For the record, I fall into that category.
I am also by education and profession, a member of what Limbaugh deems "the drive by media." I took a brief respite and worked for a doctor's office, but my love is always going to be reporting.
I have very liberal social views. I prefer adoption to abortion, but believe only the two people involved in the pregnancy have a right to choose the proper option. The courts and the politicians need to stay out of those highly personal decisions. Notice I said the two people. If the father chooses to be involved, I believe the mother has a moral responsibility to discuss the options with him.
I believe in social responsibility and in my mind, sometimes, that includes the responsibility of the masses, i.e. the government, to provide temporarily for the needs of the less fortunate. The key being temporarily.
I believe that when business goes astray there is a responsibility of the masses, usually in the form of government regulations to fix it. For example, when businesses put profit above worker safety, then the government should step in.
When some portion of our country goes terribly awry, I believe in the mandate of the people to step up and fix it. In the near future, I see this happening with health care as that system is so out of whack.
I believe we have a responsibility to future generations to clean up the mess we have made of our environment, but I also believe that this planet is a human habitat and our survival is more important than any other being on the planet. So, I'm a species-ist. Get over it.
I think that environmental scientists have become so wrapped up in proving what they know that they can't admit what they don't. And, God forbid something contradict their scientific findings. I believe drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is potentially dangerous, but so is waking up each morning. And, drilling in ANWAR is much less dangerous than relying on foreign oil sources.
On the more right-wing side, I believe we need to stop illegal immigration. I believe American English must be the national language and the language in which we do business. I believe that people who break the law to come here should not be granted the rights and privileges of citizenship.
I also believe we belong in Iraq. We should not leave until the war is won, not half-assed. I may be one of the few moderates out here who think this way, but personally, I'm a bit disappointed that it took the terrorist attacks to get us in there. Why weren't we doing something when Saddam Hussein felt justified in killing hundreds of thousands of people based on their race (Kurds)?
I know, Mr. Limbaugh, you would argue that we didn't have the proper leadership. Sometimes, I agree.
I disagree with the United Nations plan for world appeasement. Apparently, these people have never read a history book or attribute Pearl Harbor as the reason for World War II. I encourage any of them to talk to the Pols who were alive when Hitler was given Poland and ask them how appeasement works. Ask anyone who's actually read and understands a history text.
Like many Americans, I think allowing the French to lead any international force should be preceeded by a surrender, since we all know that's what's coming anyway. And, I agree with Mr. Limbaugh that we as a country have become such pansies that we can't stomach the idea that death is a necessary part of war.
I believe that we must support Israel in their efforts to defend their country. Don't give me that bull about it being artificially drawn borders that resulted from some UN resolution almost sixty years ago. So what! Nearly every nation on the planet has artificial borders than were drawn at some point. Since Australia takes up its entire continent, I'll acknowledge it as an exception, but there are few others.
To be perfectly honest, I believe I speak for a silent majority in the heartland of America. And, so, it seems does Rush Limbaugh.
I began listening to Rush about 3 years ago, on my lunch hour, when I worked for an office full of physicians. It began as sort of a fluke. I'm a news junkie and the only news I could get during my lunch hour, other than three minute updates on the half hour was Rush's program.
When I started listening, his program left me sputtering. I was so angry not to be able to take the time to call him back and argue his points. But the thought of spending hours on hold, especially when I had to get back to work, left me cold.
I particularly took offense at his assertion that he had rarely, if ever, heard a liberal speak clearly on their views and defend them. I so wanted to be the one to argue the point with him.
Then, I listened a little more. And, I came to see why Rush has such a low opinion of liberals and moderates. He accused moderates of not being willing to take a stand, being wishy-washy. Obviously, Rush is a professional and knows his audience so his call screeners are going to give preference to people who will help the show's ratings. But I can't count the number of times someone lied to the call screener to then attempt to pick a fight.
I can't count the number of times I held my head and groaned when a caller made basic logic flaws in their arguments, or simply did not have all the facts. And, I can't count the number of times that I wanted to scream at the caller, explaining that name-calling and finger pointing is not a good argument technique.
I wish, just once, a caller had the guts to say that they simply disagreed. To point out the assumptions on which Rush's arguments are based and to respectfully call him out on those issues. I have yet to hear it happen. But I keep listening, usually just an hour a day, to see if it will happen.
Please understand I do not always disagree with Rush, but I disagree more than I agree. I think his arguments are well-thought out and well-researched. He takes the time to know what he is talking about. That doesn't mean I agree with the conclusions he reaches. I also find that like many people he tends to use individual cases to prove a larger point and sometimes, I think the case studies may be the exception to the rule, not the way things happened in the majority.
