so now we're in mythological space again. standing in for conservatives in general, which is silly in a way now that there are multiple organizations that lay claim to the category and all the real amurican stuff for which is claims to itself to stand, ace has a Problem with admitting that limbaugh and the wingnuts on fox are mainstream because it undermines both the conservative-as-victim trope and the basis for the projection (the ultra-right merely reacts to what the evil Other is already doing, etc) that's at the core of conservative self-deception with respect to themselves and their own politics.

btw the argument would try out above is preposterous, ace.
saying that limbaugh is a mainstream infotainment source day in day out is met with factoids about susan boyle (ew) and lady gaga (yay!)...how are you today? the answer is meat by-products.

The true mythological space is in the vagueness of the concept of "mainstream". I gave my point of view, yet you want to tell me I am wrong while not providing an objective and precise definition of the concept. And you may wonder why I find somethings here so humorous. Start with the fact that you take an issue like this far too serious. Is Rush mainstream? Who cares! Other than causing Obama's team and liberals to have fits, Rush has no influence on American life other than his entertainment value. Yet for some reason you need him to be something he is not. Take some time and try to understand why.

limbaugh has an 8-year, $400-million deal with Clear Channel and over 15 million weekly listeners...

mainstream.

compared to what? not lady gaga singles, chum. other infotainment outlets. here's some data:

Cable TV: Audience

mainstream, ace.

you like to make entirely arbitrary assertions and claim for them the status of a definition. i don't know where this quirk comes from. perhaps you should take a time out and think about it.

as for influence, i don't really know what you're talking about. limbaugh is part of a pretty elaborate conservative media apparatus. that apparatus performs opinion co-ordination functions. your views are almost inevitably informed by that opinion co-ordination mechanism. one of the quirks with conservative opinion co-ordination--which is paradoxically an indicator of its power--is that conservatives all like to see themselves as heroically free-thinking people. and they're all heroically free-thinking in exactly the same way at exactly the same moments.

that must be just a giant consistent coincidence.

The fact that Rush gets more listeners each week than individual BBC Radio stations is of no consequence because, you know, Rush's broadcaster is using the wrong type of modulation. It's so totally fringe.

It's the number one radio show in America! But people only listen to it because it's better than football, garage sales, and Jesus. People don't have any other option but to listen to Rush "in the background" as they drive. It makes great background music. :expressionless:

Rush's show with its 15 million listeners certainly doesn't have the mainstream cachet as Meet the Press, with its Sunday morning bonanza of 3 million viewers. That pesky amplitude modulation is nothing like TV. Maybe that's why other media is always covering the goings-on at Meet the Press while they ignore poor ol' Rush as he toils on the fringe.

Yes, we never hear anything about Rush in the mainstream. Ever. They call that marginalization.

I think you are all trying to innertwine "mainstream" and "popular". Rush is definitely popular, but he is too abrasive a personality to be considered mainstream.

His influence is undeniable - he gets far more media play than his show because everything he says becomes the talking points on both sides later in the day.

Like him or not, he is incredibly powerful in shaping both sides of public opinion.

...and BG...Rush is definitely not better than Jesus.

Hm. That's odd. I was pretty sure that Rush is a prominent voice in the political discourse in the country. Or are you saying he gets the same treatment as Stephen Colbert and John Stewart? He's a commentator much like Glenn Beck, and to say he has no influence is a bit confusing to me. If he has no influence, then why do I keep hearing about him? I don't listen to AM radio, and I'm Canadian.

I think this is the point. We don't need to technically define him as mainstream, though I don't think there is a technical description of what that entails. Generally ask yourself this: Do Rush's opinions represent the opinions of a lot of other people?

That's not for you or me to decide.

Yes.

Niether Beck nor Rush change a persons core beliefs, both men reinforce what people already believe. Great men/women of history or leaders, actually change the way people see themselves and the world. Example MLK, or in my view Reagan fit into this category. Even Obama had a measurable impact on the behaviors of young voters who would have ordinarily been apathetic but got enthused about about politics to the degree where it made a difference. Sure every once in awhile Rush will have a listener call in and talk about listening to his show changed their life, but those call are the exception from my point of view. Palin actually has more influence than Rush and we saw it during the McCain campaign and we saw it afterward as an opposite affect, influencing people who hate her to act in ways they would not have ordinarily.

