Friday, February 29, 2008

Personal Asides: Limbaugh Starts Eulogizing Buckley but Gets Sidetracked.

limbaughmug1


Limbaugh.

I snapped on THE GREAT I AM-- Rush Limbaugh-- yesterday as I got in the car and drove downtown. Aha, said I: he’s going to talk about something other than himself today. Usually the Limbaugh shows are all about Him. Now he’s going to eulogize Bill Buckley.

That’s how it started out. But after the first sentence, THE GREAT I AM became distracted. Somebody…somebody… the day before in paying tribute to Buckley said that the one thing Buckley had was civility. He could stake out a position with wit, gentle disclaimers, deftness, nuance. Unfortunately, that somebody said, this generation is composed of people who do not have that skill—like…

Guess who?

Limbaugh.

So the entire show was focused not on Buckley but THE GREAT I AM and why he does indeed have the same skills as Buckley.

Pathetic. It always is and always has been…all about HIM. Limbaugh. When he calls himself the Great Maharishi Yogi, El Rushbo you think he’s kidding. He’s not. He’s desperately egomaniacal. He simply cannot concentrate on anything else if his name is used in the media. All political commentary and any seriousness of purpose diminishes before the fountainhead of narcissism.

His voice was rattling on, saying he is indeed civil, as civil as Buckley used to be…when I snapped off the radio.

Pathetic, isn’t it?

10 comments:

  1. TR,

    Charlie had one of the best tributes to WF Buckley,just playing his interviews and a short but poignant eulogy by Charlie at the end. Very well done with the focus on Buckley, not Charlie.

    JBP

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom you throw the John Birch Society members in the same pot with the American firsters and anti-semites. An apology from you is in order here.

    I discovered the John Birch Society by visiting the American Opinion Book Store that was once in Oak Park in the sixties. I find nothing in their materials that is the least bit anti-semitic. In fact the materials go out of their way to not discuss such matters.

    In their day under Robert Welch, they fought communism, extreme environmentalism, socialism, the civil rights socialists, and the United Nations diabolical march towards global socialism. They warned us about Communist China where John Birch was killed. They supported the local police. They stood up for limited government. They formed the foundation that backed Goldwater and later Reagan.
    They influenced Schlafly who led the conservative march against abortion and feminism. They stirred the ire of the left again and again.

    Welch and Buckley once good friends later fought each other over Eisenhower. Their egos clashed as each tried to take over the other's organization. But such spats are common in political movements.
    As to Eisenhower, only time will tell who was right.

    The John Birch Society brought together people with traditional conservative values. Like Buckley and his affinity for Pot, some in the JBS had their excesses BUT for all purposes the JBS helped foster and motivate conservatives in a positive way.

    People with these ideals are now called paleo-conservatives or traditional conservatives. But in the sixties this was conservatism.

    Your vicious attack on the JBS borders on pure hate. Your putting these well meaning people in the same pot as anti-semites is a tawdry smear that I demand your apology for. Your credibility is at stake here Thomas Roeser.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It sounds like you may be jealous that Limbaugh has a thriving career while you are relegated to the Sunday night kook hour with Drudge and the alien guy.

    It's not pathetic. Not really, unless you view Buckley as some sort of Jesus figure, which those of us in the sane world do not.

    The utter hypocrisy of someone who's blog is devoted to his personal anecdotes (like pushing affirmative action through as a failed government bureaucrat) through 100 or so years of a political life complaining about Limbaugh's narcissism is breathtaking.

    What's narcissism? Limbaugh rattling on about himself or Tom Roeser rattling on about his feelings while listening to Limbaugh rattling on about himself?

    Pathetic, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did you hear the whole thing, Roser? The beginning, with Buckley calling Gore Vidal a "queer" and he was going to punch him in the "God-damned face." He was egged on by Gore Vidal, being called a "crypto-Nazi," So Buckley decided to tell the truth about Vidal. That is what Limbaugh was referring to, is that he is just as civil as Buckley. Because he believes, rightly so, that Buckley was not the symbolism of civility, but a great communicator that was right on the issues. But, let us continue on then, and now John McCain can be the essence of civility, and lose because he has no backbone. Try listening to a whole point that Limbaugh makes, instead of hearing 30 seconds and not understand a thing he is talking about... which has become quite a theme of yours lately.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What most of you hot guns don't seem to grasp is that if McCain loses who are we LEFT with?

    Hell he ain't pretty, but he's the only one to dance with now. Unless you want (pocket)Change and Hope(lessness).

    Save the hot air to try to convince his old brain to pick someone like Romney to run with him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What you don't seem to grasp is there is nothing McCain can do to win over his detractors. It's been too many years and far too much water under the bridge.

    Why would Romney make a difference? There is no love for Romney anywhere.

    The only thing Romney had going for him was that he wasn't John McCain. Running on McCain's ticket wouldn't bring Romney voters into the fold because most of Romney's votes were anti-McCain vote.

    Why else do you think people only became passionate about Romney once it became apparent he was the only alternative to McCain? There was never passion about some sort of Romney revolution. His one and only attraction was that he was not John McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is one very important thing Sen. McCain can do to win me over, which is run against the Democratic candidate. Sen. McCain, despite some faults, is not a Leftist, is not threatening our allies with unilaterally ignoring treaties, and is determinedly not in the blame-America-first camp.


    Chosing Romney gives McCain a huge boost. A proven manager, younger and healthier person, and expert fundraiser, Romney is a great choice,

    JBP

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is it always the conservatives fault for not getting along in the name of Republican Party unity? To most conservatives the border is important. The whole concept of Homeland Security rings hollow with out it. McCain AND Kennedy joined in on that immigration bill. Are Conservatives supposed to forget that? McCain was piqued at Bush and slapped the Conservatives in the process. McCain was simply arrogant in his his condescending to the Conservatives. Conservatives get the scolding as though they are the ignorant unwashed. If you look at recent elections you will soon see that many conservatives simply stayed home. Frankly, conservatives like me believe that we have been scolded enough by the elite who think they know better.

    It is refreshing that Rush Limbaugh sides with us on the immigration issue. Like us he remembers McCain's repeated bad deeds and attitude toward us and Republican values.

    Tom you are siding with the wrong people and are showing a side of you that makes me wonder if you are really a conservative.

    And Buckley with his glib intellectual badinage may have impressed the New York Times editorial board but for the rest of us he came across as arrogant and boring.

    A member of the lucky sperm club, born with a platinum spoon, and given an ivy league education, Buckley never saw the hard knocks side of life or the side of life that creates common sense. Limbaugh on the other hand relates to us and you despise him for it and by that then you must also despise us who agree with him.

    I can't help but think that there are not enough people in the country club set to elect a dog catcher. Maybe it is time that you descended from the high plateau of punditry and saw things from our side for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I didn't hear Limbaugh's broadcast, but your take on him sounds right to me.

    Narcissism seems to be an occupational hazard for talk show hosts, but you avoid it as well as any.

    ReplyDelete
  10. elizabeth alexanderMarch 2, 2008 at 4:41 AM

    Thank you, thank you.

    ReplyDelete