For example, it was widely reported that some victims of Hurricane Katrina used their relief funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to buy items the reporting parties considered fraudulent. Someone bought a "Girls Gone Wild" video and someone else bought a very expensive bottle of champaign.
Rush used these examples to point to the rampant fraud and abuse of the welfare system. I disagree. Though these items may have been extravagant, I think that sometimes, especially after a tragedy, people need creature comforts. If the wrath of nature and a poor choice of living arrangements caused someone to lose everything except the clothes on their back, I am not going to begrudge them a $20 dvd. I think the broader issue would have been a more comprehensive look at that person's purchases. If this was evidence of a pattern and not a splurge, then it's a problem.
Same thing with the champign. Did anyone ever ask what they were celebrating? After the pain and devastation of the hurricane, I can begrudge someone a wedding or anniversary celebration or maybe even a "we-get-to-go-home-again celebration." Did they know the risks, living in a flood-prone, hurricane zone? Yes, they did. Do I know the risks of living in the tornado-prone Midwest? Yes, I do. And I have insurance in case the worst thing happens, but not all my friends do, especially those right out of college. To be honest, I've only had my insurance for personal belongings and household goods for about a year.
Listening to Rush's program makes me think about these things and that, I think, even more than conservative indoctrination, is Rush's goal. Now, it may be because he believes all thinking, logical people will become conservatives, but that isn't the point. The point is he challenges people to think in a society that is becoming too willing to elt soemone else think for them.
I find, as a moderate listening to his program, I am challenged to learn more about my world and my beliefs about it. If anything, after listening for three years, I am more comfortable describing myself as a moderate than ever before. But I am beginning to think the more appropriate label might be pragmatist. I would prefer to collect the facts and make an informed decision about issues rather than have some knee-jerk reaction.
I still don't see any reason for the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Hollow points are right out too. (Sorry, doc. You know who you are.)
But I completely understand the right of citizens to own weapons. I think arguing that an assault weapons ban will lead to a hunting rifle ban is the kind of slippery slope argument caused by knee-jerk reactions instead of thinking people, but after watching American politics in the last few years, I can see where the fear comes from.
I believe in providing temporary welfare assistance to any citizen who needs it, but I believe there must be limits. I believe social security should be a last resort for the aged (sorry, Grandma) and that people need to take personal responsibility for their futures.
I believe in freedom of choice, stem cell research and the right to die. I also believe in capitalism and patriotism and a free market economy. I believe without a doubt that I can articulate these beliefs more clearly and with more solid footing now because I have listened to Rush and he has made me think.
I tell a very conservative friend on a regular basis that I listen because I believe it is important to know how the enemy thinks. And, I do. But the statement is actually a little harsh because I do not see conservatives as my enemy. I think the real enemy is ignorance. Rush fights ignorance.
Maybe it's the fact that Rush has been doing this for 18 years. Maybe it's values instilled by his family. Whatever the reason, Rush is worth listening to, no matter your political bent. I know I've learned from him. Chances are, you will too.
Published by Lucinda Gunnin
Lucinda Gunnin is a writer in Illinois, who spends her days running a mini-storage complex. She had her first short stories published in 2009's Elements of the Soul and more in the recently published Element... View profile
- Are You with Obama or with Rush?A liberal group, United for Change, has decided to run radio ads attacking Congressional Republicans upon the theme of, "Are you with Obama or are you with Rush?" Rush Limbaugh must be pinching himself.
- Rush Limbaugh Cited a Fake Obama ThesisOn the October 23 edition of Premier Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh cited a fake Obama thesis from his senior year.
- Why MSNBC Needs to Hire Rush LimbaughCan you be an agent provocateur without even realizing it? MSNBC should hire Rush Limbaugh to find out.
- Joy Behar Doesn't Care that Rush Limbaugh Has 20 Million ListenersJoy Behar confused herself & us once again. This time it was while filling in for Larry King on CNN's Larry King Live. While talking to Ann Coulter about Rush Limbaugh, Behar said something which puzzled Coulter & e...
Rush Limbaugh Denies There is Hunger in AmericaRush Limbaugh twisted the facts about hunger in America, claiming that the greater number of Americans earning more than $100,000 a year and the childhood obesity epidemic are s...
- Confessions of a Liberal: Why I Listen to Rush Limbaugh
- "You Can't Just Listen to Rush Limbaugh and Get Things Done."
