Rush taken to hospital for chest pain

In a FOXNews story:

HONOLULU —  Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was taken to a hospital with chest pains on Wednesday, a Honolulu television station reported.

Paramedics responded to a call at 2:41 p.m. from the Kahala Hotel and Resort where Limbaugh is vacationing, KITV reported. The station, citing unnamed sources, said the 58-year-old Limbaugh was taken to The Queens Medical Center in serious condition.

 

Read the rest.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Rush taken to hospital for chest pain

  1. kester says:

    I will be sure to pray for your messiah.

  2. Peggy R says:

    kester,
    if you have time to pray for Rush too that would be nice.

    Interestingly, at the top of the hour (Midnight central) CNN had a longer story (fair as well) than FOX did.

  3. kester says:

    Yes, Peggy, Rush is the wingnuts messiah.

  4. kester says:

    What will the GOP do if they lose their leader? Not much brain power on the “right”.

  5. MaryW says:

    Not only will I pray for Rush, I’ll pray for the Lord to lift the sickness from Mr. Kester’s soul. St. Michael the Archangel………

  6. Jordanes says:

    Our Messiah is not in need of any prayers, kester, but He intercedes at the right of the Father for you.

    Honestly, this is not the time for cutsey, heartless partisan snippiness. Give it a rest. If you can’t bring yourself to say anything good, don’t say anything.

  7. MenTaLguY says:

    I might not be a fan of Rush (to say the least), but I said a prayer for him. No snarkiness.

  8. archambt says:

    “Honestly, this is not the time for cutsey, heartless partisan snippiness. Give it a rest. If you can’t bring yourself to say anything good, don’t say anything.”

    When my dog barks at me, I ignore her, and she stops barking. In this situation, its probably the best path to follow.

    “I’ll pray for the Lord to lift the sickness from Mr. Kester’s soul.”

    Its hard to tell whether you’re being genuine, or self-righteous, Mary. I’ll assume the latter, but I don’t think it needs to be put into words, does? We needn’t sound the trumpet, must we?

    I apologize. Its obviously bedtime. I hope everyone has a nice (and well behaved) New Years Eve!

  9. ckdexterhaven says:

    I pray that Rush recovers quickly. No apologies here, along with my kids, we listen to him every day, usually for the full 3 hours.

    Kester, I’m assuming you’re Catholic, b/c you’re a commenter on Fr. Z’s board? Rush has always given due credit to Pope John Paul (along with Reagan and Thatcher) for the fall of the Berlin Wall. When Pope Benedict XVI came to America in spring of 08, Rush was visibly moved by his visit. After Pope John Paul died, (and b4 Pope Benedict was chosen), Rush really sang the praises of Catholicism as the force for “truth” in this world.

    Take care, Rush, America needs you now more than ever.

  10. Jack007 says:

    Ignore trolls like “kester”.
    His name says it all.

    Jack in KC

  11. The Egyptian says:

    Liberalism… Proving they are the culture of death one snark at a time in regards to Rush Limbaugh!

    I pray for his health like I do for all leaders of this country elected or not, I find it surprising to see anyone attack him here as all he has ever espoused is self reliance and hard work, to the best of ones abilities, and to be rewarded to the extent of your work. We will need allies like him in the future as the attacks on the Church increase in the future. He has been consistently pro life as well.

    It would be interesting to see how the snarkers here feel about the Latin Mass and the new translations of the Novis Ordo, women priest and girl serveretts, Anyone??

  12. AML says:

    As a Catholic I pray for the recovery of Mr. Limbaugh. As a conservative, I pray that our political movement may receive better and more intelligent spokesmen. Bring us a new Kirk, Buckley, or Will so the right is no longer the stupid party!

  13. zgietl says:

    The Egyptian-just because one does not agree with Mr. Limbaugh does not mean he or she is any less (conservative) of a Catholic.

  14. bookworm says:

    “After Pope John Paul died, (and b4 Pope Benedict was chosen), Rush really sang the praises of Catholicism as the force for “truth” in this world.”

    Actually, it was from briefly tuning in to Rush’s show just before noon on April 19, 2005, that I learned that Cardinal Ratzinger had been elected pope.

    Although I don’t often listen to the show these days for various reasons, I still agree with about 80 percent of Rush’s views, and I believe his book “The Way Things Ought to Be” is a good summary of conservative principles.

    With his praise of the Catholic Church, maybe he’ll jump the Tiber himself someday?

  15. bookworm says:

    Does “DNFTT” mean “Do not forget the topic?”

  16. AML says:

    It is not so much that I disagree with Rush. We probably agree on most things. What I dislike about him is his bombastic style of taking cheap shots at opponents and generally lowering the quality of political discourse. Instead of intelligently discussing the issue he engages in colorful rhetoric which is entertaining and very much engaging but not particularly intelligent. What he does is tar his enemies through such devices as employed by the Egyptian above rather than discussing substance.

    Compare Rush with Russell Kirk as an expositor of conservatism and you will see what I mean. I highly recommend Kirk’s the Conservative mind. It is quite the tome, but worth the effort.

    Fr. Z: what does DNFTT mean? I am not up on all this online lingo.

  17. irishgirl says:

    No-it means, ‘Do Not Feed The Troll’-meaning people like kester.

    But it could also mean what you say, bookworm.

