Is Rush Limbaugh the New Michael Moore?

In 1984, 1988 Jesse Jackson split the Democratic party with the demands that everything the party must do they must do to appease the black folk. They lost. Finally in 1992 Clinton told Jesse to shut up and he would take care of the Black folk AFTER he was elected.......they won.

In 2002-2006 Michael Moore was raving and threatening and the Democrats didnt do so well. Remember the letters to Democrats who voted for the war to renounce their vote or they would be voted out? In 2008 Michael Moore was absolutely Silent. Hardly a peep out of him and low and behold Obama is president.

There should be a message here for the GOP.

I'm starting to wonder when the title of this blog is going to be changed to better reflect its content: "The Limbaugh Watch."

I apologize in advance for this comment, because I know that Joe doesn't broach criticisms like this well and I do understand that you guys don't have an editorial board that assigns out stories in order to create balance.

But really, it seems like it's been running something like 3-4 stories a day on Rush Limbaugh- and seriously, there's nothing else important going on right now to talk about?

CStanley you read my mind. I don't like Limbaugh but do we need 5 stories a day on him? Yes there are a lot more important things going on. A lot of this is just piling on for no purpose.

Amen, CStanley. I was mulling a post on AIG this morning Now I'll go ahead with it. We need to get off Rush Limbaugh.

Thanks, elrod.

Frankly, I really hope the GOP continues to sway to Limbaugh - it draws them even further to the right fringe away from the American public, allowing the leftists and centrists to get down to the real work of fixing this country. As long as Limbaugh remains in the spotlight, America will continue to view the GOP as out of touch.

And yes, I *do* view Limbaugh in the same way that I view Michael Moore, or Cindy Sheehan, or Al Franken. Both ends of the political spectrum have their cranks.

I think the problem with the left is that they need someone to hate. They had Bush and Cheney and they are gone now. So they are trying to create another demon. It served them so well the last 8 years that they appear lost without someone like Limbaugh/Bush to demonize.

Or, here's an easier solution. The title of most any of these posts prominently include the words "Rush" and/or "Limbaugh". There are more posts above and below. Is your scroll bar broken?

No, but neither is my browser stuck on the URL http://themoderatevoice.com . If you're not into constructive criticism, it's not my loss.

Constructive criticism would be disagreeing with whatever opinion I might put forth on Limbaugh, Moore or anyone else. Saying you don't want any of the authors to write about a given topic, person, place, legislation, etc. is something else entirely. You clearly have no interest in reading anything about Limbaugh. (My first post on him in a long time, as I recall, and done primarily as satire.) Dictating what everyone else should or should not have available as topics of discussion is not constructive criticism. It's censorship.

No, your browser is not stuck on this URL, and if your only response is to take your business elsewhere rather than simply skipping over posts that don't interest you, that's your affair and best of luck to you. But as you depart, please keep in mind that you were the one to not only read the article on a topic of no interest to you, but to take time out of your busy day to comment on it.

Jazz, I do apologize that I left my comment under your post- it wasn't personally directed at you but rather something for the entire group of cobloggers to consider. Since another regular reader had the same reaction as I did to the number of Limbaugh stories recently presented, and even one of your cobloggers apparently agreed, I don't think it was a nitpicking or invalid criticism. I certainly don't mention every time I feel that there's a skew one way or another, and obviously I have found things here at this blog to keep me coming back (your posts happen to be one of the highlights, in my opinion.)

Personally I think that bloggers tend to get way too defensive when someone criticizes the overall content of a blog, although I suppose that's because you can never please everyone (I realize, for example, that nominally conservative blogs must get a lot of flak for not being pure enough, and same for nominally progressive blogs, and then moderates get criticized anytime someone thinks that they're not playing it down the middle.) It still seems to me that on some level though, bloggers should consider that their readers are their customers and people who have been hanging around for a while (not just a drive by ) should be permitted to express an opinion relating to overall blog content once in a while if there's clearly a tilt or hyperfocus on one subject for a number of days.

If you and Joe and the rest of the staff disagree, it's your prerogative, but that's simply how I see it.

Please keep blogging about Limbaugh. I think every post about him helps reinforce what he is and what he stands for: the death of the Republican brand and the exposure of the more grievous fallacies of conservative thought.. Every mention about him, whether favorable or not, will help to increase the size of his ego until he eventually goes too far. I would not be surprised for him to instigate armed uprising with his rhetoric at some point. Didn't some crazed gunman recently give a limbaugh inspired rant about his reasons for mass murder?

Nice "moderate" voice piece! Come to think of it, I thought I noticed a line in Obama's stimulus - "Jazz hit pieces". You could actually be on to something here...except that beyond physical appearance, there is NOTHING that these two have in common! I noticed that you were accusing a commenter of trying to "censor" you, the irony here is that it is exactly what you are trying to do to Rush, by comparing him to an outlier like Michael Moore. You are most likely try to color him irrelevant so that maybe independents won't listen to what he has to say.

If you truly believe in the comparisons you have made, why not compare Obama and Hitler, you could easily show the MANY similarities b/w the two. Both great speakers, both for "the people", both came from modest means, both have high approval ratings (in the begining), both are feared by the media (Gibbs and Emanuel calling out people by name). Do I believe that Obama is like Hitler, not hardly. Its just an example of how you can make two things look similar, that couldn't be further from each other.

