fires for years, but the whole Trump thing is far more a result of a much broader anger and frustration with the current state of affairs than it is specifically with the GOP.
But it does put them in an awkward situation. They’ve both been so anti-establishment for so long that it’s hard for them to disagree with such a popular anti-establishment candidate without looking a little hypocritical. But it seems even more weird when they defend Trump, especially when they’ve been banging the drum for pure conservative ideology for so many years and Trump is obviously pretty far from a rock-ribbed Conservative.
Rush in particular has been performing this weird dancing act of complimenting certain things about Trump (specifically his willingness to stand by his various unapologetic and un-PC statements, as well as his dealing with the media in general) while avoiding digging too deeply on the positions that he disagrees with (assailing GWBs record for one). Clearly he knows that a large portion of his audience are Trump supporters, so he doesn’t want to drive them away with all sorts of #@% talk about Trump. But he also wants to subtley steer people more towards Cruz or Rubio with offending them.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/16/draft-dodger-trump-said-sleeping-around-was-my-personal-vietnam.html
Because of my own experience with my 3 children; a relatively apolitical daughter who designs in the fashion industry, that lives the conservative values we passed on and votes accordingly every election and 2 sons, one a Marine who listens to Rush Limbaugh regularly and one in the work force who listens to Levin regularly; both of whom could school their peers in the political/social/and economic realities, conforming with those of us that frequent this blog. Hence, I can’t find fault with Limbaugh or Levin. I only wish more millennials interested in politics were regular listeners like our sons, as I believe it likely would have made a difference with regard to Bernie Sanders. Even among our conservative friends and family, the millennials are a confused group with regard to their principles and beliefs.
I used to listen to both regularly, but have dropped them. Levin is brilliant, in my opinion, and could be a very positive voice; but his anger just wore me down.
Limbaugh is also obviously smart. He turned the ability to talk into a fortune, and unlike the Clintons, did not sell his soul to do it. But, there is just a touch too much blow hard. He is still on in our house frequently, because my wife likes to listen to him. (She doesn’t do the internet where she could get more balanced opinion–with effort.)
I think both are sincere in their way; Levin perhaps more so. But, they have become a negative influence. They should realize that the only vehicle currently available to alter the direction of the country lies within the GOP. And like an aircraft carrier at full speed, it takes a lot of space, and time to change direction (I know). So much better if they would endorse candidates in the main stream who are the most closely aligned with their ideology; rather than their frequent “plague on all of them attitude.)
Wish I could agree with you Oldflyer (and boy do I hope you are right and I am wrong), but the only current GOP candidate I have any regard for is Ted Cruz. Imagine you are my sons, shackled in debt up to your eyeballs, incurred while you were a child, or my granddaughter, bound by debt the moment you took your first breath. The GOP is as much responsible for that as any Democrat, so to suggest that, in general, they are the answer. I wish! I wish!
That is IMO a valid point. But was it avoidable?
If Limbaugh, Levin, etc, not spoken out so forcefully about the GOP’s repeated, consistent failures and betrayals (IMO, nothing ‘perceived’ about them) would Ted Cruz have had any chance at all?
Arguably, much of Cruz’s support extends from the perspective that Limbaugh, Levin et al have promulgated. Levin especially has beaten the drum of the absolute necessity for a return to Constitutional governance, the very raison d’éªtre of Cruz’s campaign.
Absent Limbaugh, Levin, etc. fervent expositions, the anger at the GOP might well have continued to percolate below the surface of the larger public’s awareness and, arguably Bush would have been the 2016 republican nominee because GOPe support would have ensured it. Then, whether another democrat or RINO President, “the march to the collective” would continue unabated, the only difference being the rate of march toward the cliff’s edge that awaits.
Well, Limbaugh has been trying to make that same point: the only vehicle for fighting the Left is the Republican Party, and the constitutionalists need to purge the collaborators within the party who have been enabling the Leftists.
He has said many times that the third-party route is a dead end, that it would fatally split our strength. His praise of Trump was confined to commending his bold refusal to back down and cringe when the Leftists attacked him, and saying WE should do likewise — in that specific regard.
