Gore boo-hoos
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Ths issues are important and reminding the public on your voting record is important too. Especially since most people don't really pay attention and just believe whatever spin is going on at the moment. I appreciate it when both parties do it.
Excellent thread.
Bruzilla
“Could it because there aren't a lot of people who disagree with these guys, and there aren't enough listeners who want to hear what Liberals have to say to keep a show profitable?”
Tonio
“My suggestion is that liberal movements doesn't seem to be as personality-driven as conservative movements.”
My theory- Repubs, Limaugh included, have been talking about simple messages that most people can agree with. Everybody wants lower taxes, for example. I think many people just accept the PRINCIPLE without thinking about the trade-off. Libs, being poor, or black, or just generally sympathetic to non-mainstream types, always wonder what the tax cut (or whatever) means to “us”. Union folks are a special case, because I think of them as mainstream, but the repubs have shown their colors enough for union laborers to know who their friends and enemies are.
Limbaugh and his wannabe’s define a world that is ideal if you live a certain lifestyle- it excludes people who are stupid, or poor, or a pacifist, or an environmentalist, or just think that the needs of the community are greater than that of the individual.
Sure, the majority will go along with this as long as they don’t look too closely at how “others” are being dealt with. I know somebody here will think that if everybody is just given an equal chance to succeed, they will rise to the challenge and be productive members of society. But you don’t have to think about it too long to see that this is just plain false. We all make mistakes, some of us just get caught in bad circumstances, and some of us get screwed by evil corporations who don’t pay the health insurance premiums like they are supposed to. SOME people need help. It won’t ever go away.
More to come.
Bruzilla
“Could it because there aren't a lot of people who disagree with these guys, and there aren't enough listeners who want to hear what Liberals have to say to keep a show profitable?”
Tonio
“My suggestion is that liberal movements doesn't seem to be as personality-driven as conservative movements.”
My theory- Repubs, Limaugh included, have been talking about simple messages that most people can agree with. Everybody wants lower taxes, for example. I think many people just accept the PRINCIPLE without thinking about the trade-off. Libs, being poor, or black, or just generally sympathetic to non-mainstream types, always wonder what the tax cut (or whatever) means to “us”. Union folks are a special case, because I think of them as mainstream, but the repubs have shown their colors enough for union laborers to know who their friends and enemies are.
Limbaugh and his wannabe’s define a world that is ideal if you live a certain lifestyle- it excludes people who are stupid, or poor, or a pacifist, or an environmentalist, or just think that the needs of the community are greater than that of the individual.
Sure, the majority will go along with this as long as they don’t look too closely at how “others” are being dealt with. I know somebody here will think that if everybody is just given an equal chance to succeed, they will rise to the challenge and be productive members of society. But you don’t have to think about it too long to see that this is just plain false. We all make mistakes, some of us just get caught in bad circumstances, and some of us get screwed by evil corporations who don’t pay the health insurance premiums like they are supposed to. SOME people need help. It won’t ever go away.
More to come.
Part II
Liberals aren’t on the radio or TV (as much) because in this time of Fear Factor, Survivor, COPS, and multitudes of others, we seem to want to witness other peoples stress, confrontations, pain, and conflict. Liberals, in trying to speak for many segments of society, are not rude enough to be entertaining. You guys call it “politically correct”, but it is a way of life and a basic principle of being a liberal (at least for me)- it’s more about “us” than it is about “me”.
Liberals aren’t on the radio or TV (as much) because in this time of Fear Factor, Survivor, COPS, and multitudes of others, we seem to want to witness other peoples stress, confrontations, pain, and conflict. Liberals, in trying to speak for many segments of society, are not rude enough to be entertaining. You guys call it “politically correct”, but it is a way of life and a basic principle of being a liberal (at least for me)- it’s more about “us” than it is about “me”.
Frank
“I could just as well state that since the LOWEST educated segments of society tend to be liberal also, that that would tend to *discredit* them”
Too bizarre. Not sure how to respond.