    Prayers for Rush…I don’t always listen to his show because he can get pretty hyper and sometimes bombastic…but he is a child of God.

    I didn’t know that he met the Holy Father when he came to America in 2008…

  18. EXCHIEF says:

    I don’t agree with Limbaugh on some subjects but I do think he gets many things right. I appreciate his defense of the Catholic faith at times when many so-called “catholics” do not defend it and in fact do quite the opposite. I also appreciate his recently very outspoken stance against abortion.

    As much as I dislike Obama I do pray for him. Certainly Limbaugh deserves the same.

  19. Wayne NYC says:

    As soon as I heard Rush was hospitalized in serious condition
    I started praying for him…as I hope most followers of WDTPRS
    will.
    BTW AML my also being an old school conservative (Hayek Kirk
    Dawson Buckley et al.) I heartily recommend you sit and listen
    to Rush over a period of time to pick up on so much brilliant
    parody disguised as bombast. Too I can only give praise when as
    those occasions arise that he defends the unborn in his flawless
    comic patience.

  20. introibo says:

    Let’s hope that someday, Rush comes to the fullness of the truth. He is in many ways much more Catholic than the “real” Catholic, Sean Hannity, who, in my opinion, is more puffed up with himself than Rush, and although he touts his Catholic training, is often at odds with the Church on the moral issues.

  21. gloriainexcelsis says:

    Rush sometimes gets on one’s nerves; but I love the humorous parodies and his ability to cut to the heart of the matter. His insights are usually right on – and anything but unintelligent. His memory (and file-keeping) is phenomenal. He can pull something up from years ago to prove a point. I am praying for him.

  22. A couple things about Rush.

    First, he broke the strangle hold of the liberal mainstream media. Once his show got traction, everything changed. Everyone has benefited from that.

    Second, he continues to work while overcoming what must be a huge liability for a man in radio: hearing loss and cochlear implants. He demonstrates every day that people with disabilities can be at the top of the pack.

  23. wanda says:

    I propose that we all have a day of ‘stone dropping’ and simply pray for the healing and recovery of a child of God, whom God loves with a love we cannot even imagine in our wildest dreams.

  24. robtbrown says:

    It is not so much that I disagree with Rush. We probably agree on most things. What I dislike about him is his bombastic style of taking cheap shots at opponents and generally lowering the quality of political discourse. Instead of intelligently discussing the issue he engages in colorful rhetoric which is entertaining and very much engaging but not particularly intelligent. What he does is tar his enemies through such devices as employed by the Egyptian above rather than discussing substance.

    I seldom listen to him, but it seems to me he often gets right to the substance.

    If the quality of political discourse is low, point the finger at politicians. In just the past few years, we have been treated to:

    + The promise of a six month project in Iraq.

    + Universal health care that will a) pay for itself, then b) be paid for by a tax on sugared beverages, c) be paid for by taxing greedy insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and finally d) be paid for by a tax on the wealthiest Americans. Right now it looks as if the solution will be, as I always suspected, taxing the health insurance plans of middle class Americas.

    Compare Rush with Russell Kirk as an expositor of conservatism and you will see what I mean. I highly recommend Kirk’s the Conservative mind. It is quite the tome, but worth the effort.
    Comment by AML

    Kirk was an academic and writer. Rush is not.

  25. Bornacatholic says:

    I mean no disrespect but the idea Rush is what America needs (as some appear to think) is one of the, many, things that is wrong with America.

    While I pray he recovers, and converts to Catholicism, the fact is he is a serial adulterer; he was a drug abuser who was so addicted to Oxycotin that his drug abuse prolly destroyed his own hearing; he is a Neo-Con who has never said one negative word about Israel and who never tires of war (just as long as he didn’t have to fight in them)and who is quite open about the newest Babe he is fornicating with.

    He is a man who has failed to great heights.

    He has failed at three marriages. He never desired children. He is very open that he shacks-up with some paramour. He does not go to Church. He is a shill for the Republicans. He is a Neo-Con who appears to think Israel is impeccable and he references The Constitution only when the Democrats are violating it.

    If he is representative of Conservatives in America – and I think he is – then of what use is Conservatism to America?

    I have to write that I have met Rush many times and I know he has been very generous to those who serve him, such as those who work at The Everglades Club on Palm Beach, where, at that no-tipping Club, he is a HUGE tipper when nobody is looking.

    I bear him no ill will and I truly do pray he recovers and converts but I can not hold my comments when it is suggested he is what America needs when he exemplifies much of what is wrong with America.

    There once was a time not so long ago that a man who engaged in such shameful behavior was shunned by Christians and Conservatives but now Christians and Conservatives think him their champion and spokesman and say he is what America needs.

    With friends like Rush, Conservatism needs no enemies.

  26. chironomo says:

    As a 3-hour-a-day / 5 day-a-week listener, I take some offense at those who criticize Mr. Limbaugh while having little knowledge of what he actually believes or what he stands for. With some actual facts, it becomes painfully obvious that the way he is represented by his enemies can be best described as malicious mischaracterization… at worst it is character assasination. His counterparts on the Left (OK… there actually are no counterparts on the Left, but those who try…) do everything possible to take him down and only end up showing themselves for the hacks they are.

    I say a prayer for Mr. Limbaugh…

  27. Jordanes says:

    bornacatholic said: I mean no disrespect

    and then proceeded to chant a litany of Rush Limbaugh’s sins, alleged sins, and a few other things that bornacatholic thinks are sins.