He has also been dismayed that the Trump supporters’ eyes weren’t opened by Trump’s crazy 9-11 accusations at the Saturday debate, and said so yesterday and today.
One of his callers really got under his skin yesterday: she expressed admiration for him, then basically said she didn’t understand why he wasn’t a more full-throated supporter of Cruz. Boiling it down (transcripts available on his website), his bottom line seems to be his frustration that Emotion is what’s moving the electorate, not reasoned, principled arguments.
So, he hasn’t been a “supporter” of Trump so much as a supporter of adopting the tactics in the Trump toolkit that are effective against the Left.
I didn’t start listening to Rush because I wanted to be informed. I began listening because he articulated the utter disgust with the Republican establishment I was already feeling.
He hasn’t mentioned, but I am suggesting to others that if the R’s don’t act as they talk then voters should simply abstain from voting for them. I will support McCain’s primary opponent but if he wins the primary I refuse to vote for him. I don’t care if a Democrat takes the seat. It couldn’t be any worse than it is. They despise and heap scorn on those who vote for them. It’s time to return it to sender. I hope Ryan voters are beginning to think along the same lines.
Nonapod. Rush always does a funny little dance. He calls himself anti-establishment, even as he brags about his personal jet, and his golf outings. Think he plays with the hoi poloi?
I would not be a bit surprised if Limbaugh and Trump were neighbors in Palm Beach in the rarified atmosphere where only very rich anti-establishment folks hang out. Wouldn’t be surprised if they shared a round of golf from time to time.
I have posted before, that these guys who rail against the establishment are about as establishment as they come. And were born to it. (You can check Limbaugh’s and Trump’s roots easily enough) Theirs is just a little different establishment from those who have survived and prospered in the political arena.
One of many great ironies is that Trump was born to a level of wealth most of us will never see, he went to private Prep schools, elite colleges, and was handed a business in due course. Yep. Anti-establishment. He had a more gilded youth than anyone in the race, except for Jeb.
I don’t listen to Levin as often (good arguments, but too much Yelling, and that accent!). But his constitutional convention idea, I think, won’t work: it relies on the power of the Rule of Law, and our enemies on the Left respecting that (insert horselaugh). It also would mean that the government numpties with all this power would vote to have their own power curtailed, or accept such an outcome. Not gonna happen through parliamentary procedure.
I know he quibbles with the description “constitutional convention,” but in the plain English sense of “…of, or having to do with, the Constitution,” it is.
I also see both these men as more riding the wave than creating it, a point RL tried to make again today. RL has an estimated audience of 20 million, and ML one of ~ 7 million, I believe; so their influence/educational potential is great. In that, they both do public service, as they do try to keep the principles of the Republic and our Constitution alive and in view. They also both fight the Memory Hole tactic — the Left’s propensity to stuff inconvenient truths down their Memory Hole and burn them — by reminding the audience of historical facts the Left wants us to forget.
Oldflyer: Levin definitely endorses candidates. His anger doesn’t bother me. I just find listening to his show depresses me because he makes you realize what damage is being done to our country.
Gomer and Goober have no more loosed the spirits than they have any qualifications as conservatives — excepting in the contemporary meaning of the word — someone who will fold faster than it takes to make an origami figure.
Small government conservatism is a chimera, a delusion. Invoking the platitude for the sake of inspiring platidudinous lack of depth is so pathetic it doesn’t warrant a comment. Who in this nation believes government can get smaller? How many in this nation believe government ought get smaller?
Salt the halls with conservatives galore, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and in ten years time the government will be bigger and with greater purview then it already is, and has. The notion that the game’s afoot and will be played out ‘til the end seems, still, incomprehensible to folks — or is it they know what’s coming but would rather disremember. The government is a tsunami and there’s no stopping it but by having it crash. Happily, or luckily, we will not be alone.
Oldflyer, I agree that Limbaugh is as rich as Croesus, lives in Palm Beach, and golfs with other rich men. (Part of that is a security issue; it would be dangerous for him and some of these other folks to mix much with crowds.)
He has, however, been consistently conservative, starting when he was growing up, and continuing through his long spell of sputtering and getting fired from various radio jobs. I think he’s sincere about that.
