The “Republican Revolution” of 1994 was indeed grateful to Rush Limbaugh. They made him an “honorary” member of Congress, whatever in the hell that means.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1175600,00.html

Questions for debate:

1. Should we have honorary members of Congress?

2. What benefits does one get for being so designated?

3. Given his recent indiscretion(s), should Congress revoke Rush Limbaugh’s honorary membership?

BoF I don't think you understand how this works. Limbaugh is in line now for the Medla of Freedom.


That honorary stuff is all for show. The only thing that would do is highlight an unpopular move by an increasingly controversial figure of the right. And if a Democratic House does it in 2007 it will just look petty.

"Medal of Freedom?" Someone in Washington must be smoking something pretty strong.

I personally don't think there should even be honorary members of Congress. We send them there to represent us, not pass out fruit loop rewards to a fruit loop recipients.

Actually, I was hoping Republicans would remove the honor before Democrats get a chance. Surely he embarrasses even them at this point. I sent Kay Granger an email requesting this today. I'm in no mood to take prisoners.

1. Should we have honorary members of Congress?

It's not clear to me that we do have "honorary" members of Congress. I can't find any reference to it anywhere. I've never heard Rush Limbaugh make reference to it. It is probably an unofficial moniker.

2. What benefits does one get for being so designated?

See above: nothing.

3. Given his recent indiscretion(s), should Congress revoke Rush Limbaugh’s honorary membership?
What has he done that other public figures have not? Yes, he has had issues. Who hasn't? Nothing he has done is out of line with what our current President has been through or some of our former Presidents, Congressional leaders, or other politicians.

There is little doubt that at least part of the appeal of conservatism is due to Rush Limbaugh directly. Unofficially, he helped usher in the current conservative government. So, what's wrong with an unofficial title (which I've never heard anyone use)?



The Medal of Freedom is bestowed by the President. It is not associated with the Congress. (I'm assuming this was tongue in cheek.)

There are quite a lot of references to him being made it if that is the case

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158206/
http://www.newsmax.com/talkradio/detail.cfm?id=1
http://www.answers.com/topic/rush-limbaugh

But it is true that I can't find any official recognition of it as a public office/title/award.

Yeah, I found a Time magazine article from 1994 (I think) that said it.

But as far as I can tell, nobody before or since has had that "honor" and there is nothing official that I could find about it.

Likely, this is one of those mis-reported "facts". Probably a quote from Newt Gingrich saying that Rush was an honorary member of Congress, which some bonehead reporter took literally.

You can find anything you want on the internet. I'm sure there are places that say Gore won the 2000 election or the Bush administration took down the WTC. Doesn't make it true, however.

1. Should we have honorary members of Congress?

Who is we? Congress makes its own rules.

2. What benefits does one get for being so designated?

I think he gets a $1M expense account plus two votes instead of one.

3. Given his recent indiscretion(s), should Congress revoke Rush Limbaugh’s honorary membership?

Given Clinton's impeachment should we take away his title of President? Given Byrd's former membership in the Klan, should he resign? Given Senator Reid's questionable land dealings, should he resign? Given Senator Clinton's rant about jews, should she resign? Should Sandy Berger be thrown into the clink for stuffing the terrorism plan documents into his pants?