Smalltown
“Has Rush ever been a politician himself?? Seems like the one person that has all the answers would make a good leader. Pay isn't as good, but he says money isn't that important to him.”
Rush probably has much more power and influence right where he is than he would ever have as a politician. Besides, I wonder if he could stand the scrutiny politicians have to go through. Hmmm, well, shrubbie got a pass...maybe Rush could too.
Frank
“and seen with my own eyes the unending parade of governmental stupidity and ineptitude when it comes to rectifying problems of all kinds, “
This is interesting. We always hear about government failures, but rarely successes. Sure, the politicians try to talk about THEIR successes, but we are so cynical we assume they are BS-ing. The press doesn’t report on government successes. We are left with almost all negative news.
The press likes to knock businesses too. But this is far outweighed by the vast number of press releases spinning every event into a positive. As if we even pay attention to business news. Nevertheless, we are left with this rose-colored view of Private Enterprise as the answer to all our ills. Gawd, I want to write a book about the company I used to work for. And we were profitable! if they had to withstand the kind of scrutiny our government does, we would drop capitalism like a hot potato(e).
“I could just as well state that since the LOWEST educated segments of society tend to be liberal also, that that would tend to *discredit* them”
Too bizarre. Not sure how to respond.
Smalltown
“Has Rush ever been a politician himself?? Seems like the one person that has all the answers would make a good leader. Pay isn't as good, but he says money isn't that important to him.”
Rush probably has much more power and influence right where he is than he would ever have as a politician. Besides, I wonder if he could stand the scrutiny politicians have to go through. Hmmm, well, shrubbie got a pass...maybe Rush could too.
Frank
“and seen with my own eyes the unending parade of governmental stupidity and ineptitude when it comes to rectifying problems of all kinds, “
This is interesting. We always hear about government failures, but rarely successes. Sure, the politicians try to talk about THEIR successes, but we are so cynical we assume they are BS-ing. The press doesn’t report on government successes. We are left with almost all negative news.
The press likes to knock businesses too. But this is far outweighed by the vast number of press releases spinning every event into a positive. As if we even pay attention to business news. Nevertheless, we are left with this rose-colored view of Private Enterprise as the answer to all our ills. Gawd, I want to write a book about the company I used to work for. And we were profitable! if they had to withstand the kind of scrutiny our government does, we would drop capitalism like a hot potato(e).
Larry Gude
Strung Out
In exchange for...
...what?
...what?
Yikes.
Can't even tell a joke around here without getting called on it.
But since you asked:
As I'm sure you know, we are not a pure capitalist economy anyway. The government exerts all sorts of controls over the economy and business, perhaps the most obvious being anti-monopoly regs. I don't know if there is an official word for our type of economy, but it LOOKS a lot like a.....get ready...
quasi-socialist capitalism.
Whew. That was hard. Are you all OK? Can we go on now?
So what we are arguing about is the LEVEL of government intervention. And we have a legitimate difference of opinion on which way to go. But you conservs. have the ball now, so we get to see if your way works.
Can't even tell a joke around here without getting called on it.
But since you asked:
As I'm sure you know, we are not a pure capitalist economy anyway. The government exerts all sorts of controls over the economy and business, perhaps the most obvious being anti-monopoly regs. I don't know if there is an official word for our type of economy, but it LOOKS a lot like a.....get ready...
quasi-socialist capitalism.
Whew. That was hard. Are you all OK? Can we go on now?
So what we are arguing about is the LEVEL of government intervention. And we have a legitimate difference of opinion on which way to go. But you conservs. have the ball now, so we get to see if your way works.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Jokes are funny...
...that wasn't funny, therefore...
Never mind.
MG,
You put in just about every post something to the effect that "now you all have your way, let's see if it works..."
Basically, you seem to see some HUGE gulf between what the GOP has done, is doing and will do vs. the democrats.
That's fine for everything that goes wrong so you can say, "See! See!" but it ignores, I think, reality.
We've had a GOP controlled House of Reps (the place where the budget is supposed to start) since 1994 (it'll be ten years after this last election) and have had a huge increase in federal spending since then. So, let's not pretend that, on the whole, there is some easily discernable difference in politicians, especially as far as gross spending goes. They are ALL there to bring home some bacon.