    If that’s meaning no disrespect, I wouldn’t want to see examples of bornacatholic meaning disrespect.

    That said, I mostly agree with bornacatholic’s description of what is troubling or disappointing about Rush Limbaugh’s sort of conservatism.

  28. Bornacatholic: With friends like Rush, Conservatism needs no enemies.

    So… people have to be perfect or close to it in order to have a conservative role?

    I am reminded of Card. George’s comment I heard some years ago that Americans are at the same time both hedonistic and puritanical.

    I am also reminded of the fact that even in Holy Church we find much the same attitude about people with faults. Many forget that the Church Militant, Holy Church in this vale of tears, isn’t a museum of saints but a hospital for sinners. And Rush is not Catholic.

    In no way do I intend to excuse sin with these remarks, or condone mistakes, but I think we also need some perspective.

    I am moreover reminded of a phrase from a novel by Bernard Malamud, that we have two lives – one we learn with and the one we live with after. Many things can happen in the course of our lives.

    I am similarly reminded of the changes another conservative, Newt Gingrich has made.

    Everyday I am grateful for a merciful God whom I can implore for forgive me for my many failings.

    Life isn’t yet over for Rush.

    We don’t know what graces he may be given for a conversion to the sort of life you (we) think he ought to live.

  29. Addendum: It might be a good exercise for those who think that Rush isn’t a very good conservative to get their own radio shows and do a better job!

    Piece of cake!  Right?

    o{];¬) 

  30. NurseNell says:

    As a nurse, I hope this is awake up call for Rush. He needs to lose weight, exercise, and eat right. I don’t listen to him and don’t care for him but, like the rest of us, he has a choice to make: get healthy or die too young. Only he can decide and hopefully having a heart attack will be like a slap upside the head.

  31. The Egyptian says:

    Addendum: It might be a good exercise for those who think that Rush isn’t a very good conservative to get their own radio shows and do a better job!

    “Piece of cake! Right?”

    Just as some of “us” think that blogging on the level of WDTPRS is easy ;>)

    Thank you Father, let us all drop our stones, me first, I pray for his soul and health.

  32. Bornacatholic says:

    So… people have to be perfect or close to it in order to have a conservative role?

    Expecting the mouthpiece of conservatism to live a normal moral life is hardly demanding perfection.

    It might be a good exercise for those who think that Rush isn’t a very good conservative to get their own radio shows and do a better job!

    If a restaurant serves bad food that makes one ill one is not required to have the capability of opening a restaurant before he has the duty to warn others what is being served there is not healthful.

    If we Christians and Conservatives promote Rush as our mouthpiece we are doing what he constantly condemns liberals for doing – saying that character doesn’t matter.

    IOW, if Conservatism is divorced from a lived reality and becomes a disembodied Ideology (America, for Rush is such a thing; it is a propositional nation), of what use is it?

  33. Bornacatholic says:

    bornacatholic said: I mean no disrespect

    and then proceeded to chant a litany of Rush Limbaugh’s sins, alleged sins, and a few other things that bornacatholic thinks are sins.

    Jordanes. I was referring to those who think he makes a good spokesman not to Rush his own self.

    I also wrote some kind words about the man. I have met him more than a few times.

    I do not think he is an evil man but as the mouthpiece of conservatism, I do not think it is it too much to expect the mouthpiece of conservatism to live a moral life.

    If it is, then of what possible use is conservatism?

  34. daniwcca says:

    Bornacatholic,
    Have you ever heard Fr. Corapi?
    He experienced many of the roads the Rush has been down. Rush is on a journey, and we should be praying this intelligent man, who gets so much of it right, continues on that journey, towards the fullness of truth, in all areas.
    We all slip and fall, but we don’t all have someone documenting it and rooting for our failure.

    Danielle

  35. AML says:

    I will side with Bornacatholic here. While it is not necessary to live an upright life to be a political commentator, one would hope that the “party of family values” would expect its spokesmen to value family values. The arguement that those of us should disagree with him should start our own shows has nothing to do with the point at hand. You say this in his defense because you agree with him. What all the reprehensible stuff on the TV and radio? Just because its there and is successful doesn’t make it right.

    Rush is indeed a neo-conservative war monger. I am not sure if we could really hold him up as someone who fights to preserve the true, the good, and the beautiful in society. Rather, he is a spokesman for Americanism (see Leo XIII).

    Conservatism can do better and must if it is to survive.

  36. Girgadis says:

    I’m no fan of Rush but the first thing I did when I heard the news was offer a prayer for his recovery. I would do the same for anyone else, though I admit I would have a tougher time doing so for a Catholic basher, someone like Bill Maher. I have no problem with the fact that Rush is not perfect. I just think he should pull the log out of his own eye before he reaches over to pull the speck out of anyone else’s. And while I pray for his conversion, I think there are some folks in this country in much greater need of falling off their high horse, particularly those who hate anything holy or having to do with religion. If nothing else, I appreciate the fact that one of Rush’s slogans credits God for his ability to do what he does.

  37. lucy says:

    May our Lord preserve him until he becomes Catholic at the least. While he’s not perfect – few of us are – we do listen to him and like most of his message.

  38. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Danielle. Everyone is on a journey of of some sort or another.

    Including me and thee.

