Rush comments on black president

[guyser]

Al Franken and Air America tried to compete, but came up way short with bankruptcy instead. For some reason, liberals and progressives cannot make any money with their message. I wonder why that is?

Because they can read ? Oh , and the ability to think for themselves.

[Guest American Woman]

Al Franken and Air America tried to compete, but came up way short with bankruptcy instead. For some reason, liberals and progressives cannot make any money with their message. I wonder why that is?

Could be because liberals don't place as much importance on that kind of thing; I sure never had any desire to listen to Franken/Air America. I think a lot of conservatives need a spokesperson like Limbaugh for validation of their views. Most liberals don't seem to need that.

But seriously, if I were still a Republican, I'd find Rush to be an embarrassment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Could be because liberals don't place as much importance on that kind of thing; I sure never had any desire to listen to Franken/Air America. I think a lot of conservatives need a spokesperson like Limbaugh for validation of their views. Most liberals don't seem to need that.

It's not any different than confirmation of liberal views in newsprint (e.g. NY Times)....or television, yet "Republicans" also use such media to great effect. There is something endemic in the message of progressive socialism that does not "entertain" well. A fellow like Bill Moyers even has a tough time on PBS!

But seriously, if I were still a Republican, I'd find Rush to be an embarrassment.

Conservatives come in many stripes...many do not appreciate Rush any more than you.

[Regulus de Leo]

Because they can read ? Oh , and the ability to think for themselves.

Liberals dont' think for themselves; they repeat unchallenged platitudes and try to censor anyone who disagrees with them.

[Guest American Woman]

Conservatives come in many stripes...many do not appreciate Rush any more than you.

I agree. I'm just glad there is no liberal counter-part, and I still say that speaks well for liberals. After all, if Liberals supported that type of thing, there would be a successful counter-part.

[guyser]

Liberals dont' think for themselves; they repeat unchallenged platitudes and try to censor anyone who disagrees with them.

Phew, got a few more whiffs at bat, keep tryin , you might hit one someday.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree. I'm just glad there is no liberal counter-part, and I still say that speaks well for liberals. After all, if Liberals supported that type of thing, there would be a successful counter-part.

But not for lack of trying...Air America was purposely produced to counter conservative talk radio and unseat President Bush. But it just didn't work as a business model because of missing ad revenue. People tuned in at first, but audience share sagged because they forgot about the "entertainment"...Rush understands this aspect of radio production.

Ideologically, most people don't want to tune in to hear that they are selfish, ignorant, SUV-driving warmongers. Rush takes this sentiment and turns it on its head, getting big laughs. I will note that Rush tried television, but it did not work out.

[peter_puck]

Hi, to the community. I think that it was good of Rush Limbaugh to express his views on a Black President and to prove that he is not a racist has promoted Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as strong candidates for presidential status. I think that it was fair on the part of Rush to say about is comments on a black president. I think that we should thank him….shouldn’t we?

Let me get this straight...Limbaugh thinks McCain is to far left, but that Colin Powell would make a good president ?He is clearly lying.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: I'm just glad there is no liberal counter-part, and I still say that speaks well for liberals. After all, if Liberals supported that type of thing, there would be a successful counter-part.

But not for lack of trying...Air America was purposely produced to counter conservative talk radio and unseat President Bush. But it just didn't work as a business model because of missing ad revenue. People tuned in at first, but audience share sagged because they forgot about the "entertainment"...Rush understands this aspect of radio production.

Your "not for lack of trying" observation just proves my point: "if Liberals supported that type of thing, there would be a successful counter-part." If people tuned in at first, as you said, it was likely out of curiousity, and then most likely audience share sagged because Liberals have no need for someone to validate their views; to tell them how to think (guyser hit the nail on the head with that one), and as guyser also pointed out, because Liberals can read.

Bottom line. It didn't succeed because, for the reasons stated, Liberals didn't tune in the way Conservatives keep tuning in to Rush, and that's not a bad reflection on Liberals. On the other hand, the fact that someone of Rush's ethics keeps getting a larger number of support/listeners doesn't speak well for Conservatives.

