Best wishes in his fight with this. I wonder if those years of smoking finally caught up with him, even though he quit?
[Update Tuesday morning]
Sort of related: Scientists accidentally discover a form of immune cells that can kill most cancers. Faster, please.
[Tuesday-morning update]
Thoughts from Bob Zimmerman.
[Wednesday-morning update]
Kurt Schlichter: What Rush Limbaugh means to us, and me.
Probably. But cancer is a strange beast with connections more with genetics than toxins. My uncle, a WWI vet, was a chain smoker whose favorite brands moved from Lucky Strike to mentholated Kools who lived long and well into his late 80s w/o cancer.
But if you have the bad genes, the toxins surely don’t help….
Don’t smoke.
I guess you’d call him a grand-uncle (by marriage) fyi.
Certain toxins can do it, but usually are a bit more direct. I think smoking mostly degrades the bodies ability to fight, and in the lungs, Rush is sure to have limited his respiratory capacity before adding cancer tumors.
I wish Rush well as I don’t look forward to a replacement. I had hoped by now that a good successor would emerge. I’ve heard a few possibilities, but unfortunately most of the ones I liked have died or retired. I like Steyn, but as a host, I can’t handle moment after moment of satire and sarcasm. Todd Herman is a bit boring to me. I can’t stand Hannity. The few times I stick with Hannity over changing the channel immediately is the quality of his guests. Rush never needed special guests.
I just recently learned Ted Cruz has a podcast. I’ll check it out. Perhaps someone in that arena could make a jump to broadcast? Most of the podcasts I listen to have a style closer to Rush than anything else I hear. Individuals talk about what they know in great detail and passion, while mostly answering listener questions and only having a special guest that brings something to the topic rather than being just a regular. I’d like to see Mike Rowe have a regular broadcast, but he’s not a political ideology replacement for Rush.
Mark Levin?
Dennis Prager?
Hugh Hewitt?
Rand Simberg?
Mark Levin yells into the microphone too often. Definitely fits the angry conservative stereotype. I agree with Levin on many issues, but he’s not a joy to listen, day after day.
Dennis Prager, I’ve heard of him but never heard him.
Hugh Hewitt used to have me, but then he became a never Trumper. He may not have sold out to that like others and reformed like Rand. However, he also fits the “low energy” type conservatism that Trump surpassed.
Rand Simberg is a good author and blogger.
Glenn Reynolds? He used to have a podcast, but like Hugh, his style on the broadcast medium comes across as low energy.
I wonder what Don Surber would be like on broadcast?
Dennis Prager has an engaging personality and is very effective at explaining big ideas.
One guy who should not be overlooked is Andrew Klavan. He is very smart and very jovial. This is one of his greatest hits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU
There is no replacement.
There are, instead, a hundrd replacements. From Tucker Carlson to a hundred Youtubers I could name.
And that doesn’t count the bloggers.
It’s hard to see how any one person will ever have the kind of outsized presence and influence that Rush did in the 1980’s, 90’s and 00’s. Rush was able to do that not just because of his enormous gifts, but because AM Radio was really the only medium available to conservative media rebels, and there were only so many time slots available.
The internet has changed all of that. And that’s where Gen Y and Gen Z audiences for this message are found now.
I agree with this. I still listen to the radio medium, and fortunately can hear my AM talk station on the HD simulcast. But other than about 15 minutes of news in the morning and Rush’s show; I don’t listen to the radio at all. I listen to podcast, and more recently downloading some youtubers and just playing the audio over Bluetooth. I will say much of that self-programming is less political, but that’s healthy too.
I’m not under 35, but I know a lot of peeps who are, and my sense is that this is where most of them are at, too. Anecdotal, I know, but there’s enough data out there to confirm it…
Even with its ongoing demonetization crackdown, Youtube’s rep for being a big outlet for righty voices is well earned. There is still no single one with the daily audience reach Rush was getting as his peak, but a guy like Steven Crowder is pulling 5 million now. And there are lots and lots and lots of guys (and a few girls) behind Crowder.
This is one more way in which technology works against one figure or program (Rush Limbaugh, the Beatles, whatever) having the kind of enormous, exclusive media success that was possible in the late 20th century. That has its downsides, but it also means it is also harder now to shut down such voices, too. I still think even China will learn this lesson the hard way.