    Now, I am the mouthpiece of no one yet I am being criticised (not that I mind. I know the type of sinner I am and I go to Confession at least twice monthly and my skin is thicker than a certain body part crammed inside any pantsuit worn by our Sec. State) while being told to lay off criticising he who is held-up as the mouthpiece of American Conservatism.

    Do you not see how 180-degrees-out-of-phase (To use a Limbaughism) that is?

    Do you not understand how how Conservatives have built a Cult of Personality around Rush that reveals them to be just as hypocritical as liberals are? [You seem to be able to look into the very hearts and minds of all his listeners. Amazing. Isn’t it possible that he happens to be both entertaining and also giving voice to what a lot of people think? Can’t it be simple?]

    Back before he was arrested as part of a Drug Ring, Rush always told his listeners that drug users who were arrested belonged in prison. Period.

    He said it was only do-good feel-good liberalism that was ruining America, and hurting the drug abuser also, by sending him to a treatment facility where he could talk about his feelings. The drug abuser, Rush averred, ought be arrested, sent to prison, undergo cold turkey, and learn to pull himself up by his own bootstraps.

    Rush pulled himself up by his own Roy Black.

    When he was arrested as part of a Drug Ring, Rush dodged jail and got out of Dodge after lawyering-up with the famous, and incredibly expensive,Roy Black, who cut a deal so Rush could go to a wildly expensive drug rehab facility,talk about his feelings, and detox from his addiction with medication that was titrated down by well-trained doctors, thus missing-out on the many character-building benefits of cold turkey Rush demanded other drug users profit from. [You seem to have an nearly omniscient understanding of what would have been good for Rush.]

    I begrudge Rush none of his success or wealth and he was always kind to me (such as the times I put his Golf Clubs into his Black Maybach) and the local waitress, who Rush tipped $500,00 for a $75.00 meal, (there are many other examples) but, come on, to expect a banal level of morality for the mouthpiece of Conservatism is not asking too much, is it? [I am not sure every one would agree that he is “the mouthpiece of conservatism”. He is important, but perhaps not everything rests on him.]

    As for rooting for failure. I am not now, nor have I ever, rooted for Rush to fail.

    But, he has rooted, rightly, for Barack to fail.

    Now, for the rest of the year I promise to write nothing about Rush.

  39. The “snarkiness” of many of the commentators really disappoints me.

    Regardless of whether one agrees with Rush or not (and, frankly, I do, more often than I don’t — but certainly not always) and,

    Regardless of whether you approve of some of the actions he’s taken in his personal life (I don’t),

    At the end of the day, he is a child of God — no less than the most holy (self-proclaimed or otherwise) of some of those who are posting on this site.

    Rush needs our prayers. On a number of levels. If we are true in our Catholic Christianity, can we do no less?

  40. wmeyer says:

    Fr. Z, it might also be a good exercise for many here to imagine, if they can, what our situation might be today had Rush not taken up the challenge. There would be no Hannity, and likely no Fox News. We’d be hearing the endless praise of Obama the anointed one from every media outlet.

    Then, as a further exercise, review how critical the founding fathers felt was the role of the press in curbing government.

    Without dissent, tyranny is a short distance away.

  41. As a nurse, I hope this is awake up call for Rush. He needs to lose weight, exercise, and eat right. I don’t listen to him and don’t care for him but, like the rest of us, he has a choice to make: get healthy or die too young. Only he can decide and hopefully having a heart attack will be like a slap upside the head.

    He has been losing weight. He’s lost quite a lot of weight, as a matter of fact. And so far, we don’t know whether he’s had a heart attack or not.

  42. wmeyer says:

    Gosh, here’s a thought… since we’re all supposed to value it so, why not simply respect his right to free speech?

  43. Anita: And so far, we don’t know whether he’s had a heart attack or not.

    Right. This could have been sympathetic pain related to a back problem, perhaps exacerbated by playing golf… who knows.

    Wait… maybe he wound up on the same golf course as POTUS.

  44. Gail F says:

    Over the last year or so I’ve listened to more talk radio than ever before in my life. I prefer local talent — our top local station is very good — but I switch over to “the big conservatives” pretty often, whenever the local guys go off on something stupid. Rush, Hannity, et al are entertainers who happen to also be conservative. I’ve listened to them more this year because they actually have things to talk about. Their job is to complain about whoever is in charge. But right now, there is so much to complain about that a good deal of what they say has real substance, and that’s why I listen. When George Bush was president, they had very different things to say and I found them, for the most part, boring.

    If you look at these guys to be some sort of leaders, you’re looking in the wrong place. If you are looking for entertaining commentary on government, commentary that you MUST remember is always, always, ALWAYS entertainment first, then you may hear a lot you can agree with and look into further. Their job is to get people talking, so if there’s nothing to get worked up about, they get worked up about nothing. Right now, however, there is a lot to get worked up about. But how can you take someone like Glenn Beck seriously when he says, “Something’s coming, something that will blow the Obama administration out of the water. Wouldn’t you agree, Stu? It’s going to be big. And I’ll tell you all about it when I get back from vacation…”

    They are covering things and topics you never hear about on regular media, but the regular media ought to be ashamed about that. As far as Mr. Limbaugh goes, I certainly pray that he recovers. I enjoy his show. But he isn’t my hero.