What I've been trying to argue is matters of degree. I couldn't agree with you more that our socio-economic world is not clearly definable one way or another, thus the degree.
As an example, welfare benefits were tied more closely to work and limited in time back in, what, '96? Newt led this charge against the democrats’ desires to not limit welfare benefits as much. (Notice I'm not saying that democrat’s oppose all and any limits even though voting records might make that hard to see).
Balancing a communistic impulse, welfare as we know it (from each, to each, blah, blah), and a capitalistic one, pick yourself up by the boot straps, is the goal. We'd gone to far one way.
Taxes? Matter of degree. Having 1% of the people paying for half of government is absurd, especially when it is also expected that they can't try and have more say so. Kennedy and Reagan fixed this. LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush I and Clinton messed this up, Shrub is trying to tend it right again.
Abortion? Matter of degree. Almost no one is willing to defend the absolute horror of partial birth abortion. A small minority wishes to see and end to ALL abortion.
National defense? This one is more clear-cut. We have some 400,000 (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) less warm bodies under arms than we did in 1992 and we have real concerns about dealing with multiple threats: The Axis of EVIL. The GOP is clearly for more spending on the military, one of the FEW spelled out responsibilities of the federal government.
What happens at the voting booth tends to be, short term, all about the individual who won or lost. Not very ground shaking, even with BC. The real deal is the long term imbalancing too far in one direction or the other. The dirty secret is we have never been to far to the right.
The democrats controlled the House for over 40 years and there is a factual imbalance in judges, laws and thinking in our culture towards the left or, communism.
I think it is time for a 40-year shift the other way to balance things more towards the middle.
The evidence of these is just how terribly stale democratic arguments typically have become.
KKT: It's about lynching and such!
Huh? It ain't 1860 or even 1960 anymore.
In two years, there can be a dem President Gore and dem control of both houses. It won't end the world as you all seem to be experiencing these days but it will tend us back in the wrong direction.
Now, jokes...Why did the democrat cross the road?
...
...that wasn't funny, therefore...
Never mind.
MG,
You put in just about every post something to the effect that "now you all have your way, let's see if it works..."
Basically, you seem to see some HUGE gulf between what the GOP has done, is doing and will do vs. the democrats.
That's fine for everything that goes wrong so you can say, "See! See!" but it ignores, I think, reality.
We've had a GOP controlled House of Reps (the place where the budget is supposed to start) since 1994 (it'll be ten years after this last election) and have had a huge increase in federal spending since then. So, let's not pretend that, on the whole, there is some easily discernable difference in politicians, especially as far as gross spending goes. They are ALL there to bring home some bacon.
What I've been trying to argue is matters of degree. I couldn't agree with you more that our socio-economic world is not clearly definable one way or another, thus the degree.
As an example, welfare benefits were tied more closely to work and limited in time back in, what, '96? Newt led this charge against the democrats’ desires to not limit welfare benefits as much. (Notice I'm not saying that democrat’s oppose all and any limits even though voting records might make that hard to see).
Balancing a communistic impulse, welfare as we know it (from each, to each, blah, blah), and a capitalistic one, pick yourself up by the boot straps, is the goal. We'd gone to far one way.
Taxes? Matter of degree. Having 1% of the people paying for half of government is absurd, especially when it is also expected that they can't try and have more say so. Kennedy and Reagan fixed this. LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush I and Clinton messed this up, Shrub is trying to tend it right again.
Abortion? Matter of degree. Almost no one is willing to defend the absolute horror of partial birth abortion. A small minority wishes to see and end to ALL abortion.
National defense? This one is more clear-cut. We have some 400,000 (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) less warm bodies under arms than we did in 1992 and we have real concerns about dealing with multiple threats: The Axis of EVIL. The GOP is clearly for more spending on the military, one of the FEW spelled out responsibilities of the federal government.
