Never argue with someone who sells ink by the barrel

In a comment I left at an American Thinker article regarding the administration’s attacks on Rush, I noted that, based on my pre-conversion history, those who hate Rush the most have probably never listened to him.  Instead, they base their hatred on what they are told about him.  My hope was that, with Rush so firmly in the headlight, people who are not ideologues but who are just complacent would tune in to see what the ruckus was about — with some of them learning something about Rush and about conservatism.  Seems my hope was well placed.

Hat tip:  Andrea Shea-King of Radio Patriot (and if you link over, check her side bar for a very cool picture of a proposed portable teleprompter for the Big O).

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Quisp

    That’s exactly how I became conservative – reading and listening to Rush and some other conservative pundits, initially in an effort to argue better with my conservative husband.

  • Mike Devx

    Back when I was a liberal libertarian, I used to listen to Rush rarely, and agreed with him about a third of the time.

    These days it is difficult to find points on which I disagree with him. Usually the disagreements are in those gray areas where libertarianism and social conservatism are in conflict… and I always find myself agreeing that Rush at least has a solid, defensible point, whether I agree with his ultimate conclusion or not.

    Did anyone else notice how Chris Matthews focused on Rush being ‘rich’? With his snide comment about “maybe the President should attack everyone… and we’d all get rich”? When you look at Chrissie’ facial expressions in the second half, and the “tsts” sounds of disapproval he makes twice, it’s clear to me that he both dislikes Rush and has come to the conclusion that the White House made a BIG mistake. (And that he agrees that this attack on Rush was initiated by the Administration!)

    RUSH WINS! And this is a big win. Alinsky tactics can blow up in your face. Rush kicked their wimpy, whiny little f***ng a**es all the way around the block, twice. What a pleasure.

    And the best the Administration can come up with is to trot that tool of a spokesman out there to say he “enjoys taking on Rush and Santelli and…”. Hahahahaha! Sure you do, little guy, sure you do. Especially while you’re losing.

  • Mike Devx

    americanthinker-DOT-com is such a rich resource. It’s taken prominence over Drudge in my morning news perusal. (Drudge, more and more, is becoming more irritating than worthwhile in the dubious worth of his postings.)

    Here’s an American Thinker article. When someone argues that the MSM is *not* just the Democrat Party’s official Pravda-like mouthpiece, send them to this article; or better yet, be able to quote from it at length.

    This is damning stuff.

  • David Foster

    Yeah, but remember that in this case the supply of “ink” (radio spectrum) is controlled by the Federal Government.

    I think it very likely that an attempt will be made to legislate content regulation of AM/FM radio and of broadcast TV. This might be approved by the Supreme Court based on the limited-spectrum argument, and the same argument could conceivably be applied to satellite radio (which is, after all, still radio)

    Some Democrats are already considering Internet content regulation, and are apparently going to argue that the broadband funding in the “stimulus” bill gives them a justification for doing so. I don’t yet see the argument that they are going to use for shutting down unapproved content on cable TV, but feel fairly sure that Dem lawyers are already thinking about it.

  • suek

    Re: David’s comment…

    I think it will all hinge on the Supremes – if it goes to court, I don’t think any of what you speculate will fly in the present court – even if the leftist ones like Ginsberg are replaced – with like minded judges, I’m sure. If Obama can get Congress to pass a requirement that the Supremes should be 11 instead of 9 though, he’ll appoint 2 justices who are extreme left activist, and I have no doubt they’d do exactly what you suggest. He has to do it in the next two years, I think – I suspect (I hope) the Dems will see a loss of majority in 2010. Or at the very least, a loss of the strength of majority they presently have in the House.

    On the other hand, I’m thinking of joining the NRA – not because I intend to become a gun enthusiast, but because I appreciate their 2nd Amendment political support. At the moment, I feel it’s a better political donation than donating to the Republican Party. Likewise, I don’t have satellite radio, but if Rush has to go to satellite, I may join just to support him. I know he doesn’t need my paltry $35-50 bucks a year – but again, I think it’s a better political donation that the Republican party.

    I don’t disagree with you on the intent of the Dems to control information. Free speech to them means that they get to speak freely, and you get to listen. Period.

  • Pingback: Right Wing News()

  • Mike Devx

    You know what I really really like about many of our comments here? We’re getting angry. I mean, REALLY ANGRY.

    I like that. Very much. It means we care. And just possibly, that many other quiet (or silent) Americans are also getting angry, enough to do something about this farcical tragedy we’re experiencing. They’re not blogging, they’re not commenting. But just maybe… they’re also becoming very, very angry. And hopefully we’ll all do something about this. Soon; maybe as soon as 2010.

  • Charles Martel

    One thing about Rush that drives leftists bonkers is his sense of humor. When Rush pokes fun at his own grandness, he not only invites his listeners to join in and have some fun, he shows something that I have never ever seen in a hard-core leftist: the ability to lighten up.

    When McCain and Obama appeared at the Al Smith Dinner in New York a little before the election, it was one of the best lessons in body language I’ve ever seen. McCain was absolutely relaxed and comfortable. Half the quips and jokes he made were directed at himself, and it was obvious that he knew and acknowledged what a big target he was.

