Rush Limbaugh: Man of the Year
By Erick Posted in Endorsements — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was pleased to be in on the decision making process for this year's Conservative Man of the Year as determined by Human Events, Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper.
Rush is it. And it makes sense. Rush Limbaugh has been the one honest broker this year for conservatives. He is the guy who has been fair, balanced, unafraid, and willing to speak tough truths with love.
Mark Levin was asked to do the article for Human Events. He does a great job summing up what a lot of us think and why Human Events chose Rush Limbaugh as its Man of the Year.
What is it about Rush that drives the left crazy (that is, crazier than they already are)? The answer is actually quite simple: Rush is the most important voice in the conservative movement. Others want to be, some claim to be, but he is. More than any conservative politician, columnist or pundit, Rush speaks for us. His opinions are principled and consistent. He has a brilliant mind and a voracious appetite for knowledge and truth, all of which he uses behind his golden EIB microphone to teach and persuade as he cuts through the daily media clutter. He has the guts to say what so many of us are thinking to ourselves. And Rush’s likable and optimistic personality and entertaining style attract increasing numbers of conservative adherents. Liberals consider Rush and his talk show the greatest threats to their agenda and pursuit of power, and they’re right.
« The coveted Bill Clinton's spokesman's statement of support for Obama email. — Comments (6) | RedState Supports Pete Olson For Congress — Comments (0) »
Rush Limbaugh: Man of the Year 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The award was for "Conservative" man of the year. Otherwise it would have been.
To claim that about Petraeus drags him into an ugly fight with the left.
True, but i guess it is more of an unfortunate thing about America that losing wars and surrender is a liberal position and winning wars, killing terrorists is a conservative one.
The general is deserving, but to devalue what Rush does is just petty. Rush informs and educates millions, that in turn has helped the general and the efforts of our troops enormously.
Without Rush and others, funding may have been cut off for our troops and they would have been told their sacrifices were in vain. There is no denying when the band goes by, Rush is at the head. Cutting off funding, not a good outcome for America.
The Human Events pick for Man of the Year is a big deal -- also well deserved. In my opinion (not the first time I've posted this), HE is THE FLAGSHIP PERIODICAL for the Conservative Movement. That is where it's at. Not NR, not the Weekly Standard.
So when HE gives you their highest honor, then that's a great thing.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
You got it right, and remind us why conservatives like you the best. Although Petraeus would have been an acceptable pick, Rush is a lighthouse, a reliable North Star for the Conservative movement, and has been for two decades.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
But given that Rush sounded like a "Rombot" today on the radio - praising Romney and hacking down McCain and Huckabee - and given how much Erick despises Romney (and his robust supporters, alike), I wonder how Erick was able to find it in him to agree to making Rush the conservative of the year? :-)
Rush has all but come out and said that Huck is our worst candidate. If he wins, it will demonstrate that Rush does not have the influence that some believe.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
But it would not diminish how correct Rush is. In fact, a disastrous Huck presidency (which is never going to happen, I don't care what Bill Kristol says) would only dramatically increase Rush's accuracy rating.
You are right, it would not diminish how correct he is. It would demonstrate that despite Rush all but coming out and saying that Huckabee is the worst of the bunch(except for Paul)is not enough to keep him from getting the nomination. And I agree, Huck presidency is more than likely not going to happen.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
It would mean America's laziness is now affecting personal hygiene, because clearly there'd be a boat-load of wax in their ears to think spouts true conservative beliefs (besides pro-life, gay marriage)...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
and get out in front of it. While I admire rush for speaking his mind regardless; much of his previous influence came from being out in front of the Clinton resistance of the late 90s. Plus he's an entertainer with the freedom to say whatever he wants with essentially no consequences.
I would have nominated Tom Coburn instead.
is nothing more than sticking your finger in the air, finding which way the wind is blowing, and getting in front of it?
You sound like Bill Clinton...
New word for you; P.R.I.N.C.I.P.L.E.S look it up.
To call Rush a mere "entertainer" is a tactic frequently employed by the left and the Huckster. Proclaiming him an entertainer is to imply that he does not actually inform or speak the truth. And what he says most assuredly has consequences. As I recall, last summer the US Congress had to take an entire week out of their schedule to deal with what he said. There is most assuredly consequences for what he says.
So, as you are most likely a Dem in disguise...
BLAM!
(oh, I lack that power. Phooey)
I respect Rush and the fact that he has spoken the truth for years. However I'm guessing he wouldn't have any problems with viewing himself as an entertainer. In fact that's one of the great strength's he uses to get the conservative message out.
Over the years he has attracted a lot of people with entertainment who have later been swayed by the message. If you call that a negative so be it.
I'm won't even try to guess what you might be...
*cough*
And unlike some unamed poster's I'll not accuse you of sounding like a disingenuous twit.
What I wrote was the methodology used by most well known leader's to become leaders, and also how they demonstrably continue to operate. I didn't say it was right. I was only making an observation.
and guess that this is supposed to be an answer to my post above. SWAG is the best I can do, since you seem unable to understand the concept of REPLY TO THIS as a means of replying to a particular threaded post. OH, by the way, an inability to master REPLY TO THIS is another admirable trait of our liberal brethren.
**S.W.A.G. (Scientific Wild-*ss Guess)
So we have a guy who simply expresses his own opinion on the radio and he wins 'Conservative Man of the Year Award'?
Sounds like Al Gore winning the Nobel.
Rush talks all day long. Patreus is out saving America's ass.