1 - I think he is too biased to have a real discussion on any issue. I prefer a commentator with a more neutral view.

My rating would be three. I listened to his show for about a month and he would just cast outright any arguments that pushed against his views. Thus, he would use terms like "junk science" and "drive-by media." He claims to be "America's Truth Detector," although Al Franken points out Limbaugh's erroneous and deceptive claims in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations." I rate him above a zero because he occasionally makes good points, but he is a powerful and intimidating speaker so it's hard to judge sometimes. He still isn't as horrible as Bill O'Reilly, however.

1. He is on the air for revenue and ratings which he is very successful at. Politically, he is a partisan hack that doesn't really give a crap about this country. He would rather see this country go under and be right than see this country recover and be wrong!

Isn't he always high?

he's not possessed of any real analytical insight, he is hypocritical in his assessments; i give him a one. that's being generous.

i know most seem to be rating him on whether they agree with him or not but the answer to this heavily depends on criteria used for rating. To his most fervent supporters he is close to 10 and detractors close to 1. Of course the truth lies in between. I personally think he's a racist ass, but he is good at his job. he distorts things and sometimes outright creates controversy just for the hell of it, but that's what they pay him for. If he was not somewhat effective at this, we would not have this question. I'm going to say about a 6. He's better than average but his divisive ways make it harder for all but the most hardcore right supporters to take him seriously.

He is a sensationalist, 'nuff said.

10. He is a great thinker, and a leading intellectual. I agree with James Lewis: I have a bone to pick with Rush Limbaugh about the word "intellectual." He says he isn't one. But Rush is the sharpest political commentator we have today. He is a public intellectual in the old sense: A fine, original thinker who constantly reveals new truths that slip past the mindless media. He can communicate with whoever bothers to listen, as tens of millions of people do every week, throwing a sharp light on the biggest questions we face. And he's entertaining and funny. Rush has a well-thought-out political philosophy, with deep roots in European and American history. He constantly collects real evidence, and is better at explaining it to millions of listeners than anybody else today. Limbaugh has a twenty year track record of sifting truths from lies; that is not an accident, any more than Tiger Woods is an accident. It comes from great talent and lifelong practice. In the upshot, Rush is a voice for rationality and sanity in a world awash in madness and propaganda. If that's not the proper role of an intellectual, what is? The words "intellect" and "intellectual" deserve to be rescued from the myth-makers of the Left, which has decided in its amazing arrogance that it really owns those words. But that is just another sign of its narrow-minded cultism. The Left shuts out competing voices, like any other cult, and then becomes outraged when independent thinkers don't agree with its "smelly little orthodoxies" --- as George Orwell famously called them. (Orwell started as a Leftist and then figured out the scam.) An intellectual is just a thinker, somebody who uses the intellect and does it well. An athlete is somebody who uses physical talent and does it well. Those words stand for excellence. Rush Limbaugh listens to hundreds of competing voices and finds ways to make sense of them. That is what good intellectuals do -- a lot of listening, a lot of dialogue, a lot of clarification. Talk show hosts have the perfect job for it. By far the majority of the great intellectuals in history have been conservatives, going back to the two main wellsprings of Western thought, the Greeks and the Bible. It is also true in ancient India and China. Confucius was one of the world's great conservative thinkers, emphasizing personal and governmental morality, correct social relationships, justice and sincerity. (Which is why that Leftist hero Mao Zedong murdered tens of millions of people trying to uproot Confucian traditions in China. In the end, Confucius won.) Plato was a great conservative. Cicero was a great conservative. The American Founders were conservatives, with rare exceptions. The wisdom books of the Bible are full of conservative sayings. That's what the Ten Commandments are about. "Honor your father and mother" is a profoundly conservative idea. All high civilizations have been built by conservatives. You can't accumulate the cultural capital needed to build any high civilization if you try to destroy the past, as the Left constantly tries to do. You can't build a chariot if you have to reinvent the wheel every generation. The batty idea that kids have the real answers in life is just a modern delusion. It is just ignorant. Conservatism builds. Leftism overthrows. That is the meaning of that pop word "revolution." The all-destroying revolution is an adolescent fantasy, and the Left hangs on to those fantasies a lot longer than conservatives do. The idea of a "revolutionary" intellectual class is also a modern invention, made up to prop up the cult ego of the scribbling classes -- the teachers, newspaper writers and bureaucrats. Doctor Johnson called them the ink-stained drudges, and he was one himself. (A conservative, needless to say.) Professional word merchants only go back to 1800 or so. Most prominent thinkers in history were talented amateurs, and didn't need to ride the wild horse of social revolution to gain control over other people. They kept their powerlust in check. Socrates didn't have a college degree. He became an intellectual through constant dialogue. The Socratic dialogue is the origin of Western thought. Aristotle, the pupil of Plato, who in turn was the pupil of Socrates, founded the original "college" -- Aristotle's academy, which met in an Athenian grove. Mathematics goes back to Pythagoras and Euclid and many others, 25 centuries of cumulative thinking by talented amateurs. Almost nobody got paid for doing advanced mathematics until the 19th century. All from amateurs -- "lovers" -- of knowledge. The same is true for the sciences and the other "departments" of human thought. But even the idea of "departments of thought" is a modern invention: As Alfred North Whitehead pointed out, "Nature has no departments." Neither does the human intellect. All that is just a bunch of paid professors trying to divide up the loot. Intellectual creativity arose in thousands of places in the ancient world. We just happen to know more about Greece and the Hebrew and Christian sources than about the others. But they existed. Good thinkers are found all over, like good athletes and musicians. When they find other, they start to learn from each other, and then you see a spurt of creativity. It only takes a few to get it started. But let me get back to Rush: Rush Limbaugh is far closer to the great tradition of Western intellectuals than anybody in the celebrity freak-show of the Left. It is the Rush Limbaughs who became Socrates and Plato in the ancient world. They composed the Psalms and the Book of Proverbs. They were not professional scribblers. They did not found a revolutionary cult designed to overthrow all the good traditions. They were talented talkers, and even better listeners. All good thinking starts from dialogue. That's what the Doctor of Democracy does best today.