    But whenever he made a joke at Obama’s expense, the camera would swing over to The One and show a taut-lipped man pretending to smile and enjoy himself. The teeth were showing, but the eyes were throwing daggers. You could see the seethe beneath—“This is stuff that serious, noble intellectuals on a mission like me should not have to put up with.”

    When Santelli ranted in Chicago, which was an absolutely inspired comedic riff, I think the drones back at Propaganda Central not only were astounded at his going off the reservation, they were secretly shamed to realize that none of them in a million years could ever be as spontaneously funny.

    We need to start beating the socialists where they are most vulnerable—their lack of humor. We must be Groucho Marx to the left’s Margaret Dumont. Let us raise an army of a million Dennis Millers and Mark Steyns!

  • Bookworm

    Well, Charles, you’re off to a good start, because your last paragraph made me laugh.

    Interesting point about El Rushbo. When I was a mindless liberal, and I heard about his self-aggrandizing statements (I never heard the statements, I just heard about them), I assumed he really meant them. Quoted out of context, as in Al Franken’s mid-1990s book about Rush, he sounded like a megalomaniac. You have to listen to Rush to get the joke. That’s a little bit dangerous, because, to reach the masses, the joke has to work whether you read it or hear it.

  • suek

    >>That’s a little bit dangerous, because, to reach the masses, the joke has to work whether you read it or hear it.>>

    Good point. But WHY don’t the socialists have a sense of humor??? I just don’t understand it…

  • Bookworm

    I do. They’re very angry people. They’re not ordinary people who happen to be angry about something. They’re angry to the core. Kills humor.

  • suek
  • Mike Devx

    Book #11:
    >> They’re very angry people. They’re not ordinary people who happen to be angry about something. They’re angry to the core. Kills humor.

    Remember this song?
    I’m too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
    So sexy it hurts
    And I’m too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
    New York and Japan

    I’m a model you know what I mean
    And I do my little turn on the catwalk

    Ok, Folks, so let’s do some karaoke to “I’m Too Sexy” by Right Said Fred. With a few, er, changes, that is:

    I’m too angry for my shirt, too angry for my shirt
    So angry it huuuuuurts
    And I’m too angry for Chopin, Beethoven or Berlin,
    So angry I’m hurlin’

    I’m a liberal, you know that means,
    I do my m-s-m turn on that catwalk
    My angry schtick; my I-hate-all-Jews routine
    Don’t you like my lil turn on that catwalk?

    I’m too angry to be sane, though I mouth words like I feel your pain
    So angry I’ll just say
    I’m not angry at jihad, oppressing women or KGB Vlad,
    I’m just angry at the USA.

    I’m a model, you know what I mean,
    My life has been built, whole life built up of white guilt.
    I’ve got no gonads, nor nothing else there to see,
    if you take a quick peek ‘neath my lil Ken-doll kilt.

  • Bookworm

    Mike, I give daily thanks that you are so resistant to the idea of setting up your own blog. The competition from you would destroy me! That’s brilliant, what you wrote.

  • Ymarsakar

    Part of it is a lack of confidence. Part of it is because it isn’t true to them. Meaning, if Bush makes jokes about his own weaknesses and hires a double to satirize his mannerisms, he finds it funny and we find it funny because, beneath it all, there is some truth to it. Or at least, we perceive there to be some truth to it.

    Now if anyone made jokes about wounded veterans and started making them out to be the victim group that the Army has to bend over backwards to deploy, then it wouldn’t be funny. But only to us, because we don’t see any truth to veterans=victims, while the Left does.

    Concurrently, the Left can’t accept jokes about their own infallibility, cause they actually believe they are infallible. Thus jokes about human flaws, using subject matter apart from their hated enemies, is not very funny to them. Just as people making jokes that the Marines are cowards and mass murdering baby killers are Not Funny to conservatives. But it is funny to fake liberals. If it wasn’t funny or at least entertaining, why do you think Hollywood produces so much of it?

    Somebody is buying this crap. And most of them aren’t even inside the US.

  • Mike Devx

    Book #14,
    Thank you for the compliment! I appreciate it, but its undeserved.

    Owning a blog that’s effective requires daily postings. (That’s probably Rule #1 for having a successful blog.) And the daily postings have to offer something worthwhile and fresh, is rule #2. My hat is off to you, Book! I could never accomplish that. I don’t have the willpower, the stick-to-it-ness.

    I enjoy riffing off of other people’s comments and your posts. I’m grateful to be allowed to participate in “Book’s domain”, where a LOT of interesting people with strong opinions participate, and we find a way even when we disagree to be all three of these things: polite, provocative, and interesting.

    Your commenters take their cue from you, Book. In addition to the facts that you post daily, and your posts are wide-ranging and fresh, you set the tone for a place where we in your domain can be polite AND provocative AND interesting. I always enjoy coming in here to read everything I can from everyone.

  • Bookworm

    If you could see me now, Mike, I’m blushing like crazy. Thank you!