Edited May 11, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Your "not for lack of trying" observation just proves my point: "if Liberals supported that type of thing, there would be a successful counter-part." If people tuned in at first, as you said, it was likely out of curiousity, and then most likely audience share sagged because Liberals have no need for someone to validate their views; to tell them how to think (guyser hit the nail on the head with that one), and as guyser also pointed out, because Liberals can read.

The only problem with this viewpoint is that many of the elite liberals specifically wanted to engage talk radio because they wanted to not anly validate themselves but the flock as well. They failed because they confused the emminence of message with entertainment value, and ironically, the very Republican idea of making a buck. Same thing happened with shrill Rosie ODonnell on network television.

How has all that elite "Liberal reading" worked out so far?

Bottom line. It didn't succeed because, for the reasons stated, Liberals didn't tune in the way Conservatives keep tuning in to Rush, and that's not a bad reflection on Liberals. On the other hand, the fact that someone of Rush's ethics keeps getting a larger number of support/listeners doesn't speak well for Conservatives.

It doesn't matter in the game called politics...witness the Clinton machine's "ethics" over the past few months. What Americans can see regardless of broadcast or print media is the smug superiority implied by your contention. Liberal ideas have to compete just like any others.

[Guest American Woman]

The only problem with this viewpoint is that many of the elite liberals specifically wanted to engage talk radio because they wanted to not anly validate themselves but the flock as well. They failed because they confused the emminence of message with entertainment value, and ironically, the very Republican idea of making a buck. Same thing happened with shrill Rosie ODonnell on network television.

Who's referring to the "elite" liberals? I'll have to take your word that the "elite liberals specifically wanted to engage in talk radio because they wanted to not only validate themselves but the flock as well," but that being the case, they failed, didn't they? For the reasons I mentioned previously. The liberal "flock" didn't feel the need for validation by a Rush counter-part. You just keep reinforcing what I've already said. The "shrill" Rosie O'Donnell failed for the same reason, while the "shrill" Rush Limbaugh keeps going, and going....

How has all that elite "Liberal reading" worked out so far?

Great, thanks. We're a very well-informed group.

It doesn't matter in the game called politics...witness the Clinton machine's "ethics" over the past few months. What Americans can see regardless of broadcast or print media is the smug superiority implied by your contention. Liberal ideas have to compete just like any others.

I won't even ask you what you're referring to regarding Clinton, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the continuing popularity/support of a conservative talk radio host whose ethics have been all too lacking throughout the years and I'm not going to be sidetracked.

Edited May 11, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Who's referring to the "elite" liberals?

Rush Limbaugh...it is a time proven approach. Just ask John Kerry.

I'll have to take your word that the "elite liberals specifically wanted to engage in talk radio because they wanted to not only validate themselves but the flock as well," but that being the case, they failed, didn't they?

They sure did....and continue to do so.

For the reasons I mentioned previously. The liberal "flock" didn't feel the need for validation by a Rush counter-part. You just keep reinforcing what I've already said. The "shrill" Rosie O'Donnell failed for the same reason, while the "shrill" Rush Limbaugh keeps going, and going....

No, they failed because their liberal message was untenable as broadcast radio entertainment. I don't know if you realize it or not, but Limbaugh also enjoys a respectable audience share among the liberal demographic.

Great, thanks. We're a very well-informed group.

I'm sure that they think they are. I guess that counts for something....somewhere.

I won't even ask you what you're referring to regarding Clinton, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the continuing popularity/support of a conservative talk radio host whose ethics have been all too lacking throughout the years and I'm not going to be sidetracked.

You still don't get it....ethics are fleeting at best..even for smug, superior, well read liberals. Limbaugh is just a syndicated radio talent, he is not a candidate or elected representative.

Edited May 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know if you realize it or not, but Limbaugh also enjoys a respectable audience share among

I don't know if you realize it or not, but liberals are more likely to listen to views that differ from theirs than conservatives are. So really, once again you are confirming what I said: conservatives have more of a need for validation from a Rush-type personality than liberals do. Furthermore, listening to the opposition's views makes them better informed.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know if you realize it or not, but liberals are more likely to listen to views that differ from theirs than conservatives are. So really, once again you are confirming what I said: conservatives have more of a need for validation from a Rush-type personality than liberals do. Furthermore, listening to the opposition's views makes them better informed.