  45. I’m remembering that the other day on his show, before he went on vacation, Rush said he wasn’t quite up to scratch, and that it was because he was in pain, and that he couldn’t do anything about it because he can’t take pain killers. I think it was neck pain, because I think he mentioned not wanting to have surgery because they’d have to go through his larynx. I was half-listening, because I was at work, so I may be off on some details. I wonder if this present issue has anything to do with that.

  46. Kimberly says:

    Years ago when Rush had a late night TV program, I watched it always. I don’t care if people call me all kinds of unkind things, I appreciate Rush and his stand, especially againest abortion. I did and still do believe that he has “talent on loan from God”. If you don’t like him, don’t listen to him.

  47. Jordanes says:

    Bornacatholic said: Expecting the mouthpiece of conservatism to live a normal moral life is hardly demanding perfection.

    Well, I don’t consider him to be “the” mouthpiece of conservatism. he’s actually a bit too libertarian to be a straight-down-the-line American conservative. Anyway, political pundits, no matter how influential their views, are not priests or prophets or moral examples. People don’t expect sainthood from them, and Mr. Limbaugh’s moral failings would only be relevant if he had held himself forth as a moral paragon, which he never has. That his personal life has been scarred by sin is saddening, but it doesn’t enter into a consideration of whether his political views or philosophies are correct.

    IOW, if Conservatism is divorced from a lived reality and becomes a disembodied Ideology (America, for Rush is such a thing; it is a propositional nation), of what use is it?

    Well, I’m not a conservative (conservatism in America is still a species of liberalism, though most have forgotten that), but conservatism still has its benefits even if its leaders are sinners, because it harks back to ageless, perennial moral and political principles.

    As for America being a propositional nation for Rush, it was also a propositional nation for the Founding Fathers. The American nationality is based not on ethnicity or race or language, but on adherence to a political/social “Creed.” Thus, it is a non-national nation.

  48. Francisco Cojuanco says:

    Myself, I prayed for him.

    But even if I agree with him on a lot, I still disagree with his style of dissemination. There is a difference, after all, between imbibing in a pint of beer and imbibing in an entire keg – the underlying beer itself may be good, but the sin is in the excess. The same can be said of the discourse common to talk-radio. Some vitriol is meet and just, but Limbaugh and Boortz levels (I used to listen to both occasionally) does more harm than good.

    Then again, talk radio isn’t exactly meant to cater to my demographic, even if I am conservative.

  49. robtbrown says:

    I am reminded of Card. George’s comment I heard some years ago that Americans are at the same time both hedonistic and puritanical.
    Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

    Many years ago Carl Jung wrote that Americans are the most emotional people and the least.

  50. robtbrown says:

    I don’t listen to Limbaugh much. I prefer Don Imus.

    What I do like about Limbaugh is that he, along with the parodies, makes fun of self-righteous liberals.

  51. Bornacatholic says:

    Mr. Limbaugh’s moral failings would only be relevant if he had held himself forth as a moral paragon, which he never has.

    He has done exactly that hundreds of times over the years. “Rush Limbaugh, the epitome of morality and virtue, a man you could totally trust with your wife, your daughter, and even your son in a hotel room overnight,” was the introduction to his show for a long, long, long, time.

    As for America being a propositional nation for Rush, it was also a propositional nation for the Founding Fathers. The American nationality is based not on ethnicity or race or language, but on adherence to a political/social “Creed.” Thus, it is a non-national nation.

    Fededralist # 2 With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

  52. Bornacatholic says:

    [You seem to be able to look into the very hearts and minds of all his listeners. Amazing. Isn’t it possible that he happens to be both entertaining and also giving voice to what a lot of people think? Can’t it be simple?]

    Yes.

    I was just addressing what I think is the reality that his listeners do have a Cult of Personality about him even though he is a conservative Elmer Gantry. I do not see why it is so objectionable to both agree with much of what he says (his natural, mid-west conservatism, bred-in-the-bones, is admirable; his Neo-Con Ideology not-so-much) while addressing his rank hypocrisy and shameless public immorality.

    You seem to have an nearly omniscient understanding of what would have been good for Rush.

    It would have been a matter of simple justice had Rush the arrested illegal drug user been treated like he demanded all other arrested drug users be treated.

    That he refused to undergo the same treatment he demanded of all other drug users was the quintessential conservative example of limousine liberalism.

    When The Stupid Party won control of the House in 1994, they made Rush an honorary member of Congress so I think it is the 36th undeniable truth of life that he is the conservative mouthpiece (even though The Stupid Party is to conservatism what Madonna is to Chastity).

    Fr. Z. Even if Rush had 1/10 of your integrity, due to his Neo-Con Ideology, he’d still not be worthy of all of the conservative adulation currently invested in him.

    Now, after having written all of that, it will prolly be hard for readers to believe I do not wish him ill and I still think him generous to a fault to the little people and I do wish he’d convert to Catholicism but that is the simple truth.

  53. Bornacatholic: Fr. Z. Even if Rush had 1/10 of your integrity, due to his Neo-Con Ideology, he’d still not be worthy of all of the conservative adulation currently invested in him.

    I need two clarifications, one from you and one from me.

    First, I am not sure that Rush is really a “neo-con” in the strict sense. As I understand his biography, he was never other than a conservative (politically). I, btw, am also no converted liberal. I believe the term “neo-con” has morphed into something other that what it originally indicated, so some clarification might be useful.

