Spike Jones, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, writes:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> > About a year ago I ran across an article on the Net that basically
> > said Rush was a fraud. The article indicated that Rush was an
> > actor who had done the character first as a spoof and found that
> > it played well so he continued doing it.
> There seems to be some confusion between the character and
> the person. Does anyone remember archie bunker? carol
> oconnor was not him. rush is a commedian. and actually
> quite intertaining, but his charater is a *character*. spike
I don't think the comparison to Archie Bunker is valid. That was a fictional TV show, and everyone knew it. Everyone knew he was a fictional character. Limbaugh is a talk show host who spends many hours every weekday in front of the microphone giving us what purport to be his views on the issues. He also gives live talks, publishes a newsletter, and has written two books. In all of these he claims to be sincere and presenting his honest opinions.
Of course it is possible that it is all an act, but this can be said for anyone in the public eye. Maybe Rush Limbaugh is a closet liberal; maybe Bill Clinton is actually an arch conservative.
I am skeptical though that someone could or would so consistently adopt views that are contrary to his true opinions. At a minimum, it would be tempting to make use of one's "bully pulpit" to influence people's thinking in the direction of your true opinions. Even if you had no firm views initially and had adopted the persona purely for commercial reasons, I suspect after strongly stating your opinions for so many years, you would come to believe what you say.