How Fat Loudmouths Get Into Trouble

Well, sometimes I do.

No, I'm not referring to myself, or even that rich leftist slob who makes anti-american movies. I'm talking about the boor who sits behind a microphone and insults his political opponents day after day instead of sitting behind a keyboard and doing the same thing, like I do. It seems that Rush has become more than a little rash lately in his rant against the entitlement society.

Putting aside about a hundred million bucks and fifteen million followers a week, the differences between "El Rushbo" and me are more about what issues we address and the medium we use to address them and less about popularity. After all, both of us try to illuminate our issues with passion and still be entertaining while doing it.

But enough about the comparisons between me and the other fat commentator. It's not fair to Rush. How could the poor guy hope to shine while standing next to the Bhagwan of bloggers?

This commentary is about how we go wrong and what the consequences are. Rush screws up and he loses listeners and advertising sponsors. I screw up and I might lose both of my readers and all of my advertisers. (Oh, I got lost in my fantasy and forgot I don't have any.)

For my part, I do my best to stick more to ideas and concepts and less to people and events. But I fail miserably on a regular basis. Let's just admit that it's way more fun to poke at others with an extra long stick than to try to get people interested in why economics and government policy matter.

The problem for commentators who are trying to make a point: if you are going to criticize positions you disagree with by using people in the news, you better keep it general or you might drown in your own vitriolic juices. Rush broke that rule. But then again, he got famous by breaking the rules.

Rush personalized the attack, and he did it with crude, obnoxious and possibly sexist language. It looked like he was personally attacking the morals of a woman he didn't even know because she was lobbying the government for free stuff. It looked that way because it was that way.

If he had kept the rant general, rather than personal, it wouldn't have caused a blip on the radio radar. He says more outrageous stuff than that about his general targets on every broadcast and no one bats an ear. But if you walk the edge of the cliff to get ratings often enough, eventually you fall off the edge.

The difference between the girl he targeted and an "Occupy" person is merely a matter of who bathes, has an actual place of residence, and the audience addressed, than the substance of what their message is. At least on this issue, they both want "free" stuff from the pockets of the taxpayers so they can use their own dough to buy the things they want.

The girl isn't a slut, she's just a mooch, at least on this issue. I dare say that some of her other issues (and since it seems she is a semi-full time activist, she has many) are excellent, at least in my opinion. According to Wikipedia, her biggest issue is: "she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking."  These are huge issues and input and activism from all sides is desirable. I think that they are very important, even if I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with her approach.

As far as the Limbaugh controversy is concerned, like most things today, it's political. The network news shows know a winning issue when they see one. Here's how I see the reason for their 24/7 coverage of this brouhaha:

Obama = defends the lady's honor = good .
Rush = misogynist = anti birth control = bad = conservative = Republican = GOP Presidential candidates.

It is (like most things) obvious to me. But then again, most things seem obvious to me. And that's one of the things that gets fat loudmouths into trouble.