    Second, very frequently when people flash out the term “neo-con” here, they a) frequently demonstrate that they are not quite sure what it means b) intend it as an insult c) all of the above. You might want to let us (me) know how you intend that term “neo-con” to be taken, what you understand by it. “Neo-con” seems to mean as many things are there are people who apply it.

    In the meantime, you might spend a moment to consider what the media landscape would have been like even for “true” conservatives in the last decade plus without that “Neo-Con’s” influence.

  54. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Fr. To me, Neo-Con refers to those in favor of using the American Military to intervene in foreign nations (often on behalf of foreign countries, Israel being a prime example) to spread “freedom” even if those countries which we invade/occupy can not be said to directly threaten America nor be said to be hankering for American-style democracy.

    Neo-Cons have made their peace with an enormous, intrusive, Federal Government because an enormous, intrusive, Federal Government is necessary to raise the necessary money and to order the procurement of all that is required to spread America’s putative Universal Ideals to the entire world against the desires of the bred-in-the-bone non-interventionist instincts of the average Adam and Amy American who desire to just be left alone and who really don’t care what Main Street Muslims in Morocco are mulling over.

    It is a foreign policy and a domestic policy wildly at odds with what used to be the worldview of Conservatives summarised by Garet Garrett:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=wBPxwtN5yWkC&dq=america+pottage&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=71GhF-ED6n&sig=kwLV4AcAwQrP_8-rYR2dBTM-SIs&hl=en&ei=Jzk-S-PyDIu1tgfOncX9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    As long ago as 1952, William F. Buckley was writing, in Commentary magazine:

    If it (Threat of Communism)does, we shall have to rearrange, sensibly, our battle plans; and this means that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration –for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores... And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central
    intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.

    Readers seeing those words for the first time usually are shocked. The reason they are shocked is because such ideas are not conservative in any recognisable way.

    Gone are all the old conservative champions of non-interventionism abroad and a Republican Form of Govt at home. Who now alive has even heard of John Flynn, Garet Garrett, Se. Robert Taft?

    Nixon famously said, “We are all Keynesians now.”

    It would have been great had Mr. Buckley used National Review to confess, “We are all Jacobins now.”

    As America’s most recognisable Conservative since the end of WW2, Bill Buckley, did not advocate what me and thee were raised to think was conservatism.

    Conservatism has, long ago, ceased to exist in America. Buckley led the purge against those he considered insufficiently collectivist and what passes for conservatism now has only worsened since the Buckley purges of the late 50s and throughout the 60s

    I think the analysis of Prof. Claes Ryn is important for Catholic to read and consider.

    http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4703/ryn.ideologyamericanempire.pdf

    In the meantime, you might spend a moment to consider what the media landscape would have been like even for “true” conservatives in the last decade plus without that “Neo-Con’s” influence.

    If I haven’t already noted it, there is no denying that Rush’s radio success was as revolutionary and successful as it was unexpected. I think he is very very bright, highly entertaining, and very funny.

    But his success has come at the cost of the loss of traditional American Conservatism. What he says is what is considered true conservatism by his followers and his opponents.

    As America begins this decade, she has ten thousand female soldiers stationed and fighting in Iraq and she has four thousand female soldiers stationed and fighting in Afghanistan and Rush H Limbaugh III could not be any more supportive of both of those American wars.

    How many of those female soldiers are single Moms with young children left alone behind in America while Mommy is toting weapons in some foreign land thousand of miles away from home?

    How many of those female soldiers are in a foreign land, riding in support vehicles, toting weapons, praying their vehicle does not hit an IED while, at the very same time, unbeknownst to them, a new life is growing inside of them?

    If this be conservatism, it belongs in Hell.

  55. bookworm says:

    “If you look at these guys to be some sort of leaders, you’re looking in the wrong place. If you are looking for entertaining commentary on government, commentary that you MUST remember is always, always, ALWAYS entertainment first, then you may hear a lot you can agree with and look into further. Their job is to get people talking, so if there’s nothing to get worked up about, they get worked up about nothing. ”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. I think Rush himself said, many years ago, that he was an entertainer first — not a politician or political scholar. His “job” is to get people to listen to his show, NOT to get conservatives or Republicans elected to public office or get conservative legislation enacted. The success or failure of his chosen career depends primarily on how many people tune in to his show, and how much advertising he can sell. The same is true of pundits like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al. Too many people, both fans and detractors, forget this and take what they say way too seriously.

  56. Jordanes says:

    Bornacatholic said: He has done exactly that hundreds of times over the years. “Rush Limbaugh, the epitome of morality and virtue, a man you could totally trust with your wife, your daughter, and even your son in a hotel room overnight,” was the introduction to his show for a long, long, long, time.

    Oh, you thought he meant that SERIOUSLY? You really didn’t get the joke?

    Fededralist # 2 With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion,

    Sorry, but while America was much more homogenous ethnically and religiously back then, even in those days it was purely mythical to say the American people were descended from the same ancestors (in what way could English, Welsh, Scottish, German, and Dutch people have “the same ancestors”?) and professed the same religion (Puritan Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Unitarians, German Anabaptists, Catholics, and Jews all professed the same religion?).

    attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

    THERE is the real heart of the Founders’ notion of the American nation.