- Barack Obama is Afraid of Rush Limbaugh
- Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno: Claims He is Not a Polarizer
- Rush Limbaugh Talks Segregation: Fear of a Black President
- The Rush Limbaugh Diet: Is His Quick Weight Loss Plan Dangerous?
- Is a Petition Against Rush Limbaugh and His "Four Words" Necessary?
- Learn to defend your beliefs no matter what they are.
- Rush Limbaugh challenges people to research and think about their world.
- Even moderates and libreals can learn from Rush.

11 Comments
Post a CommentNot sure Rush has anything to say I want to hear.
Limbaugh is a huge part of the problem, and has been an influential enabler of the right-wing for well over a decade. The problem with all these flag-wavers is that their man is the son and grandson of two of the most criminal, amoral and unamerican figures in history. Just google Bush + Nazi. You'll see.
Lucinda, the weapons inspectors were allowed back in by Saddam and Bush pulled them out so he could invade. This is a common myth. Also, Iraq had disarmed almost ten years before the invasion--see weapons inspector Scott Ritter's opinion, as well as Hans Blix, El Baradei, and Charles Duelfer. All of them conclude that Iraq had disarmed after the Gulf War. So, the whole idea that Saddam Hussein ws "ignoring" the UN is a fallacy. Although, he may have attempted to maintain the facade of WMD in order to weild some shred of power in the region. And why would the neocons want an imperial outpost in the Middle East? Because it is a strategically important, natural resource rich piece of the puzzle, thats why. Read some of the Project for a New American Century's(PNAC)literature for greater detail.
Paul, Have to diagree with you on the U.S. using the U.N. I think the U.N. advocated "peace-keeping" but doesn't do anything when they are slapped in the face. Saddam ignored U.N. resolutions calling for weapons inspections, hid biological materials in the hoems of his scientists, and eventually, kicked weapons inspectors out of his country. An international enforcement agency has no power if it isn't willing to back up its rules and regulations.
As for needing an imperial outpost, why? We have tons of them all over anyway....Germany, the Marshall Islands, the Phillipines...off the top of my head.
Just wanted to add that the Iraq invasion and occupation has not only been a disaster, but it has nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi's from Saddam, as you seem to suggest. The main motivations behind the invasion & occupatin is a desire to create a US imperial military outpost and a "free market" paradise for US multinationals.
Fair enough. However, the US weilds enormous influence over the UN. Therefore, we should be taking the lead in fulfilling the UN's primary function and its reason for coming into being--and that is to prevent conflict, human rights disasters etc, etc. Instead, the current administration is trying to use the UN to promote conflict and aggression, and that seems to be what you advocate when you suggest that we needed to invade Iraq because the UN was appeasing Saddam. The result is an absolute disaster that has resulted in death and destruction on a massive scale.
Paul, I am not simply pro-choice. I am pro-gun control, for a universal health plan and completely in favor of environmental regulation, when it is backed up by hard science. I think we need welfare and social security reform, but that both are necessary parts of our society. I believe the government has a duty to regulate and monitor the health and safety of its people. I do not believe we should trim government for the sake of trimming government. I do believe we need a strong military and to quote Spiderman and Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." We have been blessed, earned, nasty enough, whatever you want to say to become the baddest kid on the block. Because we are, we should be preventing crimes against humanity. What happened to the Kurds. What happens in Rawanda and 60 years ago what happened in Germany are international social issues and need to be policed by someone. The United Nations isn't doing it, so someone has to.
Lucinda--The biggest reason NOt to listen to Rush Limbaugh is that he tells many lies, contrary to your assertion that he is "well researched". Media Matters documents this extensively. Here is an example--he once claimed that 2/3 of minimum wage earners are teenagers. Yet there is no study or statistic that backs this up. In fact the Labor department's own statistics indicate that only 1/3 of min. wage earners are teenagers. This is only one example of many. Also, you consider yourself a moderate but hold a few opinions that are decidedly right-wing. Such as still supporting the Iraq war and saying we should have been there even earlier, and that the UN stands for appeasement, etc. Simply being pro-choice doesn't make you a moderate. I hate to say it but I agree with Jeff that you sound like a plant--not uncommon on AC.
I'm sorry, but I find the contradictions hard to believe...maybe so, but it seems that to say you have liberal thoughts and then to say that liberals need to listen to Rush to "learn to think" seems an odd approach.
Jeff, I'm curious about your comment...I can see from your own posts that you disagree, but I'd like to know why the accussation comes with disagreement?