He didn’t quit smoking, he quit smoking cigarettes. He’s been smoking cigars since then.
I know he is going to fight this, and he probably has assembled the best medical team anyone could find. But it worries me that he described it as “advanced.” I wish him the best.
I’m sending prayers for Rush. Things wouldn’t be the same without him. But I think it’s far too early to blame tobacco instead of the intense mathematical, logical, and electromagnetic fields that must surely envelop the Golden EIB Microphone.
Someone like Steyn will step up, or stations will go with a broader mix of hosts. Fox News might have a few folks who could shift gears into the talk radio format, who usually stick to their current staple of commentary, interviews, and regular reporting. It wouldn’t surprise me if Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfeld, Harris Faulkner, or Martha McCallum could do quite well at it, and Laura Ingraham was a radio host for a very long time.
But with Rush and Hannity taking the prime national drive-time slots, and thus the bulk of the revenue, most other talk-radio hosts were going to be left with late evening AM programs, or smaller local stations, and much smaller audiences, no matter how good they were. As an aside, morning slots are usually local, probably so the host can cover weather and traffic, and focus on light entertainment for the wake-up and morning commute, and in the evenings folks watch TV, so the late-morning/noon to five span is the big prize in radio.
A half-hour or hour on Fox News was much bigger audience (and paycheck) than the lesser, late evening slots on patchy radio networks., so a lot of people who could do either would be opting for TV. But if any of those TV pundits can dominate the nation’s airwaves for three hours a day, getting their own broadcast villa and a private jet in the bargain, and have an outsize influence on the direction of American society while working from home, we might see some familiar faces trying to take a stab at it.
I liked the Laura Ingraham radio show. She had passion, is insightful, and didn’t come across as a sideshow barker like Hannity. She also has a sense of humor that is broadly appealing. Most of all, she’s actually done big things.
I saw Laura Ingraham’s dating profile on a singles site once. It was really nice but all the personal answers about work, politics, and such were “I’ll tell you later.” ^_^
I know someone who’d make the perfect replacement host, but unfortunately he probably won’t be freed up from his current job until January of 2025. Some of his kids might be good at it too, though.
I thought about that person too.
I hate to say it, because it bodes ill for us all, but Rush Limbaugh is irreplaceable. I’ve been listening to him since 1989, and I did so because I was riveted by listening to his mind at work. He dissects issues in real time, with a degree of scientific discipline that is rarely matched in the fields of science. He eschewed the label of “intellectual,” but I contend that he is not only an intellectual, but a superior one. He makes his living in the marketplace of ideas, and has produced original work. That makes him an intellectual. Beyond that, he can communicate those ideas to anyone so that they understand. That’s the hallmark of a superior intellect.
My major professor at Purdue once said “The test of whether you understand something is whether you can explain it to your mother so that she understands it.”
Rush Limbaugh is that on steroids. And on top of that, he is personable and entertaining (not to everyone, but to most).
He is the most successful intellectual in history, and that is pretty much why those who hate him hate him.
There are witty people (Mark Steyn) and earnest people (Sean Hannity), but there isn’t anyone I see who has the sheer brainpower plus the talents to deploy it.
I hope Rush is around for a good long time, and continues to enjoy his life while enriching ours.
I started listening to Rush in 1991. I attended Dan’s Bake Sale. It was a hoot. I really enjoyed his work and humor. Due to outrage fatigue, I turned off all network and cable news and quit listening to Rush 2-3 years ago. The press would come on with their latest outrage and Rush would respond, skewering them. Still, I found it tiresome after a while. I do wish him the best but lung cancer – especially advanced – has a pretty low survival rate.
Heard on Fox News that Trump will announce Medal of Freedom for Rush who may be in attendance at tonight’s SOTU address. We’ll see.
He was, and he did, and Melania presented it. Rush obviously had not been told in advance what was going to happen. He was almost overcome with emotion. It was a magnificent gesture by the President to someone who richly deserved it. Just one of many such moments in tonight’s SOTUS, which could only make one feel good about being an American.
I never paid much attention to Limbaugh one way or another until I started reading comments from “liberals” saying things like, “He’s not a REAL conservative–he’s a radical libertarian!” My reaction: “Welcome to the club, Rush!”