    As for your idiosyncratic use of “neo-con,” well, I can only say that if Buckley and Limbaugh were/are neo-conservatives, then everybody in America is a neo-conservative.

    I like that you are outraged by America’s sending women, even mothers, into combat — but I am very skeptical that Rush Limbaugh supports that.

  57. WOW! I’m “eclipsed” by how this has all transpired by a simple notification of Rush’s hospitalization…very interesting comments. Really. I don’t have a particular opinion, per se;
    I enjoyed his radio shows during the “Clinton White House” but have not kept up with him at all, unless I’m in the car doing errands when his show is on. I much prefer listening to Laura Ingraham on the radio, driving around, doing what I need to do.
    Politics today is very confusing (for me, anyway). I do think he has made some important contributions to the cause of pro-life. The other matters are beyond my competence. But I pray he will recover and come to the fullness of Truth.

  58. robtbrown says:

    I will be sure to pray for your messiah.
    Comment by kester

    You’ve got it backwards: We pray to the Messiah Who for whom this blog exists, not for Him.

    I see that you’re no less dumb that you were the last time you were here.

  59. robtbrown says:

    Ignore trolls like “kester”.
    His name says it all.
    Jack in KC

    I love posters like kester–small time smart asses who lead with their glass jaws.

  60. robtbrown says:

    Should read:

    We pray to the Messiah for whom this blog exists, not for Him.

  61. robtbrown says:

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. I think Rush himself said, many years ago, that he was an entertainer first—not a politician or political scholar. His “job” is to get people to listen to his show, NOT to get conservatives or Republicans elected to public office or get conservative legislation enacted. The success or failure of his chosen career depends primarily on how many people tune in to his show, and how much advertising he can sell. The same is true of pundits like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al. Too many people, both fans and detractors, forget this and take what they say way too seriously.
    Comment by bookworm

    Just because something is entertaining and commercial doesn’t mean that it’s also not instructive–or artistic.

  62. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Jordanes. It could accurately be said we used to be descended from the same ancestors. David Hackett Fischer has documented that reality in, “Albion’s Seed.”

    In any event, after dismissing John Jay’s observation as mythical it would have been instructive had you cited a Founder asserting this was a propositional nation rather than simply claiming that was the case.

    As to Rush not thinking he is the epitome of morality and virtue then why did he drop that claim once his third marriage failed and he got busted for drug abuse?

    If you do not think Rush thinks he is worthy of your trust and that you ought have confidence in his putative authority then I think you do not really know Rush.

    As to the Neo-Con Agenda,Rush is in total support of both wars and he can not plead ignorance about the reality that conservative leaders support sending Mothers into combat (They know what is going on) even though he wrote:

    don’t believe that women should be in combat roles even if they can do the job. Why? Simple. Women have a civilizing role in our society. They establish enduring values that are handed down from generation to generation. I just don’t believe that we have to subject women to the horrors and rigors of war.
    Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.200-1 Jul 2, 1992 .

    Silence is compliance with the Neo-Con agenda because it supersedes all possible objections; such as women in combat.

    I suspect Rush knows (as do Hannity, Beck, Levin, and others) that were he to address the fact that Mothers are being sent overseas to be stationed and fight in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan that a rhetorical fire-fight would immediately erupt amongst his (their)listeners that would call into question the entire Neo-Con Agenda.

    In any event, I thank you for the exchange and I thank Fr. Z. for his patience in letting this thread drift a bit off topic. I think some important things were addressed in here.

  63. robtbrown says:

    Bornacatholic,

    You make some good points. I mentioned above that I don’t listen to Rush very much–AT THE MOST, 30 mins a week. One of my complaints is that he defended Bush foreign policy too much.

    IMHO, Limbaugh is most effective in opposition.

    He is also able to say things others can’t. For example, when Colin Powell said that the Repubs should be more moderate, L pointed out that McCain was a moderate, but Powell supported Obama.

  64. robtbrown says:

    One other point about Mothers and women in war zones: It is now a given in American life, and it is useless raise the matter, except in what one considers ought to be.

  65. Bornacatholic says:

    Yes, Mr. Brown. Women and Mothers are fighting in war zones.

    In fact, the woman killed at the CIA Base in Pakistan was the head of the CIA Base there.

    She was the Mother of Three. A Mother of Three was the head of THE CIA BASE IN PAKISTAN.

  66. robtbrown says:

    Bornacatholic,

    I agree with you, but it is now the policy of the US that such opportunities exist for women, regardless of whether they are mothers.

  67. robtbrown says:

    What will the GOP do if they lose their leader? Not much brain power on the “right”.
    Comment by kester

    Are you saying that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are smart?

  68. JonM says:

    I align with BornACatholic. First, I do offer my sympathies to Rush Limbaugh and do hope he recovers from whatever illness he has.

    The issue that BornACatholic broaches is one that is very much apart of my political approach (which has increasingly become less a factor in my life when I converted and continue my conversion).

    Too often conservativism is supplanted with a sort of plastic counterfeit of either political adventurism, indefensible unqualified support of the political state of Israel, corporatism, or most often some stew of all with meager seasoning of subsidiarity or tradition.

    Rush Limbaugh is an interesting case in that I think he weighs how far he can go so to speak and retain a fortified media presence. At least that is what I hope is his approach.

