We Haven’t Heard the Last of Rush

Another hacktacular post.

On the upside for Rush, at least people have heard of him…
.
Which is certainly more than we can say about “Democracy Corp”.
.
http://www.democracycorps.com/about/
.
Could someone please remind me why anyone gives a rats a$$ about James Carville?

I’m not sure Republicans need to worry that much about Rush Limbaugh’s negative ratings. What they do need to worry about are their own.
.
And you don’t see any possible connection here?

Um…yeah, sorry, Amy, but this feels rather vapid.

And like Art says, it’s not as if Rush’s fortunes and the Republican Party’s in general are completely unrelated.

As far as the Olbermann dig…gee, how surprising. Rush has been active and a talk radio ‘icon’ for nearly 2 decades, while Olbermann has only reached political relevance in the last few years. I wonder why he has less name recognition……

Oh heck, why not put this one out there too, Amy.
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093
.
Rush Limbaugh = smoke screen for Obama’s decline in polls.

I think the democrats’ money is being put to good use “demonizing a guy as the face of an incredibly unpopular political party”. It’s working. Their numbers keep going down and the media keeps running with the story. As long as the MSM does most of the work for us, why should we quit? Toss in a small sack of cash and watch it turn into a Brink’s truck load worth of publicity. It’s a bargain. It’s hard to pass up those blue light specials. When McCoy kneels down by the corpse of the republican party and says “It’s dead Jim”, maybe then we’ll turn that small fraction of our attention elsewhere. Personally, even after it dies I’d like to kick the body around just for fun.

No, but the first of him turns my stomach.
.
(h/t to Firesign Theater The Further Adventures of Nick Danger)

Amy Sullivan:
.
We Haven’t Heard the Last of Rush…because you’re still flogging this angle?

Please warn before linking to any tired old Politico story. My defense is to just post this internal memo via Greg Sargent outlining their journalistic philosophy.
.
THE POLITICO FORMULA: We explain how Washington really works, pull back the curtain on the palace intrigue of official Washington, and document who is trying to get and keep power, and how. Our stories are NECESSARYfor political and government players, and FASCINATING to outsiders.
.
THE MISSION: Politico journalism drives conversation in official Washington, making us ESSENTIAL READING for anyone who is or wants to be a player, and a KEY OUTLET for anyone who is trying to shape a political or governmental debate.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/more-on-politico-and-the-inside-game/
.
Worst is Politico story about Carville. Who cares?

I can’t wait till Mikey Scherer blasts Amy for her petty political post. I am sure that will be forthcoming, no?

Thanks Amy. I’ve been needing to get some meaningless false equivalency back into my diet.

FlownOver: Let me loose and I’ll come back later. Firesign Theater…a blast from the past.

Polls shmolls.

Doing the right thing for America does not start with focus groups and teleprompters, sorry libnix.

Next!

Rush Limbaugh is a fat, pill popping, mud slinging lowlife. He is so full of himself that before each show he pronounces that his talent is on loan from God, or something to that effect. If God loaned him talent, you would think that his approval ratings would be higher than 26 percent. Amy, can you please explain this discrepancy.

“an already incredibly unpopular political party” ?? Don’t confuse dislike for ineffectual politicians with the popularity of party policies. Last time I checked there were still an awful lot of people who agree with the conservative standards that the Republican party represents.

And for CP in FL…you might be confusing the Dem Corp’s approval ratings with radio ratings. Find it kinda strange that tens of millions of people listening to Rush everyday make him the #1 talk radio personality? Despite his personal foibles, whatever misconceptions you have about him might be righted by listening to what he actually says instead of the sound bytes.

And in case you’re inclined to make assumptions about my political leanings based on a single post – I voted for Clinton, I voted for Gore, but I didn’t vote for Obama because so far, the Democratic majority has done nothing good from my point of view.

Courtesy of Washington Monthly:
.
Self-identified Republicans still hold Congress in low regard (22% approval, up slightly from February), but support among Independents has doubled since January (17% to 34%), and Democrats are especially impressed, with 57% expressing their approval.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017239.php

Find it kinda strange that tens of millions of people listening to Rush everyday make him the #1 talk radio personality?”

Not really. That’s less than 3% of Americans. I would have figured fear and hatred would pull more. (Too much competition, I suppose.)
.
I’m not shocked to see that from The Politico, an online magazine which depends on links from Matt Drudge for its economic bottom line, is serving up catty conservative gossip.
.
.
Art Pepper, I wonder how much of that is tied to Barack Obama; even the Wall Street Journal says he is more popular than ever.

