Jump to content

Us Talk Radio


Recommended Posts

THe self rightous indignations, of the ranting right wing talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, are about to challenged by a former Republican, gun-toting Ed Schultz out of Fargo, North Dakota

Ed by-the-way is drug free.

Ed's first guest, his show starts today, will be Hilary Clinton, who is the odds on favourite to win the Democratic nomination in 2008, and whom many pundits think will win the presidency.

'Left in the air?

Liberals are working to make their voices heard on talk radio'

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/ar...eft_in_the_air/

'Do you fail to find the compassion in George W. Bush's conservatism? Do you worry that neo-cons have hijacked foreign policy? Do you think Al Gore won the 2000 election? Do you wish someone would say these things on talk radio?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way things look, should Dean win the nomination, there probably won't be much left of the Dumbocrud party to make it worthwhile for Hitlery Klinton to run.

I have been told by NY Dumbocruds, that as much as they'd like her for president, that they realize it won't happen. Hitlery would be good for 150 electoral college votes...at best. It's not because she's a woman, but rather such a polarizing figure. she would not have a prayer in the "red States". These same Dumbocrud supporters said that the first woman president, whoever she may be, will have to be a conservative.

Come to think of it, even oif any of the other cast of idiots running for the nomination win, the Dumbocruds will still be in rough shape in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Do you fail to find the compassion in George W. Bush's conservatism? Do you worry that neo-cons have hijacked foreign policy? Do you think Al Gore won the 2000 election? Do you wish someone would say these things on talk radio?'

...then flip on Rather or Brokaw or Jennings and knock yourself out.

The list of failed liberal talk radio hosts is long and distinguished. Names likes Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, Gary Hart, Alan Dershowitz and Lowell Weicker are among those who litter the wayside of AM broadcasting history.

So, why it is? Why do liberals consistantly and predictably fail at talk radio? There are several reasons:

1.

Apathy. The typical liberal is generally more uniformed about and disinterested in the political processes that affect their lives. This phenomenon has a similar effect in the non-fiction book industry because the typical liberal would much rather drool over American Idol rather than read a book, and it's why you see a far greater number of conservative non-fiction bestsellers in book stores.

2.

Saturation. Conservative talk radio took off because there were literally millions of people who felt they were being alienated by the liberal mainstream media megaphones. These people felt they had no place to go to escape the constant liberal barage pissing on everything they believed in. Limbaugh and the like came into existance as an alternative to a liberal media monopoly which, thanks to Rush and company, prevails to a lesser extent than even just five or ten years ago.

What Algore and his henchmen don't seem to understand is that there is simply no need for liberal radio. Why? Because they have everything else. If ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times and 99.9% of Hollywood can’t get their message out then maybe their message isn’t reverberating. Maybe people what diversity of opinion. Maybe the market is so flooded with their message that people are turned off.

And lets not forget about state-subsidized NPR (national people's radio). Not only does their message sound exclusivley like Democrat talking points but their format is so humorless and unimaginative, it's more boring than watching paint dry.

Having to buy radio stations to get liberal programing on the air is pathetic to say the least. Mark Walsh, Algore, George Soros, and whoever else may spend tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars just to discover that no one wants to listen to another Dem mouthpiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further illustrate Rightturn's point about the intellect of the average liberal voter, I believe that the biggest reason why Bill Klinton got elected in the first place was because of his appearance onsome dumbass late night liberal talk show (Conservatives don't watch those shows because most of actually have to get up to work the next day) wearing shades and playing the sax.

Liberals don't care about the issues, or consequences to actions. All they care about is having fun (their idea of having fun is behaving stupidly on beaches, going to Raves, and other idiocy that involves having sex whenever and wherever and with whomever they want). and watching moronic reality TV shows and stupid sit-coms. More of them know who Paris Hilton is than Saddam Hussein.

That's why Liberal talk radio will fail. they can't appreciate the mastery of the spoken word, since in the view of a liberal, words can mean whatever you want them too. Liberals need pictures to help them along.

