<p>
…and from California, this has been another edition of…The Kluge Report, where we remind our listeners to remain breathlessly credulous at all times. And that’s the way it is. COURAGE! </p>
<p>LOL! :)</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>Kluge’s right. I’ve heard Rush himself use the term “dittohead” for people who call him and say, “I completely agree with you, Rush,” or simply, “dittos, Rush.”</p>
<p>Here’s a quotation from an email Rush posted on his website:</p>
<p>"Rush,
“I was introduced to your show just before Dans bake sale in Fort Collins CO. My daughter and I saw you at that bake sale; met thousands of Rush fans; and realized there are many of us ‘dittoheads’…”</p>
<p>Greybeard,
There is actually a ditto-cam for those who want to watch Rush’s show in real-time over the internet. But you folks don’t understand the genesis of the “ditto” expression, what it means, or the self-deprecating humor involved in its use. Which is fine. That’s why when your side tries to duplicate Rush, you end up with Mario Cuomo or Al Franken. Maybe someday you’ll figure the phenomenon out, but I won’t hold my breath waiting. </p>
<p>For the record: I’ve never cited Rush Limbaugh in any post I’ve ever made here. Kluge’s references have to do with an exchange I had with Cheers, wherein I demonstrated that Peggy Noonan holds him in high regard. If you really expect to get what’s going on in his show, you have to be aware of what’s out there in the news cycle already…just like the blogosphere. And I remain willing to take any of you on–any time, any place–even if the best you can do is call me a “ditto-head.”</p>
<p>dittohead.org is no longer active (I don’t know why.) Try
<a href=“http://www.ictks.com/rush/books/[/url]”>http://www.ictks.com/rush/books/</a>
<a href=“http://www.compleatheretic.com/loves/limbaugh.html[/url]”>http://www.compleatheretic.com/loves/limbaugh.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.rushlimbaughsites.com/books/[/url]”>http://www.rushlimbaughsites.com/books/</a>
<a href=“http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/bobcobb/[/url]”>http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/bobcobb/</a>
<a href=“http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dittohead/[/url]”>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dittohead/</a> is “members only”, but looks to be more of the same…</p>
<p>I really couldn’t make this stuff up…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay…
</p>
<p>I guess I’m just being “breathlessly credulous” here…</p>
<p>
Well, yes. Thank you. Your reference is to a comment I made regarding what callers had to say. During a program in which there was a guest host. Next…</p>
<p>It cracks me up , rush and thinking in the same line…lol.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>You misunderestimate me. I understand precisely the genesis of the “ditto” expression, and its self-deprecating quality. I read broadly, on the blogosphere and elsewhere. I’ve had subscriptions to “The American Spectator” and “The National Review.” Sure I’m a Democrat and an ACLU member, but I was at one time a member of Young Americans for Freedom, and active in the New York State Conservative Party (including the campaign to re-elect James Buckley to the US Senate).</p>
<p>I’ve probably read every column William F. Buckeley has written since 1968, and every George Will column since 1973. I regularly read Pat Buchanan. Sometimes I agree with them.</p>
<p>I’m not a name-caller, but am ready to take you on, as you say, “any time, any place.” Bring it on.</p>
<p>
No…you’ve never heard that. I certainly didn’t intend to get into a Limbaugh thread, but since the general topic of this thread is the ignorance resonating within the lefty echo chamber, I’ll add this: The “ditto” expression began in the 1980s, when Limbaugh’s show went national. So many people would call in and open their statement with something like 'I can’t believe there’s finally a show that’s saying what I think about what I see on ABC, NBC, CBS, the NYT, the WaPo", etc. that they began saying “ditto what that last person said” before introducing their own topic. It had to do with the immense frustration that was building among those of us who, on a daily basis, had our intelligence insulted by a smug, CC clique-like group of media folks who seemed to think that anyone who disagreed with them was a troglodyte. Nothing to do with agreeing with the host. Which you would know, if you actually listened. Cleanse the latte-foam crust from your grey beard, and we’ll chat more tomorrow.</p>
<p>Don’t know if y’all have seen this (or if it’s been posted earlier), but an interesting article about the NYT and eminent domain. If you recall the Kelo decision from the summer (which is about the worst mangling of the Constitution to be seen in a while), which, incidentally, was authored by liberals, the article will make more sense. There was bipartisan backlash against that decision, except by the NYT. Anyway:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.reason.com/0510/co.mw.why.shtml[/url]”>http://www.reason.com/0510/co.mw.why.shtml</a></p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>When I first heard Limbaugh use the phrase ditto-head (back in the late '80’s), it was in response to a caller who called to say how much he liked the show, and had nothing else to say. Rush asked him if he had a comment on anything else, and the guy said, “no.” Rush said, “Oh, another ditto head,” and then explained that it was his term for people who called to say “I agree.” After that, people started calling to say “dittos.”</p>
<p>I was a fairly regular listener to Rush Limbaugh in those days. For your information, Driver, I have an uncannily phonographic memory, and think it’s somewhat ammusing that you would presume to lecture me on what I heard Rush Limbaugh say.</p>
<p>And I don’t even like latte.</p>
<p>From the Wikipedia:</p>
<p>“Saying 'dittos (or even 'mega-dittos) was started by a Rush Limbaugh caller in 1988 as a shorthand way for callers to say they like the show and to save time.”</p>
<p>GB,
I happen to like latte myself, in moderation. My memory disagrees with yours, but I suggest we move the discussion of our alternate memories of Rush Limbaugh to a new thread, or drop it entirely. This thread was about what a miserable excuse for a major newspaper the NYT is. The Kluge Report was what interjected the discussion of talk radio, perhaps inappropriately.