Amy wrote: “Contrary to the Democracy Corps analysis of these numbers, I’m not sure Republicans need to worry that much about Rush Limbaugh’s negative ratings. What they do need to worry about are their own.”

As Art pointed out, there is a connection between the two. Until and if Republicans begin to publicly distance themselves from Limbaugh, they will experience the same negative ratings he receives. Limbaugh is as much of a liability for the Republican party as Sarah Palin was for McCain.

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek wrote an interesting article about this very issue. In his March 4 article, The Limbaugh Liability, he wrote that: “Rush Limbaugh, the man who did more than anyone else to create the modern Republican brand in the 1990s, is now destroying it. Everyone knows he has “jumped the shark” culturally—become a black-shirted joke even as he dominates the headlines. But it’s worse than that for Republicans. Limbaugh has taken the great GOP calling card—toughness—and shredded it. The party of Lincoln is in danger of becoming the party of Jell-O.”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187611

A few more excerpts from the article:

“Rush’s audience remains huge, with a weekly audience of more than 20 million, and will stay large for as long as he broadcasts. If his listeners can forgive him sending his poor housekeeper into a parking lot to score drugs for him, they will forgive anything. But these folks no long represent the American mainstream. In fact, while 28 percent of Americans still identify themselves as Republicans, 29 percent call themselves independents. Plenty of the indies might still be listening to Rush, but they don’t take their marching orders from him anymore. To them, he’s just another entertainer.”

And this one: “The president’s popularity is in the 60s, and the entertainer’s, according to internal Democratic polling, is in the 20s. So Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs are now piling on, describing Limbaugh as the “intellectual force” and “de facto chairman” of the party. It works. And it will keep on working until enough Republicans grow a spine. When they show enough guts to ignore the thousands of calls and e-mails from dittoheads, maybe they’ll get their party—and their self-respect—back.”

insuranceceo:
.
Last time I checked there were still an awful lot of people who agree with the conservative standards that the Republican party represents.
.
Last time I checked, it was still best blogging practices to cite sources for empirical claims to know something. If you’re going to make claims to knowledge of what Americans think, believe or prefer, then you should back those claims up with the only widely available empirical evidence we have about such things, which would be polling data.
.
Speaking of which, here’s some recent polling data in which “an awful lot of people” seem not to “agree with the conservative standards that the Republican party represents” on a topic of high priority, according to them:
.

Clear and Bipartisan Support for Regulation
.
A key health reform idea that draws public support and stands out in the support it gets across the political spectrum is the idea of more consumer protections and regulation of health insurance.
.
Almost eight in ten Americans (78%) favor requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing condition. This support remains high (72%) even when the public is given the argument often made that such a change may raise health insurance costs for healthier people even as it lowers them for the less healthy. Support is bipartisan: a clear majority of Democrats (77%), political independents (78%) and Republicans (58%) support eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions.
.
Similarly, over six in ten Americans strongly or somewhat favor limiting the administrative expenses health insurance companies can claim (65%) and even the profits these companies can earn (62%). These proposals garner support across party identification as well, with majorities of Democrats (71%), political independents (59%) and Republicans (55%) backing government limits on health insurance company profits.
.
Roughly half the public believes there is not enough government regulation of health care costs (51%) or the price of prescription drugs (52%). When examined by political identification, a majority of Democrats (61%) and political independents (52%) think there is not enough regulation of health care costs, while just under four in ten (37%) Republicans think similarly.

.
Here’s conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation’s analysis of self-described conservative Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign’s “health care plan”:
.

Health costs differ dramatically from state to state because of a variety of factors, including demo­graphics, prevailing wages, and patterns of medical practice. State laws, rules, and regulations also affect the cost and availability of coverage in each state. In some states, legislators and regulators impose oner­ous and expensive requirements on health plans and benefits, such as mandates for specific health bene­fits and guaranteed issue with community rating.[33] Insurance overregulation and the near absence of competition can severely limit individuals’ coverage options and result in higher premiums, pricing many people out of the health insurance market.
.
Senator McCain’s proposal would not, as some critics erroneously suggest, totally deregulate the market.[34] Instead, it would allow individuals to choose among the various state regulatory struc­tures when they buy their coverage, dramatically expanding the number of insurance options avail­able to them. This would foster interstate competi­tion while preserving each state’s regulatory authority.
.
In many respects, the McCain policy is similar to legislation sponsored by Representative John Shadegg (R–AZ) and Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC).[35] Their proposal would create new federal rules, but states would remain primarily responsible for regu­lating health insurance.

