Running water on Mars?

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I could discuss qualitative. What metrics do you have in mind?

No, at the moment we are discussing your goal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, at the moment we are discussing your goal.

Sorry, I had thought you were interested in a qualitative test and might have some preferences. I don't have any right now, but would be interested in hearing yours if you have some. Until then, I guess we can stick to the quantitative since you don't have a problem with that.

 

[tomBitonti]

That's debatable. What you find interesting may or may not be the same thing anyone else finds interesting.

Eh, do you think there is a whole lot that is interesting about discussing whether Rush listeners believe every thing he says as if it were the word of god?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Kramodlog]

Sorry, I had thought you were interested in a qualitative test and might have some preferences. I don't have any right now, but would be interested in hearing yours if you have some.

If your interested, I'd be curious to explore quality.

You deny his leadership and his influence, saying he is basically clowning around. But why would President Reagan give him an award if he was a clown? Why make a clown an honorary member of the Republican caucus? That would be bad for the Republican brand, right? If it were a zero summum game, why do it at all?

You say those things happened a long time ago and now his influence has diminished. Firstly, that would mean you do agree that he did have some influence at some point. I says he hasn't lost much of it, if he lost any.

In 2009, not too long ago, Michael Steele as leader of the RND agreed with you and said this about Limbaugh:

"the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

Now, if Limbaugh had no influence inside the Republican party and among conservatives, that would of been that, right? There would have been a concensus among Republicans that he was a clown. The head of the RNC isn't even elected by the public, so he isn't beholden to voters like other politicians are. Yet he had to apologize to the clown and call him a leader.

"I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not." Steele later issued another statement to say that Limbaugh "is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize."

How is that, qualitatively speaking of course, not a sign of Limbaugh's importance, influence and popularity among Republicans and conservatives?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If your interested, I'd be curious to explore quality.

You deny his leadership and his influence, saying he is basically clowning around. But why would President Reagan give him an award if he was a clown?

It wasn't an award, it was a letter. Rush was the biggest national radio host with a conservative oriented program in the US at the time. I've never denied Rush isn't on the right, I've said he has little actual influence. A letter from an ex-President isn't exactly a glowing representation of political power considering there was a sitting Republican President at the time that didn't say anything at all.

Why make a clown an honorary member of the Republican caucus?

Who said clown? I said he was an entertainer, and intentionally says things to upset people with liberal sensibilities. He's a lightening rod. He lightening rodded very well that year, and the Republicans were high off of winning a massive landside in Congress. They were giddy, and Rush was a well known phenomenon at the time. But, and this is kinda key, the thing he did that year was talk up the Contract with America. He didn't propose anything new, and that was carried everywhere. Hard to credit Rush with that win, at best he had a small effect. That all of the newly elected members decided to slap him on the back doesn't really show much qualitatively.

That would be bad for the Republican brand, right? If it were a zero summum game, why do it at all?

An appeal to zero sum logic in a situation (politics) where it clearly doesn't apply is kinda confusing to me.

You say those things happened a long time ago and now his influence has diminished. Firstly, that would mean you do agree that he did have some influence at some point. I says he hasn't lost much of it, if he lost any.

No, I said neither thing. I said the incidents were isolated, meaning they were not representative of the continuity of his being on air as a national broadcaster. I've also never said his influence has diminished -- that was an argument from Umbran. I've been pretty clear that I don't think he's ever had substantial influence. Your arguments aren't applicable to what I've been saying. They might be good arguments if you find someone to apply them to, though, so don't feel discouraged; someone might show up any minute and help you out.

In 2009, not too long ago, Michael Steele as leader of the RND agreed with you and said this about Limbaugh: Now, if Limbaugh had no influence inside the Republican party and among conservatives, that would of been that, right? There would have been a concensus among Republicans that he was a clown. The head of the RNC isn't even elected by the public, so he isn't beholden to voters like other politicians are. Yet he had to apologize to the clown and call him a leader.

How is that, qualitatively speaking of course, not a sign of Limbaugh's importance, influence and popularity among Republicans and conservatives?

That's the first really good point I've seen and a solid point in favor of the argument that Rush is a Republican leader. My only qualitative contention is that Steele often stepped on himself, and fumbled around the leadership of the party for the two years he was in. He lost very convincingly in the next election. The time that Steele was in was a very precarious one for Republicans. They had just lost to Obama and were losing seats in Congress. They were are a local minimum of power. That's when Rush has the most influence -- when the Republicans are least in power -- because his small influence is magnified in the search for as many votes as possible. I rest this argument against by noting that no other leader of the party has rushed out to announce Rush as a conservative leader. Granted, they don't insult him, either, they just ignore him.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Eh, do you think there is a whole lot that is interesting about discussing whether Rush listeners believe every thing he says as if it were the word of god?

Thx!
TomB

Sure, why not?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Sorry, I had thought you were interested in a qualitative test and might have some preferences. I don't have any right now, but would be interested in hearing yours if you have some. Until then, I guess we can stick to the quantitative since you don't have a problem with that.

My question was about your goal. I just wanted to make sure that later on you don't change your goal later on and dismiss examples provided to you as 'just minor instances' or 'really not that big a deal.'

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

That's the first really good point I've seen and a solid point in favor of the argument that Rush is a Republican leader.

That's the first good point you see that is a good solid point in favor of Rush being a republican leader? Really? That's also the first link I posted. That suggests that you dismissed points without actually considering them. That's bad form.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My question was about your goal. I just wanted to make sure that later on you don't change your goal later on and dismiss examples provided to you as 'just minor instances' or 'really not that big a deal.'

Ah, so it's suspicion that I'm arguing dishonestly that's motivating you to ask trap questions so you can pin me down on behaviour I haven't exhibited yet? Maybe, and this is just spitballing, if I move my clearly stated goalposts you can accuse me of moving goalposts then?

That's the first good point you see that is a good solid point in favor of Rush being a republican leader? Really? That's also the first link I posted. That suggests that you dismissed points without actually considering them. That's bad form.

I had actually missed your post somehow. Apologies.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Ah, so it's suspicion that I'm arguing dishonestly that's motivating you to ask trap questions so you can pin me down on behaviour I haven't exhibited yet? Maybe, and this is just spitballing, if I move my clearly stated goalposts you can accuse me of moving goalposts then?

I'm just helping you clearly state your goal.

I had actually missed your post somehow. Apologies.

That's one internetz for me.