All of this over the comment that he hopes Obama fails IF he is trying to steer the country to the left and into socialism. Where was the outcry when Congress people, not a comentator like Rush, from the democrat party where calling Bush or his policies -even before he implemented them like the surge- a failure, gangster, mentaly ill, a traitor -this one by Al Bore himself: He betrayed this country!!!!!- where was it? People, especially Obama and his gang, are the ones that keep saying that Rush is the leader of the GOP, James Carville, Rahm Emmanuel -whom he calls everyday together with Stephanopoulus to strategize- they keep repeating it, why? Because they need a distraction so people don't look at the radical agenda -not my words, Jim Cramer a democrat said it today on CNBC- that they are shoving down our throats, so please Jazz et all, stop playing into their hands by blogging about this anymore. Oh and by the way no, they are nothing alike! Rush tells you his opinions, and you can believe them or not, Moron deceives you by telling you he is impartial and a documentary maker only to give you his opinions which are all wrong by the way.

There is not a single liberal figure that Democratic politicians are scared of -- except maybe the President. Democrats don't have any figurehead other than Obama. All the rest -- Moore, Olbermann, etc. -- are just voices on the left who are popular, but not powerful.

Shocking! A Barack Obama supporter jumping on the populist bandwagon of bashing Rush Limbaugh... how brave!. Let Jazz explain how his support for the Socialist President, that is spending generations into debt, contradicts his proud fiscal responsibility mantra he's always preaching. I'm waiting for Jazz to admit that he had no foresight for who Barack Obama was... an out and Leftist that has no restraint when it comes to spending other people's money. The Left is getting all their goodies in after being out of power for over a decade and Jazz Shaw's support is a big part of that fiscal irresponsibility.

Frank of PoliticalVindication.com

Moderate drive-by media butt boys! All moderates are irrelevant because they stand for nothing. Worthless!

While there are plenty of comments to respond to, since this somehow got picked up in both the LA Times and Hot Air, there are a few worth spending a moment on. First, for "Frank" of the Political Vindication twins, I have sat by while you've written over and over again at both Hot Air and PJM that I was an "Obama Supporter" or an "Obama Voter." As has been previously pointed out (and a simple Google search would show, were you actually interested in facts) I never endorsed Obama and in fact endorsed and voted for Bob Barr. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good lying meme? Bah. Truth has no place in politics. Just print whatever you like.

Second, CStanley was commenting on the number of Limbaugh posts on the site, not the number by me. (Which is a total of "one" for quite some time.) That's what we were discussing, not my "opinions" on Rush. The choice of readers who don't care to read about Limbaugh to comment on any given Limbaugh thread rather than skipping over them. Man, the number of comments at Hot Air on that alone is hilarious.

Last, tying into number two, as our Editor and I discussed, this was yet another of my satire pieces, mostly making fun of all the hub-hub over Limbaugh this week. For chrissakes, I linked to a graphic of a *BIORHYTHM CHART" taken from Fark.com and ended it by saying "you read it on the internet so it must be true." How both the LA Times and Hot Air readers managed to think that was a serious piece is a mystery, unless you simply read the title and commented without reading the post. It was making fun of all the nonsense over a non-issue. The fact that so many of you didn't get that is not on me, it's on you. Go back and actually read it again and you'll see that there's no way anyone could take this "article" as a serious analysis of Limbaugh being equal to Moore unless they are either entirely brain dead, or (like the Political Vindication boys) stuck in a mode of lying and not bothering to check any facts.

Stick to material that is simpler to grasp. As the recently passed Paul Harvey would say... "Good day!"

Come on, folks, this was a JOKE. Anyone not getting that even without Jazz's explanation needs a humor implant.

There is no comparison! Moore lies about everything, Rush states FACTS! It is a fact.
Ok, they are both a bit chubby.

Jazz; I never said that you endorsed Obama, but you know that – you’re just scrambling to salvage what’s left of your credibility on this issue. The word you used on your Feb 29th 2008 Mid Stream Radio show was that you were a ‘supporter’ of Barack Obama. In fact, your exact words were:

“It looks to me like it’s going to be Obama, so yeah, I’ve been coming out to find ways to support him”.

Listening to that show again is torture. It’s no wonder you ran from Shane that day. I have the show downloaded, and would be more than happy to share it with you just in case you have trouble finding it. Your monologue that day was about how you would “endorse” the Democratic Party nominee – so the only person who has used that word is, again, you. Why does this all matter? I’ll tell you why. You whined on Rick Moran’s show that Shane had lied about your support for Obama – that was itself a lie, and he should have called in to the show and slammed you, but he has class, and didn’t think it right to use Rick’s show to do that. But we don’t forget thinks like that, especially when the evidence of your dishonesty is so easily found. You owe Shane an apology – are you man enough?

Bloggers have only their credibility to defend them, that’s why when we find a person so willing to slander others, whether its political opponents or well known Republicans, it can’t go unanswered. Your marketing strategy relies on attacking others, not their ideas – for that reason, you deserve the bad reputation you’ve earned.

Who's the liar now?

Frank of PoliticalVindication.com

They ARE the same in some respects: Neither of them is a serious purveyor of political information, no more than Jon Stewart. Neither of them are journalists, if such a thing even exists any more (doubtful). And both of them lead gullible, hair-trigger followers down the garden path to rabid, counterproductive rants and character assaults instead of clear, civil debate. Anyone who cites either of them as actual sources is a fool. And yes, they're both BMI-challenged.