On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:54 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Wesley McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > I never listen to Rush Limbaugh, and rarely pay much attention to the > summaries of his radio show comments that appear in various media sources, as > I assume he mostly says outrageous things just for the ink. But my email was > blown up today with notes from various (admittedly liberal) sources about his > recent remarks about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law student who "testified" > at the shadow hearing on President Obama's regulation that employers cover > the cost of contraception (the amendment to overturn this was defeated in the > Senate today). > > Apparently Limbaugh called Fluke a slut for (once run through his distorted, > labyrinthine processor) that she wanted the US taxpayer to pay for her to > have sex; then backed it up today by saying that if Fluke and her fellow > Feminazis have their birth control paid for, they should be required to post > videos of themselves having sex on the internet so "we" get our money's > worth. (see: > http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10552338-limbaugh-contraception-advocate-should-post-online-sex-videos). > > My question, for anyone here who monitors Limbaugh: Is this just more of his > throwing out the red meat to get attention, or has Limbaugh just gone off the > deep end? At a distance, these comments seem to suggest that Limbuagh is > following Pat Buchanan into the land of those who have lost their bearings, > and can no longer tell the difference between outrageous and abhorrent. > > > Though this is qualitatively worse than what he has said before, it's more > like he gradually drifted to that end of the dank pool, over the course of > years... what I'm saying is I was not surprised he would go to > "slut-shaming". And likely, if he didn't hit the big red button of "she's a > slut, so I wanna see her sex-tape", this would probably be simply part of the > package of every other conservative's rancorous remarks on contraception. And > honestly, he wasn't alone as he drifted there... This is one of the things > that Breitbart will endure as his legacy, as he helped turn this culture war > with Limbaugh and Beck and the others into something as vicious and > vindictive as it is now. > > I was wondering if the reflects in part the effects of Breitbart (who for the > most I successfully avoided being exposed to) in recent years; in order for > Limbaugh to get the same shock-buzz, he has to be a lot more extreme now than > he used to be. At a certain point, he just can't go any further. I have to > think that a critical mass of the casual Limbaugh audience, who after all > either are women, or have wives or daughters or mothers who are women, are > going to be repulsed by an old man calling a young woman who is a law student > a slut who should videotape herself having sex and post it online so he can > get his money's worth.
I have always operated under the assumption that Limbaugh is, at his core, an entertainer. When political figures suddenly act as if he's a king maker of some kind, they're doing nothing but helping him. His audience is dwindling, slowly but surely. I think he knows his end game is closer. He can also read the tea leaves that shows his audience now wants this rarer and rarer red meat. And he provides it to them (as Westley notes). I'd also note that this critical mass of people are probably not making the connection between this "slut" and the females in their lives, either because they don't have those females in their lives for whatever reason, or the women in their lives are just different. These are the people who probably assume PBS/NPR takes up 5% of the federal budget. To quote Gene Wilder, "You know...morons." And yet the MSM just loves enabling him, just like Charlie Sheen and any other figure who really should be ignored or at least respected. So he says this, and it gets a rise out of people, and once again we're talking about Limbaugh, and for a day or two, he's won. I also think he watched the epic rise and fall of Beck and laughed at his hubris for two reasons: he knows the moment you get people hooked on conspiracy, you've got to keep going deeper and deeper into the well; and he's smart enough not to step out of his little cocoon in Florida. I'd score this as a red meat throw, acknowledging the meat's getting bloodier and rawer. And I would never connect him with Buchanan. As I mentioned in a previous thread, Buchanan had the political chops from way back when. Rush hasn't run for anything that didn't involve a dinner bell. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