Perfect question for a person like Roach, Will, the Obama team or the hosts of MSNBC shows. I don't get it either.

Rush is a reflection of his audience and he has the talent to be entertaining. It is not the other way around. I regularly listen to ESPN radio Colin Cowherd, he understands his show, his audience and he talks about it - as a sports talk show host he knows to reflect the topics people want to listen to, agree with him or not - same with Rush. As a professional in the business Cowherd would be the first to tell you, its about entertainment first. Radio talk is a business. One thing that makes Cowherd interesting is he doesn't pretend his audience lacks intellect. And if you listen to Rush he plays to two audiences, those who get him and to those he toys with. If all you hear about Rush's show is from "mainstream" media, you are getting the toyed with message.

I think people like Rush do have an impact but its hard to measure what that impact really is. Some do see him as a political commentator and take his word as religion others see him as an entertainer and take what he says with a grain of salt. I agree with Cimarron, the mainstream finds him too abrasive to take seriously but the fringe that loves him is large enough to keep him in the spotlight.

So give me a bottom line, Ace: Would you say that Rush Limbaugh has a negligible impact on the national discourse about Obama?

The Final Fantasy video game franchise has sold over 97 million copies since introduction in 1987. That is about 4.3 million per year. The NY Yankees attendance averages about 3.5 million per year. I would say the NY Yankees is mainstream, Final Fantasy is not. We can play around with numbers, but "mainstream" to me has components other than numbers. If you believe Rush is "mainstream", that is o.k., it is your point of view.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

Perhaps I am wrong. From the above point of view, Rush has influence and he in fact does change behavior.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

I think Obama's team and his supporters over-react to Rush, giving him more influence and credibility than he deserves. If ignored, Rush would fade to zero or to a relatively small base of listeners who find him entertaining and reflective of their views..

I'm not sure its always that easy though Ace, Rush has a large audience and has for a long time. Those that don't like him do ignore him but his core audience is big enough that it will always keep his views in the mainstream discourse about politics. I do agree that his opponents however give him far to much credit and if they didn't loose their shit every time he said something controversial it would certainly lessen the impact he does have.

It's a simple concept, guys. Rush Limbaugh is not mainstream because we're defining mainstream to exclude Rush Limbaugh. QED.

...

Aside: Whether or not some socially and/or politically liberal folks compared Bush Jr to Hitler is not relevant to this discussion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uoque_1904.jpg

Yeah but the question is what is his role in the mainstream Martian. He obviously is a mainstream figure but does the majority regard him as a silly entertainer or a viable political commentator? I'm not really sure myself.

I view the likes of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as modern-day editorial cartoonists.

I view the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as modern-day pamphleteers.

Take that as you will.

seems to me that this kind of sad dust-up over whether limbaugh is or is not mainstream has already been dealt with.

as for ace's strange contention about "core beliefs"---the way you frame the notion, you're really talking about an essence or soul or some other such hopelessly befuddled and naive idea. i don't think there's any non-arbitrary way to distinguish "core" from "periphery" in terms of "beliefs" but i suspect that ace is committed to this new arbitrariness as a way to imagine himself morally superior to the rest of us, whom he would presumably see as all shifty-like particularly if us degenerates are contrasted with the manly resolve that is required to develop and maintain such a reality-independent political worldview as his.

I don't know if Rush was the first to use the term czar when describing some of Obama's appointees, but it is something Rush would do. The reason he would do something like this and most of us know it, is to play to the socialism/communism/facsim barbs he throws at Obama and to get under the skin of overly sensitive liberals. Everyone who follow politics knows these folks are not czars, we know every President make these appointments, etc., but Obama's team got offended to the point where they did this on the Official WH website:

The Truth About "Czars" | The White House

The traction is gained from the over-reaction.

Or when Rush says "the Obama regime", and then the term is used by Howard Dean in an interview inadvertently, giving Rush hours of material and an immeasurable amount of credibility - it is the fault of Obama and his team. They should ignore Rush.

