It's fair, that's how you see it. Here's my take.
I don't know the man, but he is very consistent, no matter who's in office, whether or not he cares is up for debate as no one is privvy to his private thoughts. Rush doesn't ever advocate for big government, and gives us the information we need plus his analysis, so either way, I think he does an overall good whether we agree with him or not.
I think that his giving a voice to the conseratives not represented by the GOP is a good thing. I don't like Rush for other reasons more than I don't like his policies.
I think does a serious disservice to the country with some of his rhetoric. HE is naturally a divider of people, not a uniter.
His venom towards the other side is overkill, IMO. I'm not saying that he is wrong to want Obama to fail (and by now, everyone knows exactly waht he meant by that).
I can agree with the concept of supporting the cvountry but not the mission that the leadsers of teh country want ot engage in.
In fact, it is very similar to the concept of "supporting the troops, but not the mission".
Where Rush becomes a hypocrite is that he has made statements like: "I told them what I think is the sort of phony-baloney, plastic-banana, good-time rock 'n' roller of some members of the American left saying they support the troops but they don't support their mission"
The fact is that with the left in charge, their mission is indeed the coutnry's mission.
So Rush is now engaging in the same thing, in a way, by trying to say that he wants Obama's Policies to fail, not Obama himself.
Where I can se the difference here, I can also see the difference in the other argument made.
Rush apparently does not see how his current position parralels that of the left with regard to supporting the troops.
I was listening to his show that day, and saw the Hannity interview, his stated position is he wants the U.S. to succeed, and Obama to fail in the implementation of more socialism since it fails. He stated as well that he could support a free-market, conservative Obama administration. I am paraphrasing BTW.
I saw the inteview as well, and my initial thought was that this is akin to supporting the troops, but not the mission. I have absolutely no problem with that mentality.
My problem is based on Rush's hypocrisy. If it was not OK then, for the opposition to take a similar stance, it should not be OK for him to do so now.
That is where he is inconsistent.
HE's very consistently anti-socialism, and I respect that.
He's not consistinet in his self-application of his ideologies though. He excuses the behavior when he is engaging in it, while fervently denouncing the behavior in others.
My hourly job is at a broadcasting company, one of the stations carries Rush, his numbers are always increasing, no matter who is in office, so I have to say from experience that your point is a good take, but factually incorrect.
I'm not saying he has lost ratings, or that they have not increased, I'm saying that he will receive a boost in ratings when he has more material.
Didn't his ratings increase more when he had Obama to go after in 2008? (Although in general an election year might increase ratings in it's own right)
I'm saying that he'll have even bigger ratings boosts with Obama in office than he would with McCAin in office because it is likely that more people will become unhappy with liberal policies while Obama is in office. And that's Rush's bread and butter.
It's addimittedly purely speculation on my part that his ratings will get a bigger boost with Obama than they would have with McCain. I can tell you one thing, though, there is little doubt that Rush's ratings will never decrease with a Dem in office.
