Mousethief,

Your point is succinct, well made and taken. I think his humor is unwise and often tasteless--and in my opinion juvenile (his references to breasts and other body parts often comes across no better than junior high school bathroom humor). I do think that the evolution of his show and its popularity does explain much of why this is. He tries to counter both the overwhelming imbalance in both the entertainment and news media. To the conservative of the 80's there was a void in non-boring ways to talk about issues that mattered to them. It had the reputation of being the domain of the stuffy. The liberal perspective, while not unified, had a two-armed stranglehold on public sentiment. The entertainment media could be irreverent, non-factual, biting (would anyone want to BE Quayle?), and a useful tool to sway public thinking. It was capable of marginalizing conservative thought by humorously making it seem extreme and the realm of the kooky. At the same time, the news media was capable of slanting most news stories because they have maintained the illusion of impartiality (Who would believe that Jim Lehrer was as ideologically driven as Rush Limbaugh?--He's just a news man right?). Whether wisely or un Rush was able to fill that void but as you have noted, one can't be the irreverent humorist and also be taken seriously without some fallout. As to whether he "leads" his listeners or not, generally they are angry with him a good share of the time--he's either being too extreme for their tastes or not extreme enough--believe it or not the right is at least as diverse as the left. These are just my observations from 10 years of off and on listening. Incidentally, I won't disavow him but I am among the number that OFTEN disagrees with him. He does however, reflect news sources that often vary from the mainstream and I have many times found them to be more accurate. I find it of value to hear more than one side. Hey, I'm here ain't I? :)