Editor’s note: The death of talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh hit The Daily Signal’s audience hard, judging by the mail bag. Here are some of the responses, along with comments on the second impeachment trial for Donald Trump. Be sure to write us at letters@dailysignal.com.—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: Thanks for Peter Parisi’s article about the death of Rush Limbaugh (“Rush Limbaugh’s Rare Voice Extolled Individual Liberty and Limited Government”). While I guess I am not a “Dittohead,” I did enjoy listening to Rush’s unique combination of facts and entertainment.
I did not agree with all of Rush’s viewpoints, but they always were intelligently presented and gave me pause to consider my own beliefs. I am a veteran and conservative who appreciates Rush’s defense of American ideals, which are encased in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Although Rush is gone, the spirit of America lives on and another patriot will pick up the banner and continue the fight for conservatism.
Ironically, the mainstream media who despised Rush so much are the reason for his success. If the fake media had reported honestly and fairly, there would never have been a reason for Rush to step forward.
Rush Limbaugh provided fact-based conversations in contrast to agenda-driven drivel. Thanks, Rush.—John Wilkerson, Germantown, Md.
Dear Daily Signal: My husband doesn’t cry, but he did yesterday. Rush Limbaugh was his go-to person every day, a friend, a patriot, a soul mate on air.
I’m sure my husband was not the only one who felt the connection and passion for decades. We knew the end, at least of the earthly broadcast, was imminent, but it still was heartbreaking in its finality.
I pray there soon will be a replacement, but Rush was such a special, once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, who knows when his equal will surface … and how?
Life happens, and death is absolutely certain at our conception. But what we do in that space between matters, and Rush really mattered.—Shanelle Hawk, Mayport, Pa.
Dear Daily Signal: I’d like to thank Peter Parisi for his wonderful tribute to Rush Limbaugh. He was an amazing man: smart, funny, but also very sweet.
When Rush would get calls from young people, I think he just loved that he was influencing their lives in a positive way. He seemed genuinely thrilled to be talking to them.
His charitable side showed in the money he raised for the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, I believe somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million. Not too shabby.
Rush’s insights were always invaluable, many times causing me to say, “Wow! I never thought of it like that before!”
Noon to 3 p.m. certainly will be a very lonely time for me from now on. Thank you again for the nice article.—Sherrie Shearer, New Bloomfield, Pa.
Dear Daily Signal: “When I finally met him, I was surprised at his humility,” Cal Thomas wrote of Rush Limbaugh (“The Rush Limbaugh I Knew”).
When I read this, I remembered my first round of golf with Rush at our club. Afterward, I went to pay Rush the $35 my team lost in our match. He tried to refuse to take it, but I reminded him that golf is a game of honor and that I owed and must pay my debt.
Rush said, “You’re right,” and took the cash. He turned around and gave it as a tip to our locker attendant.
Then, as we sipped our after-golf beers, I couldn’t help mentioning that I was so surprised at his politeness and generally quiet demeanor around the club. I said, “That’s not the guy I hear on the radio.”
He responded: “Well, if you put a mic in front of me, you’ll see that guy on the radio immediately!”
What a gentleman and great American. Rest in peace.—George Blumel, Atlantis, Fla.
Dear Daily Signal: I loved Peter Parisi’s article about Rush Limbaugh. I have listened to him since 1989, and also watched his television show.
I had one spell when I couldn’t bring in Rush on any of my radios. I even ordered a Bose, hoping to get him that way. Didn’t work!
I finally found I could bring him in on my computer, and then recently found I could get him on my iPhone, which was great. I could take him anywhere I went.
Then they fixed it so I could hear Rush through my hearing aid and listen to him no matter where I was. I love him and will miss him so very much.
Thank you for this wonderful memory of my hero, Rush Limbaugh. And now his body is healed again and he is walking with the saints in heaven.—Marilyn Garlow, Charlotte, Mich.
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Peter Parisi’s warm and loving tribute to Rush. My father was a Democrat so when I got old enough to vote, I voted Democrat. Then one day while on vacation, my husband tuned in Rush on the car radio.
He said, “You have to listen to this guy.” I did, and lo and behold, I realized that I really was a conservative. I am sure Rush brought this realization to millions of viewers.
When I heard Kathryn Limbaugh’s voice come on Rush’s program, I dreaded what she was going to say. The announcement hit as though a close relative had passed away, and I cried.
Rush will be missed for generations to come. I am sure his books, and especially the “Rush Revere” books, will be passed down for generations. Rush was deeply loved.—Kathy Apgar
Dear Daily Signal: It is somewhat like losing a member of my family. I needed to hear Rush’s take on the politics of the day. He was usually right, about all of it.
He staunchly defended conservatism, yet was polite and gracious to callers who were contrary. He was funny. His impression of Bill Clinton was hilarious. And he exposed the utter foolishness and hypocrisy of the left, in a way that resonated with common, patriotic Americans.
There are other good talk radio personalities, but Rush was the only one I would call great. May God be with him and his loved ones.—Randy Malcom, Limon, Colo.
Dear Daily Signal: The success of Rush Limbaugh can best be understood by asking one simple question: Why was there never a successful liberal version of a radio talk show host?
Quite simply, Rush captured and espoused what his audience was thinking but never had the forum to express. There were liberal talk shows, but here is the essence of failure for them: Liberalism makes no sense to the common man.
Redistribution via the envy argument has no sales legs. The inefficiency of a government redistribution scheme, coupled with the immorality of literally taking from one party to give to another, fly in the face of human nature.
The conservative version of this same scheme is for people to voluntarily give their funds to charities of their choice.