I think the dancing around comes from trying to stay on that peak he’s reached, while still supporting his POV. Not easy to do. He also got “spanked” when he supported HW Bush vs. Clinton, openly; Bush lost that one. He hasn’t, I don’t think, endorsed a candidate since (but I’ve only listened to him for the last 2-3 years).
Levin, on the other hand, has Angry Firebrand as his trademark, so he makes much of being willing to call it like he sees it, giving it to ya with the bark on.
“Salt the halls with conservatives galore, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and in ten years time the government will be bigger and with greater purview then it already is, and has.” JurassiCon Rex
By ‘conservatives’ I presume you mean actual conservatives. By “salt the halls” I presume you mean an unassailable majority of conservatives.
Give me (there are many others) that majority and I will cut this government to the bone, eliminating entire departments, thousands of regulations and a myriad of entitlements. And, when violent protests erupt, the blood that runs in the streets will be that of the rioters. With the ‘professional’ agitators targeted.
Sometimes and we are increasingly closer to be one of those times and Cromwell’s ‘solution’ is the only means of returning sanity to a house divided beyond repair. The far left will never stop, not that is until permanently ‘stopped’.
“JurassiCon Rex” appears to be a Cloward-Piven of the right.
Geoffrey, couldn’t agree with you more! Amen Brother. Survey after survey, poll after poll will tell you that a majority of American’s favor smaller government, that is until you wan to cut one of their pet projects or branches of the government. The only way to truly get the government smaller is to get as many true conservatives into the halls of congress and pull the country kicking and screaming down that path.
alt-Right ≠Right – at least not until the alt-Right insurgency displaces mainstream conservatives of the Right and re-brands as “conservatives” like leftists re-branded as “liberals” once they displaced mainstream liberals.
Beverly:
“So, [Limbaugh] hasn’t been a “supporter” of Trump so much as a supporter of adopting the tactics in the Trump toolkit that are effective against the Left.”
I agree with Limbaugh, as you describe his point, but I’ll quibble with the implication that there is only one way of activism.
The Trump campaign adapts the Left activist playbook. But activism is a workshop of tools, not just one toolkit. You can tailor activist gameplay to your taste, though of course, the controlling standard is the competition in the arena, not your comfort zone.
Which is to say, adopting activism doesn’t mean you must mimic the Left like the Trump-front alt-Right activists.
For the Trump-front alt-Right activists, it makes sense to mimic the Left. Left activism is proven effective against the GOP and mainstream conservatives of the Right, which are the targets for the alt-Right insurgency.
To quibble with Limbaugh (via Beverly), mainstream conservatives wouldn’t be playing against themselves, so it wouldn’t be the same strategic assessment for the Right as it is for the alt-Right.
When I was a counter-Left activist, I didn’t cargo-cult the typically dirty nasty gameplay of the Left activists I competed against, though our teams tracked similar principles in the arena. And my team won.
As Limbaugh understands, based on Beverly’s take, participatory politics subsume electoral politics. The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. However they shape their gameplay, mainstream conservatives under attack by Democrat-front Left activists and Trump-front, Left-mimicking alt-Right activists need to team up ASAP and start playing the activist game in earnest.
Geoffrey Britain,
Were it in my power I would give you that majority and would pray you kept your word. As for the Establishmentarians (GOP/Cons) I wouldn’t have them in any position of power at whatever discount.
Neo-neocon,
Madam, you have confused me with the idealists? I am not an idealist. Just as no true Scotsman would happily eat haggis no true conservative would be an idealist. The true conservative is well aware of life’s vicissitudes and does not moan for relief but prays for strength and does not think himself owed much of anything excepting respect for his God given rights. I leave you with this to remember me by:
In a credulous world hysterical with idealism, the indispensable man is the observer of what is so and what is not, the sane man – the cynic, the conservative, the man of the right, the traditionalist.
Beverly:
“Limbaugh has been trying to make that same point: the only vehicle for fighting the Left is the Republican Party”
That’s wrong. Unless he means it in the sense that at this point the GOP is the only viable counter-Left vehicle for the Right.
If he means it in the sense that the GOP can only be or should only be the sole counter-Left vehicle for the Right, then that’s wrong.