.
Notice that the conservative position that “legislators and regulators impose oner­ous and expensive requirements on health plans and benefits, such as mandates for specific health bene­fits and guaranteed issue with community rating” is actually the complete opposite of the position held by a bipartisan majority of the American people: “Almost eight in ten Americans (78%) favor requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing condition…Support is bipartisan: a clear majority of Democrats (77%), political independents (78%) and Republicans (58%) support eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions“.
.
It turns out that conservative policy preferences and Americans’ policy preferences in this key area are mutually exclusive.
.
So you see, insuranceceo, while it is indeed true that “lots of people” support conservative policies, they are in the minority when it comes to the opinions of Americans overall on important issues such as health care policy.

“And in case you’re inclined to make assumptions about my political leanings based on a single post – I voted for Clinton, I voted for Gore, but I didn’t vote for Obama because so far, the Democratic majority has done nothing good from my point of view.”
.
Uh, yeah, riiiiight – wasn’t me! It must be those ‘conservative standards”. I can tell:
.
“Despite his personal foibles, whatever misconceptions you have about him might be righted by listening to what he actually says instead of the sound bytes.”
.
At the risk of again drawing another correction, I’ll rather impolitely point out that I’ve listened to Rush and find that what he actually says is indistinguashable from racist speech.
.
Another “Arkele Syndrome” candidate…

insuranceceo:
.
BTW, I’m with CP in FL. Add my own take:
.
Another day with Rush is another day too long.
.
The Earth will eventually take it’s measure, and when it does, I promise to cheer loudly!

Sorry, Amy, but the man is filth…

At the risk of again drawing another correction, I’ll rather impolitely point out that I’ve listened to Rush and find that what he actually says is indistinguashable from racist speech.
.
Uh-oh.
.
Sorry, 53_3, I just need to…
.
At the risk of again drawing another correction, I’ll rather impolitely point out that I’ve listened to Rush and find that I am unable to distinguish what he actually says from racist speech.
.
…there!
.
OK, let’s move on.

Thank you, stuart, but it is indistinguishable from racist speech, and I am not the only one who thinks so.
.
After all, note that the horse at the source is neither you nor I, but the Black community.
.
They are the arbiters of this judgement…

Now we can move on.

Since that whole “reality-based” thing somewhat escapes you, I agree, let’s move on.

“Since that whole “reality-based” thing somewhat escapes you, I agree, let’s move on.”
.
I would, stuart, but you refuse to leave without a lost shot, so I’ll fire back:
.
Are you saying that the Black community is not the final arbiter of this issue? And if so, how do you know? And who would you say is? You?
.
Not likely…

…I suppose that I should do what I tell others to do, and back up that “reality-based” criticsm, 53_3, with links and quotes.
.

Argumentum ad populum
.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “If many believe so, it is so.”
.
This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the people”), argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger”.
.
Examples
.
This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true.
.
* 9 out of 10 of my constituents oppose the financial rescue package, therefore it is a bad idea.
* 9 out of 10 of my fellow congressmen favour the financial rescue package, therefore it is a good idea.
* Since 88% of the people polled believed in UFOs, they must exist.
* Since citizens have to pay taxes and are ruled by the government, the state must be a judicial reasoned and rightful institution.
.
The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:
.
* Most Americans hold that the Vietnam War was morally wrong. Therefore, the Vietnam War was morally wrong.
* Since most people in the world eat meat, there are no ethical issues involved in meat-eating.
* Christianity is believed in by the greatest number of people in the world[2], so it must be true.
.
Explanation
.
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.
.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
.
One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).

.
That’s what I mean by “the whole reality-based thing escapes you”, 53_3. I mean that you don’t seem to be familiar with the obvious problems with your reasoning, and I think that’s because you believe that your arguments are somehow sacred, and therefore have never subjected them to rigorous critique. That’s also why you get mad when they are challenged, I think.

…how do you know? And who would you say is? You?
.
(sigh)
.
The converse case [of an appeal to authority] is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.
.
Understand what I’m saying, 53_3?

Are you saying that the Black community is not the final arbiter of this issue?
.
I suppose I should answer that directly…again:
.

