I’ve never heard Matthews use racist or sexist language. Being partisan politically doesn’t make you the equivalent of a hate-spewing douchebag.
So she heard that there might be a hearing and she called up her favorite congress person and volunteered??
She’s an activist, so yes; she probably did something like that.
Another ridiculous comparison. Limbaugh spews hate speech and is consistently dishonest. Matthews is just partisan, and openly admits it. He trips up sometimes, and then apologizes for it. A real apology, expressing regret for his own actions, and labeling them wrong.
Limbaugh is nothing but an old fashioned rabble rouser. I wouldn’t call him a misogynist or racist, because I have no idea what he actually believes. But it is obvious that he will say anything that increases his income and following among the imbeciles who listen to him.
I’m really not aware of any prominent liberal commentator who distorts and fabricates his facts as consistently as Limbaugh. MSNBC hosts, and Olbermann, are flagrantly liberal, and it shows in the stories they choose to report or ignore, but they at least try to get their facts straight, and their rants are directed against things that prominent Republicans actually said or did.
Rush’s rants are usually based on his secret knowledge the sinister hidden agenda of Democrats, rather than what they actually say or do, or else they are based on the actions of some nobody, maybe some anonymous protester at a rally, which he then somehow extrapolates to Obama or Pelosi.
What’s alarming is that Rush’s technique has pretty much been adopted by not only Fox News, but the top Republican politicians. Almost everything they blast Obama for is made up, from his war on religion, to his plot to raise gas prices, to his non-citizenship and Muslim faith. Romney is the sanest of them, and yet he talks about how Obama has doubled the deficit.
The closest thing to a leftist Limbaugh was a guy named Mike Malloy, who used to have a show on Air America, before it went under. Don’t know what he’s doing now.
Objection; assumes facts not in evidence. Further, even assuming a group of people all agree on a single issue that is not, in fact, evidence of groupthink - some conclusions are obvious. I.E. : The sky is blue.
And it’s just a coincidence that all you Dems say the sky is blue? Tell me another.
I always assumed Limbaugh was a political version of Howard Stern. Their listeners aren’t interested in boring ol’ facts or political discourse, they want to hear people being ridiculed and laughed at. If Stern decided to talk liberal politics, he would be the anti-Rush.
There’s no direct leftist equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. There just aren’t that many people in general that have had as much exposure for as long as he has and is as polarizing.
I do think Bill Maher is probably the most like him in the sense of how they approach issues. Both seem to think that making a joke counts for as many rhetorical points as real logic or research. Neither of them can make a good argument, where Maher’s best response tends to be “Really? REALLY?” when someone on his panel calls him on his bullshit. I imagine Limbaugh would do the same if he had a panel. But ultimately, Maher doesn’t have anywhere near the exposure or pull that Limbaugh does.
Of generally left leaning personalities, I’d say Jon Stewart is probably the closest to having as much pull, though still not as much. However, Jon Stewart is a lot more respectable and funny and generally equal opportunity in offending people. He’ll push causes he really cares about from time to time, and it does seem to have an affect, but he’s generally much more concerned about being an entertainer and any influence he has is more incidental. IOW, other than what amount of pull he does have, he’s really not at all like Limbaugh. But really, I can’t think of any left media personality that has even half the pull that Limbaugh does.
So, really, I’d go with Michael Moore. He makes bad arguments and likes to spend a lot of time pointing fingers and all of his arguments are pretty much tuned toward an echo chamber and aren’t convincing to someone that doesn’t already agree with him, and at least seems to have som small amount of pull, which is more than Maher has.
Those “editors” must have been “off” the day Schultz used dishonest “editing” to imply that Rick Perry was a racist. He then had to “apologize” when called on his “slander”. He also called a woman a slut on the show because she had her own opinions which is very similar to what Rush did. The largest difference is that Limbaugh does a three hour radio show with no guests which by its nature must seem much more conversational and less scripted. Shultz and Olbermann do an hour on TV with many guests. They can write out a good bit of the show before hand and have it vetted. However, they are well known misogynists and use an exagerated personae to entertain their audience, just like Limbaugh uses an exaggerated personae.
A study done in 2008 found that Limbaugh’s audience was much more likely to be informed about politics than MSNBC’s audience or CNN’s Link
I think you have to take the comments of a comedian with a grain of salt. They say things for the purpose of being funny. Maher is trying to get laughs. He’s finding comedy in the political landscape. He may discuss serious issues, but it is for the purposes of humor.
Rush is not a comedian. I suppose he is more of an entertainer. He is having serious discussions about the issues.
I don’t see disparaging remarks made by a comedian to be the same as someone seriously discussing the issues.
Jon Stewart implied that Ed Schultz is the lefts Rush Limbaugh. I would tend to find that much more plausible than Maher. I know this thread is more about misogyny among the two, but Maher is an intelligent person who comprehends issues fairly deeply and speaks that fact with eloquence. Limbaugh is none of those things.
Oh, now, that is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time.
What I’m trying to decide right now is whether you intend the statement as irony, or whether you mean it.
Limbaugh often sounds idiotic. Sometimes, Limbaugh is vile. Maher is ALWAYS vile.
Maher is a mixed bag, but some of what he says is stuff nobody else is saying, and some of what he says is right. So when he does both at the same time it’s pretty significant. I’d say he does about as good a job as anyone who is opinionated but fairly reasonable.
Moore produces relatively few hours of material and his tone is a bit more sullen than Limbaugh’s bombasic outrage. And Moore’s advocacy had at least an initial basis in reality given the impact of corporate decision making on the lives of working people.
It’d be a lot funnier to me if it weren’t true. I could bombard you with cites, but I suspect you’d continue to have the same opinion as the rest of your ilk.
Does he wear a black hat and twirl his mustache also?
Agreed. As the saying goes, “Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.”
The truth is, Democrats just aren’t as monolithic in their goals as Republicans are.
Maher projects humourous mild contempt. Rush projects dry contempt with forced humour and outrage bordering on hate.
Pretty much. You can put John Stewart in that mix as well.
…and what activist, deep down in their ever-loving liberal heart, doesn’t want to be a public figure when they grow up! Thank-you DT for an honest answer.