Now a Word from Rush Limbaugh

It will be a miracle if Barak Obama wins the election.

 

I know he has the entire Democratic Party on his side, most of the ethnic communities, and much of the mainstream media—not to mention the whole world and quite possibly the almighty and everlasting God. That is quite a coalition.

 

But blocking the Obama Express is a great host of right wing advocates known as radio talk show hosts. They are, as the book of Revelation says of another gathering, “an exceedingly great multitude which no man can number.”

 

Three of them talked their way into my irritation as I drove to Cincinnati this week, and I am telling you again, it will be a miracle if Osama Obama, as one of their listeners tagged him, garners even a third of the ballots casts. My, it was nasty.

 

First it was Leland Conway. He is on Lexington station 630am WLAP. I know Leland; in a former life he shared a microphone with me on my public radio program, The Meetinghouse: Conversations on Religion and American Life. Now, he shares the time and space with very few, except those who think Obama is a Muslim, a Communist, a Liar, a Terrorist, a Deceiver, or the Devil himself. His rant is loud, reckless, and ruthless; more than once I wanted to place a call and challenge some off-the-wall assertion.

 

Leland is followed by the incomparable Rush Limbaugh, the godfather of self-absorbed gab holding forth on a bazillion stations across the fruit plains. What used to be considered rude, crude, and socially unacceptable he says with arrogant glee—and, of course, with economic success. His program was non-stop ridicule of Barak Obama—a toxic paradigm for every public square; I wonder what this style of communication would do if it came to dominate conversation in schools, churches, communities, and city councils.

 

Finally, I drove into the listening area of Bill Cunningham, sounding out from WLW, the 50-000 clear channel station in Cincinnati. It was more of the same. At least Mo could be distinguished from Larry and Curley by what did or did not sprout on the top of his head. Not these stooges. They were all alike: overly emotional, obsessed with disgust for Obama, fuming with righteous indignation, posturing like proverbial prophets crying in the wilderness.

 

Redistribution of wealth was the subject de jour. All three went straight from wealth redistribution to Communism, pretending they had never heard of food stamps, disability, social security, the GI bill, or even public schools—just a few of the many ways in which money is taken from those who have it to assist those who do not. But insinuation is more marketable than sanity, and facts are no match for the twenty-four-seven fantasy spewing forth from the mouths of these airwave authorities.

 

With that much airtime devoted to his destruction, it is amazing that Obama is even competitive in this political contest. These radio voices complain about the mainstream media; but I know of no public media—print, radio, network, cable, or even the web—as arrogant and irrational as the men who monopolize the daytime airwaves up and down Interstate 75.

Advertisements

9 comments so far

  1. Greg Magruder on

    You forgot Michael Savage too. I have some competitors for Rush and his bunch: my city commissioners. Except it is the opposite extreme.

  2. Jinny Vicroy on

    You are entitled to your opinion and since it is your blog you are in the right. However, other people differ in their political views for a variety of reasons. I have my own reasons for not wanting Obama. They have nothing to do with what you have addressed. I also think that you can’t decide who God wants in the office of President. That is not your call. God has allowed you an opinion and you are to free to express it. You know, the whole free will thing He is so fond of. You may preface your opinion about who you think God wants in the office. Remember your opinions are opinions. Everyone is allowed an opinion. They are not facts. You are certainly stirred up about this issue. That is how it should be. You are a voting American. Please do not negate someone else’s viewpoint just because it differs from yours. I think the controversy is good because it does get people to think. Perhaps more people will vote. That is the general idea of a democracy, get involved. VOTE. BE AWARE. BE INVOLVED.

  3. Lesley Krieger on

    “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” 1 Corinthians 13:1 They are clanging cymbals. Right or wrong in thier “facts” it does more harm than good to public discourse. I’m with you Dwight!

  4. Camille Haggard on

    Do you really think that Rush, et.al., have that much influence in this country? The only thing they are effective on is calling the media on false reporting and/or exaggerations. The people who listen to these people have already made up their minds. They have the same leanings and beliefs. The people who aren’t afficianados of Rush, etc., don’t ever listen to him. The main stream media are much more subtle (as I noted in your comment about the media, it must just fly over your head or you completely agree with the main stream media so you don’t see the bias. Just this morning, NBC’s Today Show again showed Mrs. McCain in her dress the night McCain accepted the nomination and said, “It is reported that this dress cost in the six figures.” Now, this is the same NBC that had to retract that statement the day after the nomination after it was proved that the dress cost $300. So now they desperately bring it up again and this time the phrase “It is reported that..” What a blatant lie! What a despicable attempt to turn people against McCain! It’s on every major media network. And then there’s Acorn and their fraudulent activities and now there’s judges allowing homeless people to vote without an ID, just a bench no. in the park. I think it’s outrageous that we have NO media that reports the truth or attempts to enlighten the citizenry. But to already blame Rush, etc., is to give them too much credit. Rush influenced no one when Bill Clinton won, by a landslide! Also today it is reported that liberal actresses/authors, etc are claiming that if O. doesn’t win that there will be blood in the streets! Is that intimidation or what? We get who we pick and we will suffer the consequences later.

