The claim that Rush Limbaugh has good ratings is not exactly something that really required a cite.
I was being a little facetious, but the head of the RNC did have to go and lick his balls, as have one or two other highly placed members of the GOP. The fact that Senators and Congressmen are afraid of him at all is significant. No one in he Democratic Party is running shit scared of Ed Schultz.
I know, it’s awful. Rush calls ALL the shots for the Republicans. Rush singlehandedly made sure John McCain had no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Rush called McCain a phony conservative, and a RINO (Republican in Name Only), and naturally, the GOP shunned McCain, giving the nomination to a Southern fundamentalist.
No, wait… that didn’t happen, did it?
But we forgive you for this boneheaded error, Dio. Your poor brain is undoubtedly frazzled from all the bad calls those mean ol’ refs made against the Vikings. Surely THAT’S the only reason you’d be saying something so obviously and demonstrably untrue.
No, but Rush is the reason McCain was forced to select an insane and intellectually challenged religious right demagogue as a running mate.
Incidentally, McCain also benefited from having no competition in the Primaries who dod not have sizable liabilities with the dittoheads. Giuliani was pro-choice and pro-gay, Romney was a Mormon (and of questionable ideological) bona fides and Huckabee was too serious about compassion for the poor.
Rush couldn’t prevent the man from getting the nomination for the Big Job, but he was able to determine who his running mate was?
You do of course have some sort of actual cite for this, right?
Indirectly, yes. He didn’t have control over who McCain faced in the Primaries, and there were no untainted competitors with McCain, but he and his ilk did have a tremendous amount of influence into swaying the pick. Mccain still wanted to pick Lieberman up until two days before he picked Palin. He was finally persuaded that the base would riot at the Convention if he didn’t pick someone far more right wing. These mobs were greatly influenced by the right wing media echo chamber. Read Game Change.
Tell me, if Limbaugh holds no power in the party, then why do leaders in the party have to go apologize to him and suck his balls? You think Howard Dean would ever go apologize to Keith Olbermann?
Actually, it’s kinda the opposite.
As for the two media, listening to the radio is more of an intellectual exercise than watching the “telescreen”, which explains why the liberal message is more conducive to television.
While one hears the words via radio, the words have to reconcile with the listener’s everyday experiences. While zoned in on the telescreen, the listener/watcher can be guided to the desired conclusions with the appropriate images. For example, liberals often rise to the defense of what is known as “illegal immigration”, with the phrase, “we are a nation of immigrants”, invoking images of early 20th century immigrants coming through Ellis Island.
The words alone are not conducive to contemporary experience, but the gullible can be swayed when words are accompanied with images from the early 20th century.
Prove it.
Regards,
Shodan
So True. Who owns the air waves? If the airwaves are bankrupt so is our country.
Pretty soon instead of “bla bla Rush Limbaugh” we will have some one else yelling government promoted propaganda at us. It never was between the left or the right but it sure makes for great arguments and blame games.
Ha ha. No. Talk radio is perfectly adequate for moronic repeitition of platitudes, fear mongering, simple minded memes, scapegoating and the like. Everyday experience has little or nothing to do with it.
As for television – the only political slanted programming that draws an audience there is Fox News. There isn’t really any liberal programming except for MSNBC in the evenings, and that draws a tiny audience.
I just want to add that “20 million weekly listeners” does not mean that Limbaugh reaches 20 million individual people in a week’s time. IIRC, the number is a weekly aggregate of his daily listeners, so he may only be reaching an average of 4 million people a day (out of the approximately 80 million or so in this country who identify as conservatives).
Further, many of those who are listening are only listening sporadically as they go about their jobs, run errands, etc.
So in reality Limbaugh’s audience is averaging 4 million listeners daily, with many if not most of them hearing only part of his program.
He has influence certainly, and that influence can have some minimal impact at the polls, but he is far from able to dictate who gets nominated for president or what elected politicans do in the halls of Congress.
Also, I don’t believe that most of the people who listen to Limbaugh listen to him in order to be told what to think; they listen in order to hear someone with a national platform voice what they’re already thinking in the first place (or would be thinking if they had access to the same info). For most of his audience I suspect the reaction is more along the lines of “Hell, yeah!” than it is along the lines of “Hmm…I didn’t know that”.
There are a LOT of Republicans who favor reduced drug laws. National Review has been in favor of drug legalization for a long, long time. A lot of Libertarians have gravitated to the Republican party over the years, and they favor drug legalization.
And I don’t see a big movement towards legalization from the Obama administration.
I’ll give you that one.
Ahem. Remember Tipper Gore? This is not a Republican thing. Also, I don’t really hear anyone talking about this any more, on the right or left.
Yeah, that Obama is all for allowing people who marry whoever they want, isn’t he?
Now would you like me to list the ways in which Democrats want to limit your freedom?
Is that any better?
Tipper Gore was excoriated on the left for her PMRC bullshit (and I was in Washington DC during those hearings and went to a protest on the Mall), but I don’t remember her being a crusader against pornography. She also didn’t hold any elected office.
I do remember Ashcroft going after internet Pr0n, though, but the supreme Court stopped him.
Practically speaking, yes. he is offocially “opposed” to same-sex marriage, but he also opposes any legislation against it, supports civil unions and opposes an amendment against it, so that works out to be effectively for it. He is “personally opposed” to it in the same way that pro-choice politicians always say thy’re “personally oppsed to abortion,” but don’t think it should be legal.
Please do.
Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thead, so this point may have already been made:
In my opinion, the reason why Air America tanked is because it was on AM radio. AM. Who even realizes that AM radio still exists? Old people, that’s who. Old people listen to AM, and old people are by and large conservative.
What do young people, who are by and large liberal, pay attention to? The internet.
So, I say, good trade. Let grammy and grampy tune into 970hz on the dial in their Lincoln Town-Yacht (unless they drive under an overpass) , and let the liberal bloggers take over cyberspace. Win - win.
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry here is the proper form for a politician that gets on the wrong side of Rush. Every time they slightly criticize Rush ,they quickly apologize. Why would they do that ,if Rush is not in charge?
Yes, it is…because it’s more accurate. The meme is that Limbaugh tells his listeners what to think ideologically and about specific issues when in reality he is merely reflecting their views.
And most of those views have to do with individual responsibility, hard work, freedom from government control, and a positive, upbeat attitude toward life which holds that individual freedom and accomplishment are the keys to a happy, rewarding and satisfying life as opposed to giving up and living life as a virtual serf to Big Daddy government.
All one hears about around here is his opposition to homosexuality (which is true) and allegations of racism (which isn’t), but his real focus and main theme is living life responsibly and encouraging people to be all they can be. And to the degree that he views liberalism as being in opposition to these values he lambastes it accordingly.
This is not to be construed as a defense of Limbaugh but things are what they are, and what they are is that Limbaugh’s overall message and philosophy are considerably more nuanced than one-dimensional way they are portrayed around here.
Not particularly accurate.
Regards,
Shodan
To repeat something I said over here:
As a “multiculturalist” (using my rather clumsy definitions above) I never wanted to listen to Air America because I didn’t need to have my worldview constantly reaffirmed. AA filled a niche that was empty for a reason.
Sorry for the multi-post:
Shockingly* I think Starving Artist was closer to the truth here. AM radio (especially daytime AM radio) is listened to by people in blue-collar jobs. It’s on in factories and garages, truck stops and delivery vans. And blue-collar workers trend to the right. The young, liberal crowd are more likely to be better-educated white-collar workers who are far less likely to have a radio on at work (or, if it is on, it’ll be tuned to some inoffensive light rock station).
AM radio is also more popular (I believe) in rural areas, which similarly trend right. Lord knows I’ve driven through some remote areas of the Midwest where the FM offerings were slim pickings but the AM bands were full of evangelists, right-wing talk, Spanish language stations (probably also religious programming) and Paul bloody Harvey.
*