What happens at the voting booth tends to be, short term, all about the individual who won or lost. Not very ground shaking, even with BC. The real deal is the long term imbalancing too far in one direction or the other. The dirty secret is we have never been to far to the right.
The democrats controlled the House for over 40 years and there is a factual imbalance in judges, laws and thinking in our culture towards the left or, communism.
I think it is time for a 40-year shift the other way to balance things more towards the middle.
The evidence of these is just how terribly stale democratic arguments typically have become.
KKT: It's about lynching and such!
Huh? It ain't 1860 or even 1960 anymore.
In two years, there can be a dem President Gore and dem control of both houses. It won't end the world as you all seem to be experiencing these days but it will tend us back in the wrong direction.
Now, jokes...Why did the democrat cross the road?
...
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Vrai, let me see if I can answer your points.
You're right that Bill Clinton was elected on his personality and his charisma. And Jesse Jackson has that same charisma. But I don't see those two as classic "liberals." Clinton is more of a centrist than, say, Paul Wellstone. Jackson comes across as liberal because the liberals regard him as another ally like the labor unions. But his focus is on black issues and civil rights, which isn't quite the same thing. Anyway, I've said before that Jackson is Al Sharpton Lite, and everything he's done has undermined the legacy of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.
Carville and Dershowitz don't lead political movements and don't have huge followings. Most of their work has been behind the scenes, like Karl Rove. True, Carville's post-Clinton career has been as a guest commentator. Personally, I don't find Carville charismatic at all. He's like Billy Bob Thornton with a college education. And you know, I don't think anyone has heard from Dershowitz since the Lewinsky mess (and I'm not complaining).
I stand my statement that overall, liberals are more personality-challenged than conservatives. Look at the Democratic presidential candidates since Kennedy: Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton and Gore. Except for Johnson and Clinton, these guys had the personality of a lizard. And Johnson's charisma was mostly away from the public eye. He was great at wheeling and dealing with factions in Congress to further his agenda.
And the media wanting to side with the little guy? That really applies more to individual journalists, who are attracted to "For heaven's sake let's do something" crusades. The ones I've met love stories like the one in the movie Erin Brockovich. And they also love stories about families being screwed by a government agency's stupid rule. Apparently, it's fun to watch a bureaucrat squirm and dissemble when confronted with the situation.
Vrai, you're exactly right that the outlets are often themselves the uncaring conglomerates. I'm not saying that the media as a whole isn't left-biased. I'm saying that both sides claim that there's an opposite bias. How much of that is simply a matter of whose oxen are being gored? Did you catch Clinton's claim this week that the media is pro-Republican? I wonder what Limbaugh and DeLay thought of that.
You're right that Bill Clinton was elected on his personality and his charisma. And Jesse Jackson has that same charisma. But I don't see those two as classic "liberals." Clinton is more of a centrist than, say, Paul Wellstone. Jackson comes across as liberal because the liberals regard him as another ally like the labor unions. But his focus is on black issues and civil rights, which isn't quite the same thing. Anyway, I've said before that Jackson is Al Sharpton Lite, and everything he's done has undermined the legacy of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.
Carville and Dershowitz don't lead political movements and don't have huge followings. Most of their work has been behind the scenes, like Karl Rove. True, Carville's post-Clinton career has been as a guest commentator. Personally, I don't find Carville charismatic at all. He's like Billy Bob Thornton with a college education. And you know, I don't think anyone has heard from Dershowitz since the Lewinsky mess (and I'm not complaining).
I stand my statement that overall, liberals are more personality-challenged than conservatives. Look at the Democratic presidential candidates since Kennedy: Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton and Gore. Except for Johnson and Clinton, these guys had the personality of a lizard. And Johnson's charisma was mostly away from the public eye. He was great at wheeling and dealing with factions in Congress to further his agenda.
And the media wanting to side with the little guy? That really applies more to individual journalists, who are attracted to "For heaven's sake let's do something" crusades. The ones I've met love stories like the one in the movie Erin Brockovich. And they also love stories about families being screwed by a government agency's stupid rule. Apparently, it's fun to watch a bureaucrat squirm and dissemble when confronted with the situation.
