Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore's letter to Bush
From:
John Hardly
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:48 PM
I think Rick overstates the case a bit, but I will concede that Rush's strength of argument is in his control of the program. He doesn't debate politics well. He does a little better discussing and debating the philosophical underpinnings, in that he has a pretty good grasp of what matters to conservatives....and more to the point, liberals -- he understands what matters to them, but more important, what gets under their skin.
Interesting, but Rush's pre-war (remember back then? *waxing nostalgic*) programs were almost exclusively anti-Bush. His programs were almost entirely devoted to Bush's weakness in dealing with the then Senate majority, and his almost total aquescence to their agenda. Many of his callers were apoplectic with his anti-bushness.
He doesn't refer to feminists as "feminazis". He refers to a particular "brand" of feminist as "feminazi" -- those whose main focus is pro abortion -- and who are "militant" about it.
As to whether or not Moore and Limbaugh are mirror images of each other, I think you'd have to agree with Moore not to see the parallels. I tend to give Moore the leg up in the "sophistication of humor" category (I think Rush's humor is pretty juvenile and have come to think it hurts more than helps, though it was his foot in the door 15 years ago when no conservative was trying to sell conservative shtick). In terms of accuracy I would say they are both fast and loose with facts. And hey, for what it's worth, they don't have a college degree between 'em.
I think there is an almost strange "rushophobia" that has developed around the guy. Almost clinical to have so many hold such strong negative opinions, when so few of those opinions are based in actually listening to, or reading him (they are almost exclusively developed through the rushophobia network of books and internet info about him).
|
sj