Whether something is mainstream or not isn't entirely relevant because the definition and power of elements of the mainstream aren't clearly defined. Even so, while numbers don't necessarily determine mainstream status they are undeniably an indicator of reach. Factually speaking, Limbaugh has a large enough audience and the rhetorical reach to influence local and national policy discussions. Anyone who doubts this has clearly not been paying attention to recent national discussions.

The fact that he has a financial incentive to say outrageous things just decreases the likelihood that Limbaugh will add anything of value to the discussion.

You will likely find that even if Rush did, in fact, use the term pejoratively that he wasn't alone in using it that way. It was used in general by at least a few of those within what roachboy called the "pretty elaborate conservative media apparatus."

And you will also likely find that Rush isn't the only one to refer to Obama's office as a "regime."

I think there is a difference between being overly sensitive and making the decision to educate people who react negatively to such conservative bias, because maybe you're getting too much feedback or too many complaints about something that's actually rather misleading or false. Of course, the same conservative bias would likely call this "reeducation."

A core belief is a belief I would sacrifice my life for, a "peripheral" belief is one that has little or no relevance to my life. Hence a core belief is that my son live in a world where he is free from tyrannical rule. A "peripheral" belief is, I think Pluto should be considered a planet. Are you suggesting that you have no core beliefs or that all of your beliefs are the same?

Another core belief I have is that is o.k. for people to be different and have points views different than mine. It is never my intent to project that my point of view is superior to anyone, just different. If you perceive my style as projecting superiority, that is a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.

To say that the relationship between Rush and Obama can be "resolved" by Obama ignoring Rush is beyond naive. Rush shapes public opinion about the federal government, and every politician in Washington (on both sides) must constantly deal with that opinion. This isn't just about the President and a radio guy, it's about a complex series of daily actions and reactions and reactions to reactions, etc. on and on forever.

Well its a kind of a double edged sword isn't it? If you respond to it you're legitimizing it if you ignore it you risk lies and inaccuracies becoming commonly held beliefs (which brings us back to the OP, although I suppose even when addressed those lies and inaccuracies can still become commonly held beliefs). Either way once its out there its going to have some kind of impact...I guess you just need to pick and choose your battles.

I think that it's pretty clear that if Obama ignored Rush's statements and they became an issue, Ace would be one of the first to criticize Obama for not responding to Rush's statements before they became a problem.

My point is what gives these things traction, to me it is the over-reaction and the credibility earned when "legitimacy" responds to the "ludicrous". It seems some are arguing the traction is gained just because Rush says it - I disagree.

Occasionally, I admit that I respond to silliness with silliness, and I admit that it is a personality flaw and is immature. But, I do know when I am doing it, do you think Obama's team knows?

I'm assuming that by the time Obama's team responds to something of Rush's making that it has already received traction. I'd sooner blame the media at large than I would Obama's team, if it is the case.

Does Obama's team respond to every other media personality (both fringe and mainstream) as well, or are they giving Rush special treatment? If they are, why? Does his team "legitimize" Jon Stewart as well?

Being a parent - adults should not get into debates with their children. Corollary: Presidents should not get into debates with AM radio talk show hosts poking fun at the President.

But is it beyond the realm of reality that Rush has a large enough audience that simply by saying something it already takes on a life of its own before his opponents even respond to it? I agree you can make something worse by over reacting to it, but in the case of somebody as popular as Rush even the most ridiculous statements can and do gain a foot hold. The question then becomes whats the best way to handle it. Again picking your battles.

EDIT: The parent/child example doesn't really work here. Its not Rush against the President, its the President against inaccurate popular opinion that can have a real impact on our society.

Rush shapes public opinion??? Let's think about that for a moment. If Rush even could shape Republican Party opinion, how did McCain end up being the Republican candidate for President? How did Obama win? How did health care pass? And a million other things Rush in his bombastic manner has been against? Naive? Think about it, perhaps my problem is that I have spent some time listening to his show recently given all the attention he has gotten in the past two years. Rush is an entertainer. He calls Obama, "Imam Obama" and the left goes bizarro about claims that the Right thinks Obama is Muslim - and Rush laughs at the reaction - so it does it more. The people who get his show are laughing too.

