Limbaugh explained his rhetorical strategy: "I set myself up by presenting the liberal point of view" because "I'm the only one who'll do it honestly"

limbaugh: i present liberals as evil incarnate because that's what they are. no need for me to have them on.

Proof positive no level of hypocrisy or out right lying is fatal. If it were in ANY case Limbaugh's head would have exploded after saying he represents the liberal point of view honestly

Limbaugh further explained that "in order to establish what I believe and what I think, I set myself up by presenting the liberal point of view."<<

Let me translate into human speak. I set up a strawman argument thats easy to knock down since I cant hope to argue the real issues. Thus its imperative I dont allow any real liberals on my show to show me up.

Sam Donaldson's observation that on Limbaugh's program "you don't hear a lot of the other side," Limbaugh explained that the problem with allowing a liberal guest on the show is that "I'm not guaranteed the liberal guest is going to be honest about what he believes."

--------------------------------------------------------

You have to be really stupid to buy that line of reasoning. Does Rush guarantee he is representing the Liberal side honestly (by stating liberals can't represent their side honestly, he is implying he can do it)?

This is a transparent attempt by a bully to excuse and disguise his cowardice.

How can I add to arguments that so accurately portray the speaker. But just so right wingers out there don't feel left out of the discussion allow me, as I will frame their feelings honestly, explain their position. "Rush is just kidding. No really we are leeches bent on sucking the life out of the world and its people leaving nothing but a empty shell which we will find a way to exploit. We hate the words democracy and republic, we long for the days of serfdom and feudalism. We grab on to the Republicans because they give us a shred of dignity, actually we are stealing the last shreds of their dignity to clothe ourselves with as they sold their souls to attain power. And how did we give them power by using fear? Fears of public corruption, an untrustworthy press, boys kissing boys and girls kissing girls (long story on the later, the movie I was, ummmm back to my point), illegal drugs, and terrorism -- all this started with McCarthy during the Red Scare, good times (wipes tears from eyes. That let us destory a lot of people guilt or not, particuliarily if they disagreed with us. Wait it gets humorous here, any way the very things we have been using to scare you we have been doing the entire time. Buying influence blatantly in the political sector, planting stories and paying off journalists -- some of whom were homsexuals it appears imagine our surprise, selling drugs to sponsor covert political wars, and all the while being willing to sell out our country at a moments notice (outting covert agents; breaking U.S. law -- see the covert wars; attempt to rig elections -- Watergate, the present DeLay issues; and all the while lining our pockets with the loot from playing both sides against the middle with the help of our political operatives. Err, I mean our crack staff of investagative journalists. Yes, we are the Anti-Christ's minions, we'll destory this country, and we're proud of it -- but, we'll invoke the name of God to keep the masses in line at a moments notice.

on today's show, franken had his limbaugh loving buddy fron high school. al played him a tape of rush saying it's untrue corporations give more to republicans. rush said both get equal money, which is wildly untrue. al's buddy then proceeds to ask al how much democrats get from unions. change the subject as always. rush lies and al proves it all the time and his buddy says something like "well, rush may have been wrong on that but his point was..." but if your point is based on a lie, then it's invalid.

"What do I do on this program? I set up exactly what the other side's position is. I'm the only one who'll do it honestly. If I have a liberal guest on this program, I'm not guaranteed the liberal guest is going to be honest about what he believes." -- Rush Limbaugh

--------------------------------------------------------------

Um...no. The reason why Rush makes a point of not inviting liberal guests on his program is because he's afraid that someone might actually succeed in tearing his arguments apart and make him look like a total fool in the midst of his own show -- but he's probably too far gone in that pseudo-macho posturing of his to ever be able to admit it even to himself, never mind anyone else.

All these political programs are staged (nothing new), Bill O' Reilly does the same thing on the "O'Reilly Factor." Bill O' Reilly would probably agree with Rush, and likely say the same thing. Misinformation has reached a new low.

"So in order to establish what I believe and what I think, I set myself up by presenting the liberal point of view on whatever issue it is I'm talking about." -Limbaugh

In other words, he sets up a straw man, an imaginary villanous liberal.

This is a Republican strategy. There are many many radio and television talking heads who are perfectly happy to tell us what liberals think and what they want. Very few are willing to let liberals talk for themselves.

Isn't that exactly the way demonization works? If Rush continually represents liberals as being evil because of their evil intent, then he doesn't have to present any factual evidence of wrongdoing.

Perhaps Rush knows liberals so well because there's a liberal inside him straining to get out. How did this situation come about? Said liberal stood too close to the donuts one morning and was devoured.