Ever seen a liberal who knows how to turn the band switch to AM anyway? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the biggest reason why Bill Klinton got elected in the first place was because of his appearance onsome dumbass late night liberal talk show

Like Arnold you mean ?

US talk radio, or television pretty much anywhere is a major problem to democracy because these media don't lend themselves to political discussion, just arguing.

It's not a left or right thing. It's the unfortunate fact that an ill-informed populace can easily be manipulated. In the past, we had leaders who rose above but little by little we've seen our leaders go lower and lower to get more votes.

LBJ did it masterfully with radio, then television. Reagan's team was arguably one of the best. Now, it's all about attack ads and misleading television spots.

The powers that be will continue to run North America into the ground because it works to do so. Chretien and GW Bush are two leaders who typify the problems of paying attention to polls and appearances at the cost of real problems being ignored.

The founding fathers didn't set up our democracy to be run by uninformed rabble in an environment of mass media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chretien and GW Bush are two leaders who typify the problems of paying attention to polls and appearances at the cost of real problems being ignored.

Whether or not Chretien falls in this category is up for debate, but GW's style of governing represents the antithesis of such a description. Unlike Bill Clinton who, according to Dick Morris and others, was obsessed with opinion polling, Bush refused to let his decisions be influenced by a minority of dissenters who would regard negatively his choice to undertake a necessary (albeit difficult) course of action. Bush's decision to invade and liberate Iraq was seen as a huge political risk . In fact, Bush put his entire presidency on the line to do what he felt was right. That takes courage.

It's beyond me why many liberals consider the incorporation of dialogue and debate to be an unhealthy evolution in news media.

Liberals should not feel as threatened by conservative talk radio as they are. Yes, it's true that conservative hosts, by and large, engage in routine liberal bashing, but it's not as if the liberals are not given a fair chance to defend themselves.

While Rush, who rarely has any guests on his show, is the exception, every other conservative radio host will have liberal guests on their shows nearly daily. In fact, as someone who listens to quite a bit of AM talk, I'd say a good 80% of guests are liberals. Those liberals are allowed to defend their views to the host and to interact with the audience.

For example: This afternoon, John Carlson, a local Seattle host on KVI 570, had as a guest on his show a columnist for the Seattle Post Intellegencer who wrote a moronic piece in today's paper claiming that George Bush's popularity is due to the stupidity of his supporters. In the most eloquent liberal fashion possible, he came on the air completely unprepared to defend his "profound" point of view. While I'm sure he didn't think so, he effectively made an ass of himself and in doing so squandered a golden opportunity to further justify his, IMHO, misguided view.

What more could a liberal ask for than to have a captive radio audience of millions, mostly conservatives, among which to spread their message . Now whether or not those liberal guests end up looking like fools is totally in the eye of the beholder. The listeners decide who makes the most valid arguments.

I'd say that's a vast improvement over being forced to listen consistantly to one side, the liberal side, spewed from Rather, Jennings, or who ever. Wouldn't you agree?

Now, what I'd like to see is a liberal nitwit host like Al Franken or Michael Moore to be completely destroyed by their own guest such as Bill Kristol or the lovely Ann Coulter. You'll never see it.

The reason that liberals feel threatened by conservative radio is because they don't want an equal forum for conservative ideas. They want to maintain the complete grip on the flow of information they've held for 35 or 40 years. However, those times appear to be gone for good therefore liberals should embrace the new media, the new free marketplace of ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly openminded and I've listened to Left Radio, once in awhile they actually have some good points but those are far and few between.

The reason that liberals feel threatened by conservative radio is because

it has substance. Left Radio is the same old crap - "No blood for oil" "Wheres the WMD?" "Bush is a moron" etc. Like a rally for college students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Morgan.......thought maybe I had made a mistake about who Rush Limbaugh was, so did a search on the internet and sure enough, I didn't know all about him:

'PRESIDENT BUSH ENLISTS PANEL OF PROMINENT EXPERTS TO COUNTER PREPOSTEROUS LIBERAL CHARGES THAT RUSH LIMBAUGH IS PREJUDICED AGAINST COLOREDS'

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/100203.asp

How could I have been so wrong?

PS Just kidding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...