You haven't been paying attention...there is no sustained national radio broadcast from liberals to listen to....just a few select cities and satellite radio. The cool part is that when the liberals say something really stupid, Rush tells his audience anyway!

[Guest American Woman]

You haven't been paying attention...there is no sustained national radio broadcast from liberals to listen to....just a few select cities and satellite radio. The cool part is that when the liberals say something really stupid, Rush tells his audience anyway!

Oh...my...god. I realize Air America is no longer being broadcast-- for the reasons I stated. Over and over now. But yeah, I'm sure you find it really cool that Rush tells his audience when liberals say "something stupid." It's all part of that need for validation that I've been speaking of. So. Once again, you confirm what I've been saying.

[sharkman]

I don't know if you realize it or not, but liberals are more likely to listen to views that differ from theirs than conservatives are. So really, once again you are confirming what I said: conservatives have more of a need for validation from a Rush-type personality than liberals do. Furthermore, listening to the opposition's views makes them better informed.

I call BS on this one. Liberals are closed minded, not that they have the patent on it, but you are plain wrong here. Conservatives don't need any more validation than liberals, the difference being that they can only get it from Fox. Or AM radio.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's all part of that need for validation that I've been speaking of. So. Once again, you confirm what I've been saying.

LOL! Yea, so busy needing validation that the liberals can't get with media, marketing, or message. Not even with the famous "talking points" approach that Bubba taught 'em.

[Guest American Woman]

I call BS on this one. Liberals are closed minded, not that they have the patent on it, but you are plain wrong here. Conservatives don't need any more validation than liberals, the difference being that they can only get it from Fox. Or AM radio.

You may call BS on it, but it's true.

[A] Zogby/Lear Center Poll .... conducted June 26–29, 2007, including 3,939 adults nationwide and carrying a margin of error of +/– 1.6 percentage points – shows that liberals were much more likely than conservatives to listen to commentary and entertainment with which they disagreed philosophically.

It also says liberals "read books more often than most people."

And this is interesting:

Liberals say they like entertainment with a political flavor, while conservatives eschew such programming out of suspicion that it is tainted with a liberal bias. Instead, they favor news or reality television. And conservatives love sports programming, in part because there's no way to inject liberalism into a football game

That's so true because conservatives, for the most part, do think everything is "tainted with a liberal bias."

And bush_cheney2004: since you feel the need to repeat over and over again that the liberals have no counter-part to Rush, let me just say this-- if we ever care, we'll be sure to be upset. Hope that helps you feel better.

[sharkman]

It's true based on a poll you found? Funded by who? Were the questions designed neutrally or to get a pre-determined outcome.

I don't trust polls, but let's say there are conservatives out there who don't want to listen to liberal philosophy. Here's where my earlier point about Fox and AM radio comes into play. Since the vast majority of TV media is liberal in it's bias, from news shows to movies and everything inbetween, I would submit to you that some conservatives no longer need to hear liberal ideas and thoughts since they've been hearing them from an early age and know how liberals think already.

And since conservative thought is in such short supply in these media outlets, it's like a prize in the cereal box when one is found, and they tend to be more loyal to what is harder to find.

I've heard liberals tend to have a higher level of education, but this not without pitfalls. Highly educated people tend to think that everything can be solved with government intervention or programs. Liberals tend to think using the Bill Clinton approach to the Middle East. Educate the Arab countries on the benefits of freedom and democracy. Let them experience these benefits for themselves! Then they, being reasonable people (Liberals tend to think everything can be solved with education), having experienced these benefits, will embrace them. Bill Clinton used these points on a speech when visiting Canada a couple of years ago.

Nothing could be further from the truth. People raised in a Theocratic dictatorship view the West as evil and to be destroyed plain and simple. They abhor any benefits of education or democracy and feel that living in poverty and hating Jews is holy. You can not educate someone who doesn't want to be educated.

Anyway, look down on conservatives if you like, but personally I think it takes both liberal and conservative working together to achieve anything substantial. Your country (and increasingly mine as well) is seeing the polarization of politics separate the two. Bush's terms could have been much more effective without all of the politics first response from the left which hamstrung his efforts. Ditto Clinton.