Vrai, you're exactly right that the outlets are often themselves the uncaring conglomerates. I'm not saying that the media as a whole isn't left-biased. I'm saying that both sides claim that there's an opposite bias. How much of that is simply a matter of whose oxen are being gored? Did you catch Clinton's claim this week that the media is pro-Republican? I wonder what Limbaugh and DeLay thought of that.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Jumping in, if I may, Tonio...
I totally agree Jackson is no classic lib.
Jesse Jackson, if you can ever catch him without the mainstream media lights in his face, is well right of Rush Limbaugh.
When he talks to inner city people in run down areas he says stuff like: (Paraphrasing)
"You have the power to make your life better. You have the power to respect your women. You have the power to respect your men and expect them to be responsible. You have to power to not use drugs. You have the power to turn in drug dealers. You have the power to not join gangs..."
Then, Larry King shows up or a DNC convention slots appears...
The guy is, laughably, given what he says on mainstream outlets, a great capitalist. He sells racism because there is a market for it: White Liberals. He just tells them what they want to hear.
Check out a BET chat room sometime. They know the guy is a sell out. The last thing blacks want is the last thing I want: Government, or anybody else for that matter, as my master.
Jackson is a corporation that cares about one thing: Profit over people.
Clinton is simply the greatest pure politician of our age, maybe ever. Never mind party or bent.
As far as bias goes, there simply is no intelligent argument to make that the mainstream media does not exhibit a consistent left lean.
NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. There is no on air reporter who you can watch and know, based on their inflection, style and body language that they support the right. There are quite a few, Jennings, Rather, Woodruff, retired Bernie Shaw, who scream LEFT.
Election night two years ago was classic. There was joy in calling Florida for Gore because they all knew what it meant. The retractions came across as obituaries for their best friend.
In the mean time, the most exciting election in modern times, NEWS, is just kinda "there".
I totally agree Jackson is no classic lib.
Jesse Jackson, if you can ever catch him without the mainstream media lights in his face, is well right of Rush Limbaugh.
When he talks to inner city people in run down areas he says stuff like: (Paraphrasing)
"You have the power to make your life better. You have the power to respect your women. You have the power to respect your men and expect them to be responsible. You have to power to not use drugs. You have the power to turn in drug dealers. You have the power to not join gangs..."
Then, Larry King shows up or a DNC convention slots appears...
The guy is, laughably, given what he says on mainstream outlets, a great capitalist. He sells racism because there is a market for it: White Liberals. He just tells them what they want to hear.
Check out a BET chat room sometime. They know the guy is a sell out. The last thing blacks want is the last thing I want: Government, or anybody else for that matter, as my master.
Jackson is a corporation that cares about one thing: Profit over people.
Clinton is simply the greatest pure politician of our age, maybe ever. Never mind party or bent.
As far as bias goes, there simply is no intelligent argument to make that the mainstream media does not exhibit a consistent left lean.
NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. There is no on air reporter who you can watch and know, based on their inflection, style and body language that they support the right. There are quite a few, Jennings, Rather, Woodruff, retired Bernie Shaw, who scream LEFT.
Election night two years ago was classic. There was joy in calling Florida for Gore because they all knew what it meant. The retractions came across as obituaries for their best friend.
In the mean time, the most exciting election in modern times, NEWS, is just kinda "there".
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Re: Jumping in, if I may, Tonio...
Larry, thanks for your input on Jackson. The guy really does seem two-faced, doesn't he? If he took the same message that he preaches in the inner city and used it all the time, he might be elected President. But I don't think he's capable of that kind of straightforwardness.
So you're suggesting that the reporters can't hide their own feelings? There's a whole science about nonverbal communication. In any kind of face-to-face exchange (including TV), the words make up only about a quarter of the total message absorbed by the listener.
I've never liked TV news, and I don't watch it at all these days. I've always preferred news in print form, precisely because the bias and the emotional content is easier to spot.