The Right needs to grow a full-spectrum activist social movement ASAP (like, years ago) that’s distinct from the GOP. It can and should work with the GOP, but it shouldn’t repeat the Tea Party error of diverting into, then limiting to the GOP. It should outgrow the GOP, instead.
JurassiCon Rex:
Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word “idealist”in that Cloward-Piven article. Let me attempt to clarify.
You wrote:
That, of course, is NOT idealistic.
Then you wrote [emphasis mine]:
In my “Cloward-Pivens of the right” essay, I had written:
Now, perhaps I was misinterpreting the meaning of your phrase “there’s no stopping it but by having it crash. Happily, or luckily, we will not be alone.” But what I thought you were saying—and what many many people who have commented on this blog in the past have said—is that there is no hope in saving the government and making it smaller (a pessimistic thought), don’t even try to save it and let the whole thing destruct so that something better might rise from the ashes (there’s the idealism).
Again, Neo permitting, and for the third time …Give them this YouTube link. Give it to everyone you know.
Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington
“But the spirits they [Limbaugh and Levin] have summoned they now cannot banish.”
I think Neo mistakes these two surfers for the wave on which they ride.
People with free choice do not listen to radio they do not like. I will not listen to rap, for example, when I can find classical (real) music a few mHz away.
Carpenters renovating my home listened to Rush 20 years ago, while I read the NYT. One day at noon I checked on their progress, and heard this man echoing thoughts of mine own. Lo! It was Rush.
Rush is like-minded to many, which is the basis of his (necessarily commercial) success. Same for Levin.
They stand in bold contrast to tax-funded NPR and PBS, with their soft, seductively reasonable-sounding twisters of truth.
Both men do their homework well and communicate their thoughts and findings well. One learns more about the Constitution from Levin than anywhere else, and his words are heard. No responsible person has ever suggested he tells falsehoods. One may complain about his “Washington comPost” and “New York Slimes” but that is trivial, No?
To lay the responsibility for the Trump phenomenon at their doorsteps is like blaming the Koch brothers for our economic miseries, as the Left has done and does; Koch is the only name mentioned as greedy, manipulative billionaires, never Soros or Gates or Buffett or Jobs or….the list of the un-named goes on.
boxty Says:
February 17th, 2016 at 3:49 pm
In my opinion Levin is the ONLY talk radio who truly appreciates the extreme peril we are in.
What was that old leftist saying in the 60s? “If you’re not outraged you’re not paying attention.”
Neo-neocon,
Truly, I haven’t it in mind that the whole thing should destruct. I have it in mind that it will destruct – and will do so without consulting me. As long as they have their mits on the all levers the government will not relent, will not reform, will not repent, will not retreat, will not what they ought. If you and others believe otherwise, you are welcome to the belief. I hope you are right and I am wrong. But I have yet to witness, or read of, nor have I ever heard of a society, a civilization, – so warped by its civic establishment — having survived without a collapse. Rome was not so bad off as we are; they were merely debauched. France was not so bad off as we are; they’d eventually found their heads. The Soviets were not so bad off as we are; they merely fell for Marxism. We, on the other hand, will swallow anything and everything and do so every day — not the least of which is – this Kool-aid is different.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/surprise-trump-falls-behind-cruz-national-nbc-wsj-poll-n520296
Trump and Rubio have their guns aimed at Cruz.
The above poll is the reason.
No doubt their own internal polling showed the same shocking flip.
Going after W. was a DISASTER for Trump.
Sharon W wrote:
and
RE 1: You are not alone.
RE 2: Speaking on behalf of America: Thank you, thank you, thank you for wonderful work in raising your progeny.
I saw somewhere that GW had returned fire at Trump, but have not found any details.
Oh, I hope it is true. GW is such a gentleman, thanks to his upbringing, but he is a tough guy. Go get ’em Bushie.
Off topic, but I really grind my teeth when I hear GHW described as soft. As a Naval Aviator (in the distant past) I do not accept that one who wore the golden wings is “soft”, much less one who went into flight training at 18, and then went to war, flying off of the relatively tiny escort carriers.
JurassiCon Rex,
Oh, eventually it would have to collapse, if history is a guide.