For some strange reason, I seriously doubt that. Rush isn't a satirist, are you trying to say he is?

ace has a decoder ring. he knows all limbaugh's secrets. maybe for the people with decoder rings, rush is a satirist. i like to think sometimes that he's making fun of conservatism by offering up a brand of it that's so stupid as to defy ridicule. but then i'm a glass half full kinda guy.

1. Rush says things on the radio
2. Listeners believe it and contact their legislators
3. Media picks up on it and reports on it
4. Politicians are asked about it and must give soundbites
5. Opposing politicians must give opposing sound bites
6. Rinse and repeat

It doesn't really matter if he's a satirist or not, his opinions wind up in the public mind and do help shape peoples opinions of the world weather we want them to or not. John Stewart or Bill Maher have the same effect, the question is how much of an impact does it have, not weather it has an impact or not.

You've been drinking way too much Rush flavored Kool Aid, Ace. He isn't joking when he says things like "Imam Obama," he thinks what he says is the truth. When he says "Imam Obama," he's influencing his weak minded listeners to believe Obama truly is a Muslim. He's being intentionally deceptive and malicious with what he says and how he says it.

I wish you could cut through the shit and at least see the entertainment value in his BS, if not see his lies and exaggerated truth.

Rush a satirist? LOL. Rush's audience is too stupid for satire.

If Rush is a satirist then he his a failed satirist.

That happens when enough people take what satirists say seriously.

Rush is an entertainer.

I am not in the entertainment business, but I did stay at a...just kidding...but I did live in SoCal for some time. Here is the rule: If you want to jam in your garage, play the music you like. If you want to play in arenas, play the music your audience likes. Rush plays to his audience, both the liberals and conservatives in his audience. People go to him as they are, he does not create them.

That is what I am saying.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

Actually, I just listen. Rush occasionally announces what he is doing and what reaction it will get and he is often correct, and then he laughs about it the next day. Do you ever listen to his show for more than a few minutes a day?

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

Regarding #2.

I don't think Obama is an Imam.
I don't think Obama appointees are Czars.
I think Obama is American.
I don't think Obama is a "magic negro".
I don't think the Obama administration is a regime.
I don't think Michele "my belle" Obama hates this country.
I think Obama is a citizen.
I think Obama earned his degrees.
I think Obama was more than a social worker before becoming President.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Those who get Rush's show know all of the above also, but we enjoy Rush making fun of Obama and we like how liberals soil themselves over Rush's show occasionally.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 PM ----------

Oh, the old Jedi mind trick on us ol' weak minded conservatives.:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------

Come on, this is funny stuff even to us stupid conservatives. From your friend Rush.

I consider myself a conservative too, Ace. I just see through the shit Rush peddles. Also, I wasn't calling all conservatives who listen to his show weak minded. Of course some are, just like there are weak minded individuals for every belief system and political stance.

No, Rush is not an entertainer. Glenn Beck admits to being entertainment, even embraces it, Rush does not. Just because he says something dumb, someone makes a deal about it, and he correctly predicts what the reaction was, that doesn't mean anything. "Good job, Rush! You guessed right! You win nothing." He gives out stupid remarks because he knows the reaction he will get. He's a troll and he plays people for their reactions.

You're saying Rush caters to his audience, correct? So if his audience's tastes change, will his views and opinions change with them? That's what it seems you're saying. That would go against your whole "stick to your convictions" deal.

Perhaps I am one of the few adult males over 50 who will admit liking Michael Jackson's music and talent, but I basically grew up with it. MJ was an entertainer, his music evolved and changed with the tastes of his audience. He was a genius in being able to see popular trends and adapt them to his style. He often gave people the impression that he was in front of the trends, he was not. Elements of his music and style were not original, he was a student of art - and he had a unique ability to interpret art, combine styles, and present it in a manner that appealed to the tastes of his audience. As an artist I would say MJ stayed true to his convictions. I think Rush has similar skills in his area of talent.

Also there is a reason why Rush is a radio talk show host and not an elected politician, a business or a world leader, he does not have the skills for those things. I tune in to Rush's show to be entertained, my gut tells me that the vast majority of his conservative audience feels the same way. The thought that thoughtful people tune into his show and suddenly see the light, according to Rush, seems patently silly to me and I believe most here really do understand that once they give it some thought.