P.S. your wikipedia cite is spot on, i.e., dittos means that they like the show…not that they completely agree with everything he says.</p>
<p>Post 53:
</p>
<p>Post 35:
</p>
<p>Driver - I see you’ve managed to adopt one your guy’s favorite techniques - shamelessly stating a blatant falsehood, then quickly changing the subject. You are a worthy student of Rush.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>One more and I’ll drop it: this is from Jon Love’s column in the Fresno Bee, dated October 24, 2003, and it’s consistent with my recollection:</p>
<p>"I like Rush and enjoy listening to him. Not so much now, but in the late '80s, I had a long commute to work and usually had the car radio tuned to Rush at least an hour a day. Rush didn’t take himself so seriously then. He was irreverent and his humor could be called outrageous. That, or it could be called sophomoric. Either way, it kept me laughing on the midmorning drive to work.</p>
<p>“Many callers to his show told him how great the show was and how much they agreed with his conservative preaching. It took up air time to say the same thing over and over. Rush solved it by telling his listeners if they wanted to compliment him, just say ‘ditto.’ He’d understand and they could get right to the point of the call. Which is why, in the early years, most callers began by saying, ‘Ditto, Rush.’ Also, it’s the origin of the term, ‘dittoheads.’”</p>
<p>The major trick of the corporatist right that rules America under the Republocrats is to make their control of money and power and the military-industrial state appear as if it is the centrist, consensus view. NYT is the world’s leading mouthpiece for the corporate right, and has been so for a very long-time.</p>
<p>The existence of Rush and company (in my field, we’d call him another kind of “head” but that’s a different issue), serves the corporate Right represented by the NYT very, very well indeed. They’ve elevated the status of the NYT to a level it never would have had without them.</p>
<p>
Kluge:
kluge, kluge, kluge. The subject of this thread was what a miserable excuse for a major paper the NYT is. It was you who introduced the extraneous subject of Rush Limbaugh (see #17), apparently in a feeble attempt to besmirch the character of those who would dare to criticize the NYT. In fact, Kluge, you have a total of seven posts in this thread, every single one of which refers, inexplicably, to Rush Limbaugh! The fact that it eventually became necessary to respond to such incessant sophistry hardly constitutes a “change of subject” on my part. But thank you for the back-handed compliment, which I’ll return: When I read your posts, I think of Michael Moore.</p>
<p>driver: it is easy. Just the way conservatives bring in Clinton, liberals bring in Rush. Rush ( himself a junkie and money launderer), fox news and company represent the dark and true side of conservative hypocracy.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you have a fling for NYT - if you don’t like it don’t bother to read.</p>
<p>Of course the New York Times has corporate interests–they are economic and particularly appropriate to the bottom-line of a phat for-profit company.</p>
<p>The NYT also has cultural and political motivations that do not chase the economic rabbit all the way around the course but are part of a different agenda headed toward a different and indeterminate finish line (however, some sophisticates and deep-thinkers in these quarters may understand seemingly different dogs to be heading in the same direction due to the curved nature of space and dog tracks and I will yield to their erudite astrological voodoo and game savvy before using tuition money to bet on either of their favored flea-bags). </p>
<p>And although the majority in this country are most often materialistic they are not deterministic in their materialism and will quite often hold viewshabitually traditional in characterthat do not goose-step with the cultural/political agenda of Manhattan liberals or their most outspoken and agitated vituperator, the NYT.</p>
<p>Minis point would, seen discretely, carry more water in the social climate of say China or France than the land of the free.</p>
<p>Simbas point would if you don’t like it don’t bother to readcarry more water in a wet-vac.</p>
<p>“cultural/political agenda of Manhattan liberals or their most outspoken and agitated vituperator, the NYT.”</p>
<p>Cultural/political agendas pass like ships in the night (and it doesn’t matter whether it is in China or in New York City) - and frankly, when it comes to business, no one cares unless there is money to be made. There are no motivations that trump rightwing business interests - ANYWHERE - New York or China. Rush and co. have elevated the rightwing, elitist, and money-centered NYT to a centrist position that it doesn’t deserve.</p>