But that’s different from willing a collapse, looking forward to a collapse, hastening a collapse, or surrendering to a collapse. I’ve seen so many commenters over the years doing one or more of these (particularly the “hasten” part). I’m glad it seems to not be the case that you’re among them.
When he talks about Trump Limbaugh’s voice rise and he sounds excited and it drops when he talks about Cruz. By now it is apparent that Limbaugh is disgusted by Trump’s attacks from the left on GWB and Cruz but his voice is still conveys much more excitement when he talks about Trump than when he talks about anyone else. Today a caller challenged Limbaugh because Limbaugh spends much more time talking about Trump than about the other candidates. Limbaugh acted surprised and denied that it ha been happening.
boxty is correct, Levin does a lot of endorsements. Rubio in FL when he was polling in single digits against Crist, Cruz in TX against Dewhurst, etc. He’s gotten it wrong sometimes,too -when he endorsed Hatch in UT last time and is now furious with him. Rush has a policy of no primary endorsements.
I do think Rush should have been more critical of Trump early on. I think he got carried away in his enthusiasm, thrilled at how Trump was able to triumph over the usual media narrative. That is a really big thing for Rush since he fights against the MSM, also.
I and probably many other listeners have been bored and disappointed and dismayed with how much time he has spent defending Trump.
However, I presume that you are aware that a big criticism/slander from the left is that people who imbibe hate radio are a much of dummies that sit around being told what to think. I presume you don’t really think that, but you sound like you’re wandering into that territory.
Rush is an entertainer. Yes, he is often an astute observer of the national scene, and was for many years a lonely voice for conservatism. But he refused to differentiate between trump the life long con man, ever changing his tune, to fit the times, and real conservatives, most notably Cruz. Levin is a brilliant Constitutional scholar, but he lacks the ability to rein in his impulses. It does Levin or anyone any good to go off half cocked.
Follow either at your own peril.
KLSmith:
I just don’t like talk radio and rarely listen; don’t watch that much TV news either. I prefer to read.
As for what I think of talk show radio listeners, there are all kinds, thinking, following, and in-between. But I do think that people who listen to a particular talk show host often must be doing that for a reason. Either they agree with that person a lot already, and/or they respect his opinion (in which case they are likely to follow what he says). At any rate, most people are influenced by what they hear (and read). There is a self-selection effect at the outset, and then a continuing selection effect, and an influence effect in terms of the host and in terms of the listeners (and call-ins) as a community. It’s real, and it happens with any voluntary group like that.
Thinking for oneself is not all that common among people in general, I’ve found.
Dennis:
Isn’t Trump a golf buddy of Limbaugh’s? Wouldn’t that affect the situation?
Really have no idea if it’s that deep. Imagine a fair amount of listeners come and go. I have the radio on mostly out of habit.
One of the first talkers I came across, back in the day, was G Gordon Liddy. Came across it while trying to find something on the radio besides pop music, rap, or the same news repeated every ten minutes. I had not had my conversion yet, so I started listening in a “what is this right wing nut talking about” sort of way. Kept listening for a bit because he had some good authors on talking about their books. At some point, I realized some of what he was saying actually made sense. Coinciding with my changing process that I wasn’t fully cognizant of yet. At some point, probably before he changed time/station and then retired, I realized he was way too much of a misogynist for me to want to listen to anymore.
Anyway, I doubt if most people are sitting there staring at the radio hanging on every word and most of them certainly aren’t any dimmer or more gullible than people that watch TV all day. And I’ve never quite understood why anybody wants to wait on hold for a couple of hours for a chance to get a few minutes on the air.
neo-neocon at 12:13 am
“Isn’t Trump a golf buddy of Limbaugh’s? Wouldn’t that affect the situation?”
May be. For what it’s worth, my wife told me that she heard that Mark Levin knew Donald when he was a boy hanging around his father’s law office. Apparently Levin’s father was Trump’s lawyer. Because of the way Trump has been acting in his campaign, Levin has turned against Trump.
Obviously, Rush’s primary job is to be an entertainer, but he has been very influential because he is deeply committed to human freedom and he usually has good instincts about people. He initially supported Trump because Trump was breaking down the politically correct barriers which have hedged in our freedom of speech. Since Trump has jumped the rails Rush is more critical of him and probably prefers Cruz. That makes the unintentional irony all the more jarring when his tone and cadence support Trump while his words convey disappointment.
