Time "weigh in" on the issue here, or really, ignore the issue and just ramble...
I'm a conservative, but I can only take so much of Rush, O'Reilly or Beck. Hannity drives me up the wall.
My favorite guys on the right are the late, great William F. Buckley Jr, the still-alive Thomas Sowell, the rather brash Alan Keyes, the sober Stever Forbes, and last, and perhaps least, but not lost in the crowd--the human woodchuck known as Neil Cavuto.
This being said, I still think Rush takes a bum rap from the left in terms of "racism." That card gets played an awful lot by the liberals. I remember listening to a sports broadcast, and there was a debate on Rush's comments on a particular NFL quarterback. The QB in question was black, and while he certainly earned his spurs and improved as the seasons went on, he was initially an unknown quantity, and the primary reason for his being appointed to the pro-QB position was that he was black. Rush objected to this, not because he's racist, but because that's not how QBs should be selected. Any reasonable person would assert that QBs should be selected according to their ability, REGARDLESS of their ethnic background. Skin color has no bearing on athletic talent at all. What Rush was objecting to was the "affirmative action" approach of the NFL in that situation, which was in fact a VERY racist policy. It's like saying that black people can't compete with white people unless the standard is lowered, or they get a special favor. Which is stupid, because black people aren't inherently/genetically any dumber or less athletically talented than white people are.
Politics is getting pretty vicious for our time, but from what I've heard, it was even worse in the days of the founding fathers. Those guys REALLY went at it!
The polarization of our time seems to be that the left takes a moral and intellectual high ground by constantly stating in some way that their opponents are immoral and stupid. The right's accusations are that the left is immoral and WRONG. The left accuses the right of being "Fascist" and the right accuses the left of being "Marxist." But fascism as defined by Mussolini ("everything through the state, nothing without the state; everything for the state, nothing against the state,") is the equivalent of the Leninist/Stalinist version of Marxism, which cannot survive in a society without the government imposing it on the people. Further, and this has always bothered me about the left, I have yet to hear an adequate definition of the alleged fascism, even though that term is used so often.
My own main objection to the Left is that they seem to want to remove all painful consequences for poor decision making. Their substitute solution is to regulate behavior, and thereby "improve" society/humanity. But I don't want them to improve either. I think the best thing is retain or strengthen or revive the consequences. I don't think the Left is being generally immoral (they're trying to help people), but I do believe they're being very foolish. How can a person become wiser if there are no negative consequences for foolishness of any kind? How can we learn from our mistakes if we're prevented from making mistakes, or the consequences of those mistakes are euphemized or anesthetized? The irony here is that the Left deems itself to be far more intellectual than the Right, yet the Right seems to desire a course that increases understanding and wisdom.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God." John 6:67-69