Larry, thanks for your input on Jackson. The guy really does seem two-faced, doesn't he? If he took the same message that he preaches in the inner city and used it all the time, he might be elected President. But I don't think he's capable of that kind of straightforwardness.
So you're suggesting that the reporters can't hide their own feelings? There's a whole science about nonverbal communication. In any kind of face-to-face exchange (including TV), the words make up only about a quarter of the total message absorbed by the listener.
I've never liked TV news, and I don't watch it at all these days. I've always preferred news in print form, precisely because the bias and the emotional content is easier to spot.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
It's part and parcel...
The raised eyebrow, the dismissive sniff...
These people are not stupid. It's like in school..."What did you say, Mr. Gude???"...."uh...nothing Mrs. Snurrenburger..."
In communication you are taught delivery. Drill sergeants, teachers, parents...
Dan Rather was combative and disrespectful of Bush I back in 1988. Remember that? "Bastard never laid a glove on me..."
There's a reason the favorite at the time to become the next President of the United States thought of Dan as a bastard and it ain't because ole' Dan is just a humble newspaper man, as he likes to say.
Fast forward to Rather-Clinton a few years ago. I was waiting for Dan to get down on his knees.
All I expect is at least a veil of professionalism, even if just a thin one!
Brit Hume supposedly ended up at FOX because he wasn't liberal enough behind the scenes and in his reporting. I defy anyone to tell, from his work, how Brit feels about his subject.
Point is, it can be done!
The raised eyebrow, the dismissive sniff...
These people are not stupid. It's like in school..."What did you say, Mr. Gude???"...."uh...nothing Mrs. Snurrenburger..."
In communication you are taught delivery. Drill sergeants, teachers, parents...
Dan Rather was combative and disrespectful of Bush I back in 1988. Remember that? "Bastard never laid a glove on me..."
There's a reason the favorite at the time to become the next President of the United States thought of Dan as a bastard and it ain't because ole' Dan is just a humble newspaper man, as he likes to say.
Fast forward to Rather-Clinton a few years ago. I was waiting for Dan to get down on his knees.
All I expect is at least a veil of professionalism, even if just a thin one!
Brit Hume supposedly ended up at FOX because he wasn't liberal enough behind the scenes and in his reporting. I defy anyone to tell, from his work, how Brit feels about his subject.
Point is, it can be done!
NTTimes article
I did not write this. I am copying it here for your information. There is no need to attack me personally for the content of this article. I am not (yet) making any judgements or offering any opinions, expressly or implied, by posting this story. It is merely a story related to this discussion whose source is outside this group.
The views expressed in the article are those of the author, and MGKrebs, Inc. shall not be held liable for the content of said article. MGKrebs,Inc has no connection to the author, NYTimes,Inc, or any other media for that matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/weekinreview/08LELA.html
Why the Right Rules the Radio Waves
“The question is: why can't liberals create blast-furnace entertainment for their causes? The answers may inhere in the nature of liberalism, said Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University. Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong, he said, "the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values." In the heat of drive-time squawk, he said, "That's easily thrown back in their face by making them look mealy-mouthed."
I did not write this. I am copying it here for your information. There is no need to attack me personally for the content of this article. I am not (yet) making any judgements or offering any opinions, expressly or implied, by posting this story. It is merely a story related to this discussion whose source is outside this group.
The views expressed in the article are those of the author, and MGKrebs, Inc. shall not be held liable for the content of said article. MGKrebs,Inc has no connection to the author, NYTimes,Inc, or any other media for that matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/weekinreview/08LELA.html
Why the Right Rules the Radio Waves
“The question is: why can't liberals create blast-furnace entertainment for their causes? The answers may inhere in the nature of liberalism, said Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University. Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong, he said, "the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values." In the heat of drive-time squawk, he said, "That's easily thrown back in their face by making them look mealy-mouthed."
But you know you're going to get it on behalf of the NYT anyway, right? Any liberal on here has to serve as whipping boy for all other liberals worldwide. 