Concerning the charge that Rush’s listeners are mindlessly following him, I’d say that he is effective in changing opinions. However, he is a very intelligent man who wins people over to his point of view through carefully reasoned arguments not by bullying them or slandering them. Usually, when the left makes an accusation against the right they are projecting their own odious behavior onto their opponents and that is the case here. A man with such a large listening audience undoubtedly does have among his listeners weak minded people who are unduly influenced by him, but that number is certainly small when compared to the horde of weak minded people who mindlessly follow the left.
Dennis: Levin’s dad is not a lawyer.
After thinking about it some more, I would hold Sean Hannity and some of the people at Fox that gave Trump so much air time and encouragement as equally or even more culpable than Limbaugh and Levin.
Dennis, my take on Rush is similar to yours. I think what happened with him was that, on an all-too-human level, he got excited to see Trump landing some powerhouse blows on the Auld Enemy — Rush has been like a guy in a barroom brawl, taking on all comers, and he FINALLY had someone standing beside him and landing EFFECTIVE punches! Exhilarating!
I sense that his frustration with Cruz is that Cruz, though he has golden opinions and a first-rate mind, he hasn’t been able to punch the Leftists where it hurts — at least not yet. It’s an emotional thing with RL.
As to why I listen to him: there are two reasons. Emotional: I live in Manhattan, and it’s so damn soothing to hear someone voice, often with humor, my very frustration and scorn for the Left. Intellectual: Limbaugh is an astute observer of the prevailing Zeitgeist, and a keen understanding of man as a political animal. He often has insights that I hear from no one else. Also, he has a wide knowledge base and, with his research folks (I understand he only has a small staff but does a great deal of reading), he’ll bring up facts and history that I don’t know, or don’t remember in detail. So it’s interesting.
And lastly, when I’m beavering around the house doing stuff, it’s nice to have Limbaugh or Levin to keep my mind occupied. YMMV. 🙂
Sean Hannity is a nice man and means well, God help him, but he’s Hopeless as a debater. I can’t listen to him. He whiffs the ball, digs divots, and hares off after random squirrels. Maddening!
If Cruz wins, he’ll need all of us patriotic citizens to rally to the flag. He mentioned, with some amusement, this poster that a California artist created (without Cruz’s involvement):
https://www.etsy.com/listing/182952541/ted-cruz-blacklisted-and-loving-it?ref=market
Cruz joked that he had one quibble with the image’s accuracy — “I don’t smoke.”
KLSmith Says at 3:06 am
“Dennis: Levin’s dad is not a lawyer.”
I’ll ask my wife when she wakes up what she said. I may have misunderstood her.
One thing about talk radio is that you may hear of an issue for the first time. Then, if you’ve a mind, you check it out.
Dennis: I believe his parents may have been shopkeepers. His dad has illustrated a couple of kids books. You can probably see them on marklevinshow.com.
I agree with the several previous commenters who have made the observation that Limbaugh over identified with Trump’s willingness to be so politically incorrect. Rush, on occasion, has been positively giddy in his enthusiasm about Trump getting away with stuff. I figured it was because he (Limbaugh) had gotten so much pushback during the Sandra Fluke brouhaha. However, Rush’s willingness to overlook all the liberal positions Trump has taken has done a lot of damage because he helped give Trump wings.
Rush is still pandering to the Trumpers. Today he is very proud of his claim yesterday that Trump’s truther accusations about W in the last debate is because he is looking to the general election. That of course is old news, Neo posted about it here on Feb 14, but he is now quoting some recent Trump bloviations that he claims support this.
I am really disappointed in Rush. He is unwilling to take even a few percentage points drop in his ratings to try to stop this truly dangerous crackpot.
BTW, I am definitely not a big follower of any talk shows. I listen to them for a few minutes between other activities. I like them necause they do present news that are ignored by the MSM.
Both Limbaugh and Levin are Constitutional Conservatives. As such, they regularly discuss Constitutional Conservatism. In doing so, they highlight the obvious — the GOP is no longer a Conservative institution when it comes to the Constitution. That is the only kind of conservatism that matters.