You wrote:

@ Bill E Pilgrim

Exactly. But what nobody has been able to adequately explain to me is the so-called "power" of the RL listeners.

I honestly think that the real mystery is how the extreme right contingent ever wasn't seen as fringe nut cases out on the frontier of political thought. That is, how they ever came to be seen as mainstream. There's the mystery for you.

Listening to someone like -- well forget Limbaugh, let's just take Gingrich. How did someone with such insanely far right views, I mean really comically out of touch with the majority of the US public, ever get to be seen as a leader of a major party? And he certainly was, at one point.

The "center-right nation" myth pushed non-stop by the Beltway media is based on polls that show a slight majority ticking off "conservative" to describe themselves, yet when asked their positions in detail it turns out that a vast majority hold views in line with what could only be called progressive or liberal.

The point being that Gingrich, let alone Limbaugh, had no business being taken as anything more than a fringe voice with a tiny following. And yet, he certainly was, by the Broders in DC at the very least. People will study that era for years, I'll leave it to them to figure out the weird series of events that led to a political climate that put these right wingers front and center. Maybe it's a mirror image of what happened with the other side in the 60s. Who knows.

My point here is that fringe far right extremists squabbling about who's the boss should be nothing whatsoever to be surprised at, it's perfectly natural given who they are. When you look at how mistaken and out of touch with reality their views are in general, it's really no surprise that this includes overestimating their own importance politically. Or overestimating the importance of an even more fringe group of maybe 14 million radio listeners (only 80% of whom even call themselves conservatives, so even that's inflated. Real Dittoheads in that group probably number around 2% of the population, I'd bet)

I mean, anyone right now who's still touting Reaganomics after what just happened-- being unable to see straight is a feature, not a bug, to people like that.

Yeah, take on Jon Stewart, that's the ticket.

People eventually learn that Stewart just seems like a lightweight funny man, he's actually the best satirist we have who skewers buffoons skillfully and precisely, complete with details.

He's a humorist, yes. And no, he's not comparable to Limbaugh who doesn't claim to be trying to just be funny. In fact they're perfect mirror images: One takes himself seriously and doesn't realize that he's a clown, and the other is a clown who people should learn to take very, very seriously.

At least before engaging in a pie fight with him.

Oh Cramer, is there anything you can't get wrong?

@Camille

I love ya Camille but you're so full 'o shit about Obama's new staff it's passed the rafters in piles.

Just picking someone at random here, I have a question re the above.

Why?

Among the vast majority of comments here every month groaning at yet another column and asking why does Salon publish this and all the rest of it, there are always a handful of these "Love ya Camille, but you're completely wrong.. " and they always seem to mention this "contrarian" notion.

Camille Paglia confessed last time that she listens to right wing AM radio "all day long". This makes perfect sense, since most of her views are heavily influenced by that particular echo chamber (Does anyone in the real world think that anything is "sinking" Barack Obama right now? Really?)

So my question is, why, when Paglia and Rush Limbaugh say essentially the same thing, is he a right wing extremist while she's a contrarian?

Do you know that Limbaugh quotes Paglia, using her to say "See? Even she agrees and she's a "big liberal".

It seems to me that the only thing this particular shell game accomplishes is giving extreme right wingers a mole to point at and claim kinship with a "liberal". That's it.

Do you write to Rush Limbaugh saying "I love ya Rush"?

It's a real question, do you? Many people do, I'm sure. If not, why not? Why her?

Mysteries abound.

@Pilgrim

I see your point...but I'm not on Paglia pilgrimage. No problem here. No worries. I said she's full of shit. I think she's full of shit. What's the fucking problem? What don't you fucking understand? the woman is full of fucking shit? Got it? Good. Move on. No majors.

Wow. Well, I understood some of that. What part of "I love ya, Camille" do you not understand? That's all I was asking about. I don't have any problem with people admiring her, like all the conservatives here. I was just genuinely curious wondering what redeeming value anyone not from the right could possibly see in her.

Never mind.

As for the rest, the column was utterly absurd. Anyone who criticizes Limbaugh is trying to "silence" him? If he criticizes you, on the other hand, he's being the embodiment of the American dream or whatever it was?

Right. Got it.

Not that Rush has ever criticized anyone, of course.

I mean, I'd like a conservative voice on Salon, why does it have to be this sensationalist Limbaughesque variety? If you want page hits, just give O'Reilly a column, he'd make about as much sense.

If on the other hand you want an actual conservative with reasoned views worth debating, they're out there.

I honestly don't think that's what Salon does want. they want this sensationalist version, posing as a liberal. I don't think that's saying anything new, or radical, but it's still worth saying.