As to the NYT article, a few things come to mind:
So why do conservative talk show hosts thrive while liberal ones die fairly quickly? Simple: there's obviously no audience for liberal talk shows. Every liberal who's tried to have a talk show has gotten canceled for poor ratings. Liberals listen to Rush all the time - you can tell by the call-ins. They like to be irritated by things so they have an excuse to b*tch about something. Conservatives aren't very good at b*tching and they avoid things that irritate them, therefore they don't listen to liberal talk shows.
Short of passing a law that requires all people to watch or listen to certain programs, there's nothing you can do.
As to the NYT article, a few things come to mind:
(Said in my best whiny voice) If you don't like it, turn it off! That's why they make an "off" button!!
There's that bias! Conservatives are "carnivorous gorgers" and Bill Clinton's lying under oath and selling technology to the Chinese were merely "foibles".
Apparently he's forgotten about "Monica is a stalker", "Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park..." and other famous character assasinations made by Democratic henchmen. Remember the short-lived "That's My Bush"?
Unless, of course, that "diversity" happens to be at odds with liberal "traditions" - then they'll attack you like a pack of rabid pitbulls.
So why do conservative talk show hosts thrive while liberal ones die fairly quickly? Simple: there's obviously no audience for liberal talk shows. Every liberal who's tried to have a talk show has gotten canceled for poor ratings. Liberals listen to Rush all the time - you can tell by the call-ins. They like to be irritated by things so they have an excuse to b*tch about something. Conservatives aren't very good at b*tching and they avoid things that irritate them, therefore they don't listen to liberal talk shows.
Short of passing a law that requires all people to watch or listen to certain programs, there's nothing you can do.
And one more thing - Clinton did this to liberals with his mean-spirited, vitriolic Administration. So if your party is incredibly unpopular, you have one person to blame.
The other thing that hurt Democrats was the 2000 elections. If you only hung around people who said the Supreme Court chose our President, then you were only listening to a small percentage of American opinion. The polls were showing strongly that people thought Gore should give it up. When he drug it on like that, it just made all of you look bad and made people start to think about just what, exactly, the Democratic party stood for.
The other thing that hurt Democrats was the 2000 elections. If you only hung around people who said the Supreme Court chose our President, then you were only listening to a small percentage of American opinion. The polls were showing strongly that people thought Gore should give it up. When he drug it on like that, it just made all of you look bad and made people start to think about just what, exactly, the Democratic party stood for.
The main reason there are so many conservative talk shows these days is because people are sick of the shrill rhetoric that Democrats and other liberals seem to spew daily now. It's part of the reason that they failed so miserably in the recent elections and it's part of the reason that few have any respect left for Al Gore and his cronies.
They've simply run out of things to ##### about, and there's more substance to what conservatives have to say nowadays.
And, what exactly would you expect after years of a predominantly liberal media slant? Of COURSE conservatives would rebound! The pendulum has to swing the other way before it can return to the center...
They've simply run out of things to ##### about, and there's more substance to what conservatives have to say nowadays.
And, what exactly would you expect after years of a predominantly liberal media slant? Of COURSE conservatives would rebound! The pendulum has to swing the other way before it can return to the center...
Delilah903
New Member
Re: I don't deny a liberal media bias.
MGKrebs:
I could not disagree more!! Since when did it become the responsibility of the news reporters to form our opinions for us? I just want to hear what is going on in the world and then I will decide what I think about it!!! The American people are....for the most part.... well educated enough to understand what is being reported without having someone come along and interpret for them. I don't need "Big Brother" to tell me what to think!
MGKrebs:
I could not disagree more!! Since when did it become the responsibility of the news reporters to form our opinions for us? I just want to hear what is going on in the world and then I will decide what I think about it!!! The American people are....for the most part.... well educated enough to understand what is being reported without having someone come along and interpret for them. I don't need "Big Brother" to tell me what to think!
H
Heretic
Guest
Delilah903 AMEN
I always hated college professors that tried to tell us what opinion we should have about something.
There is one place journalist opinion is acceptable and that is in the editorial and thats it.
I always hated college professors that tried to tell us what opinion we should have about something.
There is one place journalist opinion is acceptable and that is in the editorial and thats it.