« the future is the past is the future | Main | when will ashcroft's moral juggernaut stop? »

more prolific than rush! able to leap rush's ego in a single bound!

A link from Lileks is like a kick in the ass on a morning when you feel lazy. James wrote about this inspid article which should have been called Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot But He's Better Than Any Blogger and honestly, just the title alone makes me think that Rush is afraid of bloggers. Bloggers and Linkers and Pundits, oh my!

Lileks compares bloggesr to Rush in such a way that Rush comes out on the losing end, and then James says: Michele drops more stuff in a week than Rush lets out in a year which, when taken out of context, sounds rather frightening.

And of course he states that on a day when I'm going to be AWOL for a bit, but I certainly will make up for it with a flurry of blogging later because I do not want to give Rush a head start in the output race.

I'm working on something that deals with Ashcroft, comic books, religion, censorship, porn and going to Target.

No, not really anything about Target. I just thought that would make the Bleat readers stick around. But I do have a daughter named Natalie.


A pretty girl is like a melody...Jeepers, creepers...

Michelle, Rush isn't afraid of bloggers; he refers to them now and again as information and opinion sources. I think the author of that lamely written article is afraid of bloggers, and the poor quality of his writing tells you why. He used Rush as a shield and a bludgeon, but I think the blogosphere is smarter than that.

rush can be a little big-headed at times but i think he's kinda earned it. through the 90s the man suffered thru everything the dems could call him, and he became a posterchild for the "big fat white republican guy" pretty much literally. now, he continues to produce the #1 radio talk show in the country AND gets to watch the democrats self-destruct. i think after all that the man is entitled to talk some shit. i know i'd be on the radio yelling "stick that in your pipe and smoke it ya freaking lefties!! 15 years baby!!!"

i know you didn't just call the bleat "that lamely written article."

Tanya, I do believe she was referring to the drivel regarding bloggers not being able to "compete" with Rush and his media mogulness.

I hopped over here from the Bleat; I'm staying for the cookies and punch, not for Target references.

On topic now. I think that anyone that has to dissect overinflated reasons for a radio show's popularity and contrast that against underinformed generalizations about blogs is looking to get themselves out of the steno-pool.

I met Rush a few times when he was starting his radio talk show in Sacramento, before he went national. He isn't (or wasn't then, anyway) anything in real life like he seems on the air. I liked him, and found him funny, even when I didn't agree with his politics. He is, and always will be an entertainer, so that cuts a bit into the intellectual honesty of his arguements. It's more important for him to draw and maintain an audience than be accurrate or truthful. Just like I realize The Onion and The Daily Show have a political point of view, I wouldn't use them as a source in a serious debate about anything.

I do see similarities between talk radio and blogs, as both can be interactive and passive at the same time, and each is cheap to produce and yet constantly obsessed with audience size.

Rush has always been pretty tech savy (and an Apple fan also), so I wouldn't be surprised to see him become more actively involved with blogs or the Internet than he already is, but that will likely only happen if he can make a buck off it. He is a busy and very financially successful guy now, and when time is big money, blogs may be too much of a loss for him to bother with.