You know Rush was a good man by virtue of the level of vitriol coming from the left upon his passing.—D.R. Berg, St. George, Utah
***
Great article by Peter Parisi! Rush was a wonderful man and voice for conservatism. We may never know the full story of the millions he reached. Thank you for sharing.—Lynda Waugh, Tampa, Fla.
***
Like Peter Parisi, I also considered who might continue Rush’s vision and thought of Chris Plante. There never will be another Rush, but Plante has a sense of humor and is right on target with love of country and the Constitution. Annette Strauch, Glen Ellyn, Ill.
***
I’ve been a Rush listener since 1992. Contrary to Peter Parisi’s nominee for an heir to Rush’s radio show, the only man who could do the legacy justice, and keep the 15 million-a-week audience, is Mark Steyn. He’s the most popular guest host.
Chris Plante is good, but the nationwide audience doesn’t know him. And we love Mark Steyn for his wit, humor, remarkable insight and undeniable charm on the air.—Chris Meehan
***
Please, not Chris Plante to succeed Rush! Ben Stein or one of Rush’s regular fill-ins.—Nancy Hennelly, Barrington Hills, Ill.
Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial
Dear Daily Signal: I am an Independent who receives The Daily Signal in order to understand what traditionalists are thinking on current events.
I find that Fred Lucas did an excellent job of reporting the events of the Senate impeachment trial in a truly fair and balanced manner, without injecting commentary.
Readers should ponder the events Lucas lists in eight points (“8 Takeaways as Senate Again Fails to Convict Trump, This Time With 7 GOP Votes”), but most especially the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the testimony of Rep. Jaime Buetler, R-Wash.
I must state that in general I have found The Daily Signal to be very biased and often toeing the Trump line on all too many topics.
If you seek to convert many Independents and folk under 40 to your causes, you had better begin to look at matters with clearer eyes. None of us are fooled by this supreme example of a playground bully turned into a P.T. Barnum showman.—Mark E. Dunham, New Mexico
Dear Daily Signal: The claim by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and other House impeachment managers that President Trump was “delighted” by the riot at the Capitol is not only unsupportable, but not believable (“Democrats’ 4 Top Arguments for Trump Impeachment Trial“).
Was Raskin there to see Trump’s reaction? How does he account for Trump’s abruptly cancelling the Capitol phase of the rally and telling everybody to go home? It is best explained by his realization that the riot destroyed his plan.
The last thing Trump wanted or needed was violence at the Capitol; it was entirely foreseeable that it would quash any attempt to have Congress accept a challenge to the election.
I contend that the riot was a false-flag operation with that very purpose.—Paul Bade, Mankato, Minn.
Dear Daily Signal: For 50-plus years, I’ve been watching politicians lie, cheat, and even steal. Corruption has grown exponentially.
We finally got a president who was working for the people and the Constitution, and the whole swamp (both sides of the aisle) comes down on him like never before.
Incitement to insurrection? Come on, the communists in the swamp are guilty of that. To take on the corrupted swamp as successfully as President Trump did puts him in the top three presidents we’ve ever had. Certainly, the greatest in my life time.
The communists are kicking everything into high gear to extort our country and people. Clear the swamp. This is not the country I wanted to leave for those following us.
I learned rather early on that President Trump was not lying to us. He never did, and all the accusations directed against him were what the accusers were guilty of time and again.
All the election did was guarantee that the swamp dwellers’ previous crimes never will be prosecuted. They were scared to death they might have to pay for their crimes.—Pete Noffke
Dear Daily Signal: Michael van der Veen, one of former President Trump’s lawyers, is a sterling example of best of the American legal profession (“7 Highlights From Trump Team’s Defense in Impeachment Trial”).
Given the current media, cultural, and political environment, van der Veen displayed enormous courage in defending Trump “zealously, within the bounds of the law,” as required by the American Bar Association’s Canons of Professional Ethics.
Van der Veen didn’t needlessly waste the Senate’s time and resources, as did the House impeachment managers. He made his case succinctly and convincingly.
For that, van der Veen endured personal scorn, ridicule, and loss. Vandals inflicted damage to his home and personal property.
Unlike other attorneys, he did not decline the case or “ask to withdraw.” He persevered in the steadfast defense of his client.
The ignorance of the American public in this regard is appalling. Apparently, most of our citizens are unaware that every American, even the former president of the United States, when accused of a criminal offense, is entitled to the assistance of counsel.
That right is secured by the U.S. Constitution, which the left in this country now seeks to destroy.
Michael van der Veen should receive the positive recognition and admiration he deserves from those in power who still believe in the basic legal principles of American justice and fairness. Not because he “won,” but because he accepted a hard case, in a difficult and prominent forum, at great personal risk.
I hope The Heritage Foundation, and other principled thought leaders, will take this opportunity to remind our fellow citizens that legal representation is the fundamental constitutional right of every American, no matter how “unpopular” that person may be.
It’s easy to ridicule and demean lawyers, or their clients, until it is you who faces the enormous power and resources of state actors determined to deprive you of your freedom, your property, and your good name. Then you too will say, “I want a lawyer.”
I hope there is one to defend you.—Susan Lefebvre, Connecticut
***
With all the problems the country is experiencing, why not focus on our country and not act like little kids who did not get their way again with a Trump Impeachment?
Let’s work on COVID-19, our kids’ education, reopening small businesses, etc.—George Taylor
***
As the House impeachment managers pointed out several times, Donald Trump could have cleared up “what he knew and when he knew it” simply by testifying to the Senate.
In a criminal trial, the silence of a defendant cannot be construed to be an admission. However, an impeachment is not a criminal trial.—Robert Kaplan, Sarasota, Fla.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
