Limbaugh’s 180 on McCain

A female reader writes:

Rush Limbaugh was foaming at the mouth in praise for John McCain’s Saddleback performance—McCain was substantive, he was quick, he was fresh, he was succinct, blah blah blah. Some of us remember that not that long ago Rush was foaming at the mouth in condemnation of McCain, saying over and over that his nomination would utterly destroy conservatism. So why should we listen to Rush for anything any more, anything aside from entertainment, that is, anything substantive. For that matter, why should we believe that his current denunciations of Obama are any more substantive and enduring than were his denunciations of McCain?

- end of initial entry -

LA replies:

At this point there’s nothing, literally nothing, that the “conservatives” won’t swallow to support McCain. They’ll even accept his choosing a pro-partial birth abortion Democrat—Joseph Lieberman—as his running mate. Oh, they’ll squirm, they’ll protest, they’ll moan and groan—and then they’ll pull the lever for McCain and Lieberman.

James P. writes:

“Rush Limbaugh was foaming at the mouth in praise for John McCain’s Saddleback performance—McCain was substantive, he was quick, he was fresh, he was succinct, blah blah blah. Some of us remember that not that long ago Rush was foaming at the mouth in condemnation of McCain, saying over and over that his nomination would utterly destroy conservatism.”

This is also true of Hannity, whom I sometimes hear on the way home. In the spring—back when Romney was still in the picture—Hannity was rabidly critical of McCain, and now he is rabidly pro-McCain. McCain has gone from the villain who would destroy conservatism to the hero who is the only one who can save us from Obama, and one still has to wonder, what exactly has McCain done to deserve this transformation other than not be Obama (which, of course, was always true)? If he was an Enemy of True Conservatives back in February, what evidence do we have that he is now a Friend to True Conservatives?

MG writes:

“So why should we listen to Rush for anything any more, anything aside from entertainment, that is, anything substantive. “

Why would anyone treat Rush L. as anything other than entertainer? In fact Limbaugh in “serious” interviews—interviews not targeted to his listeners—always admits as much.

Jon Stewart and other political comedians on the left spew any trash they think is funny as a political wisdom. When confronted they declare that they are comedians/entertainers and cannot be held responsible for anything they say.

Limbaugh does the same. For 15 years every day he pronounced himself a role model for the youth of America while three times divorced. When caught abusing prescription drugs, he drops his model thing. When questioned, he explains that whatever he says on his show is an entertainment.

If his callers in any way represent his listeners, 75 percent of them hold his each word as God given truth.

At least Limbaugh is entertaining and smart while flippant and deeply ignorant. What about Numero 2, Hannity? Guy is dull as beige paint, just as ignorant as Limbaugh and not very smart. And he has millions listening to him. We may be in bigger trouble than we think.

LA replies:

The success of Hannity (whom I see from time to time for a few minutes on TV) continues to bewilder me. He looks stupid, he sounds stupid, and he is stupid. I cannot figure out what people get out of watching and listening to him. The last time I listened to him on the radio was about five years ago on a car trip. In a long monolog on some subject, he kept repeating himself, over and over and over. It was unbearable.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 18, 2008 08:06 PM | Send