Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Good for Rush. That needed to be said, to put the kerfluffle into perspective.
I suppose when conservatives give voice to a drug addicted college drop-out disc jockey, the Miers nomination makes perfect sense in an intellectual way.
Jim: Conservatives didn't give Limbaugh his voice. He got what he has on his own, by sheer ability to put things into words. If he did that without much education and on drugs, that only proves him to be more of a genius. No one else has been able to come close to him. I'm not saying I agree with him about that many things, but disrespecting his skill is absurd.
"Give voice to" was indeed a poor choice of words on my part. I wanted to make a statement more along the lines of conservatives listening to him and holding him up, but my words did not convey that.I do not disrespect his skills. I respect them a great deal, just as I respect the skills and entrepreneurial instincts of snake oil salesmen in days gone by. In my comment I reduced him to three items. In his piece he claimed that democrats lack ideas and reduced Clinton to three things. Suggesting that Clinton lacks ideas is nonsense and unfair to conservatives. (Compare Ramesh Ponnuru's piece in todays NYT). I find Limbaugh uncompelling intellectually. So I resort to ad hominems because I think that is mostly what he is about.As an aside, I think an undergraduate education is greatly overvalued in this country. Whenever somebody whines about a college athlete leaving school before graduation, I ask them how many microsoft products they use and whether Gates should have stayed in school.
Jim, you should listen to his show sometime just to see what it's like. It's really not just an ad hominem fest. Plus, he treats his callers better than any other talk show host on the air. By that I mean that he doesn't hang up on people, and he is polite. He allows callers to respond and have a dialogue with him.I used to have a very low opinion of him until I listened to his show a few times.
I have listened to his show. What he does, he does well. But I prefer to read National Review, the Weekly Standard or the Economist to get a better view for the conservative arguments of the day.
What were Clinton's ideas again? I've forgotten. Oh, yes. "Get Clinton elected and keep him elected". Any others?
"Get Clinton elected and keep him elected"Robert, you may want to replace your l's with r's.
As juvenile as it made me feel Steve Lewis - I giggled out loud at your post. ThanksBack to topic - I'm annoyed that I read this article and I'm annoyed that the WSJ printed it - just as I'd be if Ann posted a liberal talking-points propoganda piece from Barbara Streisand or some other entertainer and am annoyed when other newspapers print stuff like that as op-ed pieces. I have no real original or susbtantive comment because there is hardly anything original or substantive to react to. I haven't listened to Rush's radio show in nearly a decade and so I have no idea whethe his show is an "ad hominem fest" or not. His article is not completely ad-hominem (but there certainly is a healthy portion of wholly unnecessary Dean, the Clintons and Kerry are 60s' dope-smokin' over-sexed intellectual poohs) but it is almost 100% bromidic. By the way, I'm just speaking how I really feel here a la Rush's implicit advice in his column.
"Robert said... What were Clinton's ideas again? I've forgotten. Oh, yes. "Get Clinton elected and keep him elected". Any others?"Fair enough on the election point, though for almost all politicians I think the same can be said. But if you want ideas, how about (as Ponnuru points out) welfare reform. Not his? Not grand enough for you? How about this: "The era of big government is over." Too bad the current administration and Congress did not get the memo.
Post a Comment