Well, he seems to rate highly with his supporters and seems to scare the bejezzus out of his detractors. If he weren't successful and good at what he does, nobody would be listening and nobody would care. I think, that as a political commentator, he is at least as successful and relevant as Michael Moore or Jon Stewart. I'd say all 3 of them rate about 7s. They all exaggerate to make their own views stronger and rely on sensationalism and over the top political humor, but they are all successful at doing so.

You may or may not like Rush. That is really not important. The thing is, Rush is right on most subjects. I don't always agee with him but that's ok too. He is perfectly agreeable with people who have different opinions, just be able to back up you opinion with facts.

Well would I as well as the his industry would rate according to ratings, in this case it would be ten, although I don't listen to him....zzzzzzzz

They say he's the most listened to commentator in the world, so I guess he's rated quite high according to radio audience. Apparently, he attracts people with various political views.

I personally do NOT like Rush .. and I am definately not a Republician, like he is .... However; I do NOT think he is correct ALL or even MOST of the time .... It is my considered opinion that Rush is right about 50% of the time ..... BUt; then again ... WHO is to actually say IF he is right or not ; as the opinions are subjective ? Thus ; I'd give ole Rush Limbaugh a "5" .

1. Just another druggie. His agenda is always showing.

10 I love Rush!!!

The only people who like him are called "dittoheads". Whatever he says, they believe. His audience is large, but very narrow in mindset. I personally wouldn't rate him at all, since I don't agree with anything he says. Happy Sunday! :)

I don't like political ideologues, of whatever stripe, so I'd have to say about a 3 or 2.

9. He's a national treasure.

For many more years than I can count, the American public, was subjected to one-sided liberal philosophies that were moving further and further to the left. Millions of Americans were frustrated with that...listening to things they felt/knew were downright wrong. Sometime in the late 80's, Rush Limbaugh began changing all of that, becoming a spokesperson for those who felt totally disenfranchized by run-of-the-mill, single-minded media types with an agenda not acceptable to many. No similar liberal has been able to meet with anywhere near Limbaugh's success. Rush Limbaugh is obnoxious many, many times during his presentations to be sure...but he chalks that up to his brand of entertainment. (?) Others, like Al Franken on the left, though equally, if not more, obnoxious failed to pull it off. Europe could use a Rush, too...maybe the U.S. wouldn't be nearly as hated as we are there. Europe's media are far, FAR to the radical left...and the U.S. is its whipping boy. It's citizens get little alternative than listen, and be influenced, but it. They rarely hear bout anything good the U.S. does...but maybe a little now with our new president. They're ecstatic! I could do without the obnoxious gig, but for offering an alternative voice to the biased media, I would give Rush a 8 or 9.

I'd have to give him a high score. He knows how to comment on everything!! So he can have a ten. Personally, I can't stand the man!!

I like the way he thinks and respects most of what he says. As a social and political commentator, you'd have to give him a high score -- about an 8 or 9. You may not agree with what he says and score him low because of it, but that's not the question here.

-48 BOO! HISS!

I would rate him high.He has the most listeners of any show now or at any time in history.Love him or hate him,you can't deny the talent.

1 isn't low enough. The only reason to listen to Limbaugh is when you become tired while driving, then 15 minutes should be enough time. He is bound to say something so stupid it gets you blood moving and you can turn to more productive listening. Of course, Howard Stern works well too but I wouldn't pay extra to listen.

I used to enjoy listening to him. I don't any longer, as I believe him to be merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party. And, I'm a Republican. (1)

You get high ratings if you have a large audience -- this he has.

-2

10+

1 and it pains me to give him that