    Indeed he has at times seemed to deny that there even is something called the Council on Foreign Relations (not the Congressional Committee on Foreign Relations, but instead a non-elected and powerful co-ordinating body). Rush knows the CFR has been a force since the Wilson administration and to imply it is like a chamber of commerce is silly – every high school senior in the advanced track knows this.

    His cavalier approach to treatment of prisoners earned him no points in my book. His arguement, like the one used by many others I would consider to be neo-conservatives, seemed to go ‘they’re evil so we can get rough.’ This cannot square with Christian principles of charity and hope.

    Can war be the only appropriate answer? Absolutely. But treatment of prisoners is a relection of exactly what we are fighting for. This is not 1453. We have many, many other options than torture. And certainly, we should not make a joke out of prisoners, some of whom were cleared of any involvement in terrorist organizations (though probably are grave risks now as a result of their stay in Cuba and other installations.

    There is also the practical issue of prisoner treatment that soldiers are very aware of: if we ‘get rough’ we can bet they will get rough with us. And are complaints of prisoner abuse will be very empty if we allow abuse of those we capture.

    I won’t get into the Israel issue because it leads to nastiness on all sides. Just two words to ponder and that is it for me and the subject: USS Liberty.

    Rush is a pioneer in radio. But I think his success has hampered his being a force with real teeth for real change. As BornACatholic points out, there is nigh a complaint from the (neo) Conservative oligarchs on the fact the women are in front line combat. This role confusion is precisely the identity crises suffered at the local parish with Mr. Jones the accountant playing priest as an EMHC while Father is buried in AR/AP.

    Or, when was the last time Rush has championed the Feds banning porn? (they can and should do this. Pornography has to cross state lines at some point and the federal government can forbid such).

    I firmly believe that issues of culture have much deeper effects than particular government programs or policies. Low taxes would be great, but a bigger victory would be ending what is probably satan’s most powerful hold of men. Thank God for my pastor and the Church because my detox has truly freed me from this terrible control (and now I can help other men).

    Point is that Rush is often in line with conservative issues, and much more tolerable than Hannity who is an absolute embarrassment to the Church (he recently mulled becoming a licensed ‘preacher’ apparently through a Baptist institute). But I think that there is a lot of ‘neo’ to Rush’s conservatism.

    Whatever the case, we should hope for his recovery and conversion.

  69. robtbrown says:

    JonM,

    Let’s say that it is determined that the Nigerian underwear bomber knows a lot about Al Qaeda plans for other attacks. What would you do to get that info from him?

  70. Jordanes says:

    Bornacatholic said: It could accurately be said we used to be descended from the same ancestors. David Hackett Fischer has documented that reality in, “Albion’s Seed.”

    I read a lot of history and I’ve been studying American genealogy for 30 years, so I know it is an overgeneralisation at best to say that we used to be descended from the same ancestors. The most we can say is that by far most of the settlers of the English colonies were of English ancestry — but there were also a large number of Welsh, Scots, Germans, and Dutch, and a few Jews and small numbers of other nations (not counting the African slaves, of course — but then John Jay and the Founders didn’t include them in their reckoning of American nationality either).

    In any event, after dismissing John Jay’s observation as mythical it would have been instructive had you cited a Founder asserting this was a propositional nation rather than simply claiming that was the case.

    I didn’t have to do that, because John Jay’s Federalist Papers quote was itself an example of a Founder seeing America as a propositional nation. His “proposition” included a not entirely accurate ethnic consideration, something that since has been reshaped due to the subsequent waves of immigration, but his conception of American nationality isn’t any less propositional for his attempt to gloss over the ethnic and religious “diversity” (sorry for the gag-me word) of the original American citizenry.

    As to Rush not thinking he is the epitome of morality and virtue then why did he drop that claim once his third marriage failed and he got busted for drug abuse?

    My read on that is that his succumbing to painkiller addiction and brush with the law gave him a dose of humility, and so perhaps he didn’t see his joke as all that funny any more. Besides, the joke had already grown old.

    If you do not think Rush thinks he is worthy of your trust and that you ought have confidence in his putative authority then I think you do not really know Rush.

    He obviously thinks that. Heck, I believe that about myself, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t believe that about yourself. I’d be very surprised if you thought what you are saying here is not worthy of anyone’s trust and that we shouldn’t have confidence in what you’re saying.

    As to the Neo-Con Agenda,

    DUM DUM DUUUUUM!

    Rush is in total support of both wars

    Which hardly suffices to make anyone a “neo-con.”

    and he can not plead ignorance about the reality that conservative leaders support sending Mothers into combat (They know what is going on) even though he wrote:

    don’t believe that women should be in combat roles even if they can do the job. Why? Simple. Women have a civilizing role in our society. They establish enduring values that are handed down from generation to generation. I just don’t believe that we have to subject women to the horrors and rigors of war. Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.200-1 Jul 2, 1992.

    So your only evidence that Limbaugh now supports sending women into combat is his support for his nation’s military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following your reasoning, the only Americans who oppose sending women into combat are those who oppose every single military action that the U.S. ever makes henceforth and for as long as the U.S. maintains the evil policy of sending women into combat.

    Silence is compliance with the Neo-Con agenda

    DUM DUM DUUUUUM!

    because it supersedes all possible objections; such as women in combat.

    Right. Next thing you’ll argue is that Limbaugh’ support for the War on Terror means he believes sodomy is morally good (“Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”).