I certainly can't speak for Rush, but I think I may understand what he may have been implying when he said, "I'm the only one that will do it honestly." A common theme on Rush's program is that Liberals don't honestly represent their agenda or views. If they did, they wouldn't garner 25% of the vote. I happen to agree with him here. I believe it was a backhanded slap (I didn't hear the program where he made this statement) at the dishonesty, or at least his opinion of dishonesty, by the left on their positions. A few for instances: Democrats support Roe V Wade and support abortions, or at least the woman's right to choose to have an abortion, right up the the moment of birth, yet claim that abortions are bad. Clinton, of course masterfully deceived on this issue by saying that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare." Democrats are completely against the war in Iraq, but say they support the troops; Democrats say they don't want to raise taxes, yet want to cancel the President's tax cuts; Democrats say they abhore racism, yet use racebaiting as a tool. The list goes on and on, but my point is that I think MMFA is taking Rush's comments literally when he was possibly making a sarcastic criticism of his, and my, percieved Democrat dishonesty. IMO

Democrats support Roe V Wade and support abortions, or at least the woman's right to choose to have an abortion, right up the the moment of birth, yet claim that abortions are bad. Clinton, of course masterfully deceived on this issue by saying that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare." Democrats are completely against the war in Iraq, but say they support the troops; Democrats say they don't want to raise taxes, yet want to cancel the President's tax cuts; Democrats say they abhore racism, yet use racebaiting as a tool. The list goes on and on, but my point is that I think MMFA is taking Rush's comments literally when he was possibly making a sarcastic criticism of his, and my, percieved Democrat dishonesty. IMO by yipee

First of all your blanket statements about what democrats believe alone makes your argumnet invalid, but that being said.....When democrats say they dont want to raise taxes that doesnt mean that they wont if needed to pay for the many programs,pork and wasteful spending that has occured under this administration,believe it or not they do have to be payed for and many times it not to "raise" taxes but to let the tax reduction that favored a small percentage of americans expire. During the 90's taxes where not hurting our economic growth and certainly helped the deficit, no one was complaining about high taxes then. Abortion is NOT supported by the majority of democrats up until birth as you state(show me evidence otherwise). And if I have to explain the difference between supporting troops and supporting a war then your worse off than I thought. Democrats dont need to racebait if Republicans and their policies did more for minorities they would vote Republican, its that simple. for example, The criticism for the hurricane wasnt a democrat conspiracy it was the result of bad leadership during a disaster that affected a large proportion of blacks. By the way how is "safe,legal,and rare" masterfully deceitful? Republicans and conservatives cant even agree when conception begins...To talk about dishonesty from a large segment of the population and put your trust in a man who is scared to debate, is a hipocrit about drugs,serving in the military, and moral values(he has been divorced 4 times) shows that your more a groupie than someone who has a rational thought in their head.

--In other words, he's a coward. Big surprise.

Republicans must have low self esteem why else would they always defend policies that dont benefit them and attack people like themselves (middle and lower middle class) on issues like raising the minimum wage,letting tax cuts that benefit a small percentage of americans expire, national health care, regulations to control pollution,etc etc. its like they defend those not in their tax brackets so that they can fell like they belong in that exclusive elitist group.

Here is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH:

If you argue with yourself, you will always WIN.

(The only trick is to make sure that the losing argument is defined as somebody else's! Then you cannot possibly lose. LOL)

I once heard him ask for people to call in if they seriously believed that the atmospheric conditions of the planet and other environmental concerns were putting the world in danger. One guy who called in nimbly leaped aside from Rush's every attempt to trip him up with an inflamatory remark. The guy was eloquent, well-spoken, and backed up his positions with a smart use of facts. Needless to say, Limbaugh was really frustrated and you could hear him getting pissed off.

Finally the conversation ended and Limbaugh broke for commercial. When he came back, he informed his callers something he had just found out: the guy he had just spoken to was environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr!

It really was fun to listen to! And which is why Limbaugh won't let himself be interviewed by anyone other than a Hannity or put himself on stage or in a forum with anyone who could possibly show him up!

I noticed a couple of posts where cons try to say what a liberals motivations are. Way to out-Rush the Big Ditto.

I'll put it simply on the murders of abortion providers. Are all pro-lifers muderers? NO they are not. Are all abortion provider killers anti-abortion or "pro-life"? yes, without exception they have all been for the rights of the fetus trumping the life of a doctor or nurse. The LEAP required to make the connection is more like just a step, not even a hop really.

Why is it that the right is so much more aggressive? It seems like their base is driven on anger. Maybe that's why the right is so politically adept, they go right for the jugular and damn the niceties, while the left is expecting some sweet dialog and a compromise. It saddens me that the one trait that makes us liberals, a sense of fairness and compassion, would be our downfall politically.

Guys let's be fair to conservatives for a second. First, he statement "the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals like nuance and conservatives like simple answers," is, in itself, a black and white unambigous statement. It also implies a value judgement--liberal are smart because they can handle multi-step, mult-tiered arguments, conservative voters are not smart because they flock to simple answers. This line of argument, true that it may be, also plays into the worst stereo-type of liberalism spewed on right-wing airwaves--liberals think they're smarter than everyone. More importantly there are liberals who take intractable hyperbolic views on subjects--even abortion. Just that there are conservative who think that all abortion constitutes murder, there are liberals that think any attempt to regulate abortion constitutes an intolerable trampling of the rights of women every where--we just tend to not think of these people as hyperbolic because we tend to think more on the "right of bodily integrity" side of the spectrum than the "right to life at any stage" side of the spectrum so even pro-choice arguments made badly tend to resonate with us mroe. Third, we should probably calling each other names because we are more or less playing into the hands of politicians who want us to call each other names because then we can never consider voting outside our ideological party committments. As long as we imply that we think conservatives are simply stupid people who can't reason, they can comfortably go on thinking that we are ellitists who more brains than morals. Voters don't benefit from this because it excludes the ability to form consensus decisions based on the common good in favor polarizing decisions designed to stick it to the other side.