  5. Carl Peters on

    One of the beautiful things about radios and televisions is that you can change the channel. While you are upset that Mr. Obama has been demonized by the right, as you have outlined, are you equally angered by the vitriol aimed at Sarah Palin? Our country has a long history of colorful political discourse. I refer you to the political cartoons of the 1800s. This is not to condone the tone of the discussion in our country, but I celebrate the fact that we are free to have it. Recently Joe Biden informed an Orlando television station that certain questions were inappropriate and should not have been asked. His campaign informed the station that they would be granted no more interviews. Now that is the more disturbing development. More discussion is good in a free country – whether you agree with the content or not. Cutting off discussion is “chilling” and smacks of far away countries tucked behind walls. I say – if you don’t like it – change the channel. But don’t stifle free speech and expression.

  6. Rob McPherson on

    1. Their audience is pretty small. The main stream media mkt.is thousands of times bigger. Their listners are already right-wingers.
    2. As was pointed out- change the channel. Or perhaps you were having some subconscious misgivings about the second coming and your deep brain would not allow your hand to do so?
    3. Everybody in this thing has an agenda, for 99% of them it’s -surprise- MONEY. General Electric owns NBC, CNBC, & MSNBC who are all clearly “in the bag” for the Messiah. GE will make untold billions off of the promised “Cap&Trade Act”.
    4. Fear not Dr. Moody. House Speaker Nancy and Senate Leader Harry have the “Fairness Act” just waiting. It previously did not pass. It says that a radio station that carries Rush&Co will have to give equal time to the other side. The other side tried “Air America” nationwide. Unfortunately, the other side has no audience in that venue (maybe they can’t hear) and ad money quickly disappeared as did Air America. Funny thing about free markets. As Nancy & Harry already know this, their plan will effectively shut down Rush&Co. Of course it’s not much of a step further for them to one day come and pull you out of your church pulpit, is it. The annointed one might take offence at all the time spent on a lesser deity.

  7. Tad on

    Isn’t it interesting that truth and facts always seem to “grate” on many liberals ears? Then they are very quick to try and impose censorship on the people through the “fairness doctrine” so they don’t have to listen to the facts.

    The liberal news media failed in the market place because by and large they can’t attract an audience. With the exception of liberal “shock” radio hosts like Howard Stern and Imus they have not been able to sustain enough listener base to stay finincially viable. This is capitalism at its best. The market place determines who is going to survive.

    Unfortunately thios doesn’t seem to hold true with the “mainstream” media. I wonder if it has something to do with their more sublime lying to their audiences. Unless you are well educated and able to see past the half truths and deliberate omissions that the mainstream media constantly presents its audience you are going to be very misinformed.

    As far as the fairness doctrine, perhaps every news program / network ought to have to “declare” their political affiliation and who they are supporting. That way the audience will know exactly where they are all coming from. Then we can watch the process of natural selection in the market place and see the main stream media die off one by one.

  8. dmoody on

    I have no interest in censorship, only in accuracy and consideration; these are essential in cultivating civility in the public square. One of the causes of the hostility in American public life is the rudeness and crudeness in public rhetoric.

    Conservative talk show hosts attract an audience in part because they are speak in extremes, they use hyperpbole, they say things ordinary people do not have the nerve to say, much like Stern. both the right and the left can gained an audience with such antics. There are plenty of conservative commentators, on the air and in print, who reject the kind of rhetoric employed by the radio talk show people to gain an audience and make a lot of money. In some respects it is like the old freak show at the carnival; people would go to see people say things, do things that ordinary people would consider inappropriate. In the same category are many of the reality shows on TV. We gawk, and can’t believe that people would say that or do that. This attraction has little to do with conservative or liberal labels, only with style.

    I do not think journalists who work for NBC, NBC or CBC are lying to the public any more than I think FOX people are lying.

    And before you criticize “fairness” doctrines, consider the sustained campaign by conservatives to change NPR to include what they call a more balanced diet.

    And on a more personal note: I remember when Paige Patterson, now president of Southwestern Seminary, wrote an article at the beginning of the famous Battle for control of the Southern Baptist Convention, about 1979. He published the article in the journal of New Orleans Seminary, charging the SBC seminaries were full of liberals; all the conservatives wanted was “fairness” and “balance” in faculty appointments. It seems reasonable, doesn’t it? but as soon as the conservatives got in control of boards of trustees, they fired most if not all of the faculty who did not support their inerrancy crusade and now the SBC seminaries are more monollithic, more consistency right wing than they ever were progressive; in other words, the goal of “balance” flew out the door when the conservatives got to call the shots.

    Mostly, in religion and in politics, it is about power.

    And finally: the market is not the final arbitrator of what is true and false, right and wrong. The “market” likes pornography; 25% of all web sites are pornographic. That is the market; but conservatives are the first to repudiate the market when it does not go their way. The “market” has brought the collapse of the housing market, and the government has had to step in. Conservatives are no more committed to the market than liberals; consider the price supports for milk, grain, and all sorts of American products; hardly the “market.”

    You write: “The market determines who is going to survive.” That sounds like economic darwinism to me; are you sure you want to endorse darwinism in the marketplace?

  9. irabird on

    Unlike my generous friend Moody, I think the FOX people are deliberately distorting truth to promote their point of view, even as Keith Oberman does on MSNBC.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: