People like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh say many stupid things, not because they are stupid, but because they know their audience is stupid.
I wonder about their ecology, seems like the environment supports an abundance of these sorts of punditti, the* creme de la dumb*. Who writes their checks? What does a second-stringer pull down, say, a farm-team fascist like Michael Medfly or Hugh Hewitt? All of that money provided by the Sleep Number Bed and gold hustlers? Doesn’t seem to be much in the way of Darwinism going on here. Common sense would suggest that as their demographic shrivels, their feed bags might lighten, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. You don’t see any standing by the freeway entrance with signs saying “Will Distort for Food”?
Because the Clintons *always *make everything about themselves and their own immoral power-lust, didn’t you know that? They’re just eeevul, and this thread is even more proof of it.
Shodan’s Law: Any thread that in any way suggests that Republicans and/or Conservatives or any one or subset of them are hypocritical, venal, corrupt or in any other way less than perfect, must therefore be turned into a thread about Bill Clinton. He’s done it easily a hundred times over the past nine years. And will no doubt continue to do so every time the issue comes up. What disturbs me is how people insist on feeding him.
To continue the analogy, it doesn’t require a very large segment of the population to support them in their ecological niche. If only 5% of the adult population of the US supports them, by buying their books, subscribing to their newsletters, and buying products from the sponsors of their TV shows, that’s 10 million supporters. Darwinian evolution allows life forms to evolve into the oddest of niches, where they can remain protected by the strange ecology of that niche from outside competition.
I think their audience is pretty static. They never had moderates or independents anyway.
Umm Clinton sexually harassed Monica Lewinsky. He was in a position of authority over her. Even if it’s consentual an argument for harassment can still be made.
You didn’t read the “cite” either.
Who’s got time for “reading” and “citations” when you’ve got your gut and general knowledge to fall back on?
I think the word “unwanted” has to be in there somewhere for it to be sexual harassment.
DING! DING! DING!
WE HAVE A WINNAH!! 
On a more serious note, not all the audience is stupid, but there was recent evidence that smart right wing talkers do not believe their own shtick.
They do indeed know that a good chunk of the audience can not handle the truth, or they fear what would happen to their careers if their true opinions were constantly known.
That tape BTW was one of the main reasons why it disgusted me to hear many right wingers that claimed to be smart defending a choice like Palin.
Indeed. If you read the Star Report which should be rated R you find Monica had two orgasms and the “cum shot” was her idea. She felt to was unsatisfying for her as a woman to give oral sex to a man and not have him climax. Bill bless his heart did not want to take it to completion because “it depends on what the definition of is, is.” Monica did not want be cheated.
This is really the only worthwhile point in the whole damn thread.
In one occasional listener’s opinion:
Limbaugh, Beck, and Boortz all freely admit that some of what they say is exagerrated for humorous effect and/or to deliberately outrage any uptight liberals listening (which is also of comedic value; one pictures a goateed guy in a black turtleneck turning purple with rage).
Hannity is an idiot, but a sincere one.
Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Miller are sincere, and not idiots.