53_3:
.
Doesn’t it sound like you’re basing the meaning of “effective” entirely on what some people believe may be the case? .
Doesn’t it sound like you’re saying that somebody’s speech is racist simply because some designated people are unable to distinguish that person’s statements from actual racist speech? What if the entirety of the statement wasn’t heard? What if the statement’s meaning is distorted in some way due to adversarial presentation? What happens if and when mitigating contexts or further information produces a different perception in the minds of most African Americans to which you refer…was the statement racist then, but now it is not? Is that sort of thinking reality-based?

.
And if so, how do you know? And who would you say is? You?
.

Guess what, 53_3? Even though I don’t have the special knowledge of others perceptions to help me, I can assure you that when I found out that Hitler said “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew“, I could tell with a decent amount of certainty that this person was “actually motivated by racial hatred .”
.
I can also know with relative certainty that “Barack the Magic Negro” SOUNDS like the speech of a racist, but I’m also honest enough to admit –even though Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot– that sounding like something is different than being that something. This is perhaps the crux of our disagreement.

We’re talking apples and oranges here, stuart.
.
The issue relating to racist speech is not the same as ‘ufo theories’ or is something amenable to ‘poll trolling’.
.
If we all slavishly followed this advice, you included, none of us would ever be able to talk about anything with certainty, because there are many people out there who doubt things that are true. You can always find some fraction of people who don’t believe this or that even if it is something like E=MC^2, which gave us nuclear power and weapons. Even these ‘facts on the ground’ can have doubt cast upon them.
.
Look at the fact that 3% of all voting Black Americans voted Republican (approximately). Does this mean, because of those 3%,
I can’t say that Black Americans percieve that there is something wrong with Republican ideology? If that’s your stand, then none of us should be here, debating anything!
.
You’ve called me raising the issue of my family a “diversion”, but, Stuart, it’s really not. They, and their respective families, freinds, neighbors, relatives, plus my 40 years of experience as an adult give me the overview I need to make such comments. I’m well grounded with the necessary knowledge.
.
These statements are not pulled out of thin air as you would find out yourself if you were to ask enough people in the Black community how they feel about Rush. You can link yourself to any number of Black commentators, if you wish. I certainly don’t have to go through life tallying every statement for/against/either before I determine whether this or that is reasonably close to the truth. I’d never be able to come to any decisions whatsoever if I did things your way.
.
So, Stuart, don’t look for me anytime soon to stop making such statements…

Keif Olbermoronnn? Isn’t that the unknown kook who got a degree in “communications” from the New York State (SUNY) College of Agriculture and Life Sciences but has repeatedly lied about getting a degree from an “Ivy League” school? http://www.anncoulter.com

So, Stuart, don’t look for me anytime soon to stop making such statements…
.
LOL.
.
OK, OK, I won’t look for you to stop making such statements…as long as you don’t mind if I figuratively cough out the words:
.
“ahem…fallacy…harrumph…Argumentum…hack…ad populum…ahem. Excuse me!”
.
Nice speaking with you again, 53_3.

That’s fine if you do, Stuart, but try this for a change:
.
Ask Black Americans what they think.
.
Just to prepare you, try not to be astonished by the answer…

I figured it out, 53_3.
.
I believe I have had a breakthrough:
.
You think that “racist speech” or “effectively racist speech” is identical to “racially offensive to African Americans“.
.
I’m making a distinction between the two terms, and to me they have completely different meanings.
.
Of course what’s “racially offensive to African Americans” would probably have everything to do with how a majority of AA’s perceptions. That’s why you keep coming back to the “ask AA’s” idea. (hand smacks head)
.
I keep talking about reality (“what is racist vs what seems racist to you”), and you keep talking about perception (“what is racially offensive”), and I keep pointing out that you’re arguing from a fallacy, and you keep pointing out that there’s nothing else besides what offends people on which to base a judgment.
.
So that’s that, I believe. We can consider this argument settled if we agree that the term “racially offensive” is the most accurate term to describe Limbaugh and his stupid statements, as opposed to “racist”. Your term “effectively racist” actually means “racially offensive”, and has more to do with people’s feelings than people’s minds or characters.
.
Are we cool? Did I get that right?

AS: “… it seems that Democratic money could be put to better use building support for a policy agenda rather than demonizing a guy as the face of an already incredibly unpopular political party.”
.
It seems that Rush Limbaugh’s 15 hours of national radio time could be put to better use building support for the Republican policy agenda rather than demonizing EVERY single, living human being who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh.