I think Sam Stone and capacitor are correct. Liberals, who cannot percieve why Limbaugh is popular, are going to have trouble recreating his appeal from the other side of the aisle.
I think the idea is that Limbaugh is only popular because he rants and is nasty about liberals. Thus, liberals think if they put on a program that rants is nasty about conservatives, they will be just as successful as Limbaugh.
That isn’t it, and I suspect liberals will find it out. Limbaugh is a talented performer, and is successful for that reason. If Franken et al. don’t have the same knack, they will not succeed.
It is sort of like liberals assuming “Limbaugh is only successful because he tells lies about liberals”. So they choose Moore as the liberal counterpart, reasoning (apparently) that a a thoroughly dishonest performer like Moore must find the same success. But, again, that isn’t it. Not to mention that it smacks rather strongly of “Me too!”, like the endlessly recycles sitcoms and reality shows that boom and bust periodically on American TV.
As a sidenote, I am amused by liberals who heatedly deny that NPR is at all biased towards the left. Then they start up a radio show that is avowedly left-of-center. Who do they pick for a co-host? Katherine Lampher, former host on NPR.
Can anyone explain why they aren’t using their celebrities during drive-time? Franken is on in the early afternoon, and Janeane Garofalo is on during primetime. They’re the ones I’d be interested in but I’m not listening to the radio then.
[quote]
Yes, well done athelas. You did exactly what elucidator said you would do, and failed to identify one supposed change of position. I clicked on the link, and got some crawl and something apparently supposed to be like a boxing match, but after 30 seconds of nothing, I found it to waste my time.
Could you, yourself, please state one flip-flip? Pretty please? Or is the whole thing to spread a bullshit lie and have people have to spend time saying the words “Kerry” and “flip flop” in close proximity to one another? Kind of like “Hussein” and “9/11” or “Bush” and “compassionate.”
[quote]
Have I suddenly become insane, or is my computer (in school, five or so years old, providing another demonstration of the efficiency of public schools when their budgets are approved year after year) the only one able to continue to the meat of the site?
That’s because Liberals aren’t capable of talking down to their audience with oversimplistic sound bites. We actually like to explore the nuances of an issue.
So by that logic, if G. Gordon Libby or Pat Buchanan were to show up on Air America Radio and have the hosts fawn over them, that’d indicate those guys are liberals, right?
Aren’t capable? That’s the funniest thing I have ever heard (at least around here). Given the curent discussion, has anyone ever heard the title to Franken’s book? Not a sound bite? Not talking down?
Thanks for the demonstration of what I was saying.
The reason that Limbaugh is popular is not that he talks down to his audience and using oversimplistic sound bites. (That would be more characteristic of, well, you.) But liberals can’t see that. They lack (apparently) the flexibility of mind to consider a different point of view in order to understand it. The only reaction they can muster is, “crimethink!”, and immediate attack. The notion that Limbaugh might actually have something interesting to say, that resonates with a large segment of the population, cannot be admitted, because that would conflict with this reflexive mindset of “our side good, conservatives selfish/greedy/stupid/bigotted/bad/smelly/ickyickyicky” that forms the basis for the emotional attachment to the extreme Left.
So you have to try to manufacture reasons that are acceptable to a mind that cannot change. And, when you go to recreate the success of the radio programs you so detest, you try to implement your notions of what constitutes a popular and successful radio program.
With results that have yet to be seen.
I don’t know what you are talking about.
If G. Gordon Liddy or Buchanan were selected for a spot on an avowedly conservative radio show, I would assume that it was because they were conservatives (of a sort). If the selection were done by someone who denied that Liddy and Buchanan were conservatives, I would assume the person was an idiot.
Same thing here. Someone who denied that NPR is liberal would be disproven by the selection of an NPR host for a liberal network. QED.
Long time listener first time caller here.
While these may not be the reasons why Rush’s popular: he does talk down to his audience in that he makes frequent use of strawmen etc; and, while he may not use “oversimplistic sound bites,” he does very simplistic sound bites.
From what I can tell from my listening to Rush, (who I love to listen to), he makes fun of his listeners who take him seriously quite often. If he’s not doing so, then he’s genuine dolt. I find it very hard to believe that he’s a genuine dolt.
Liberals this, conservatives that…blah, blah, blah
What a bunch of stereotypical tripe people are willing not only to buy, but spew from their own mouths/keyboards.
These kinds of blanket generalizations with negative characterizations always strike me as bigendianism/littleendianism BS.
Seems to be the same thought avoidance technique as saying, Jews this, Blacks that, Whites the other.
YMMV
Because NPR has/had a person with liberal political beliefs working for them the entire station’s liberal?
This is perforated reasoning.
I assume that there’s more to this that you’ve just not stated yet.
Well now ** SimonX**, if you would only cultivate the use of a few functional generalizations in order to extract a conveyable reality from the background noise of human events, you wouldn’t have to hyphenate such clumsy terms as "mouths/keyboards " and “bigendianism/littleenddianism”.
(By the way, thank you for saying “BS” instead of “Bull Shit”.)
Point being that on either the first or second day of AA Radio, both Liddy and Buchanan came on as interview subjects and were, by any standards, quite favourably treated, potentially up to a fawning level.
It seems like so many people are talking about AA in hypothetical terms “They’re going fail beacause they all do this” without bothering to listen to see if they indeed do do that, the same thing that they’re accusing liberals of doing to Rush.
This is silly. Limbaugh has liberals call in to his program, and discusses issues with them. Does this make Limbaugh a liberal? Michael Medved has “Disagreement Day” on his radio program, on which he invites liberals to call in and disagree with his (generally conservative) perspective.
The prevailing tone of the show is set by the host. It is a liberal network. They chose, therefore, a liberal host to keep a liberal tone. Just like Lampher established a liberal tone when she was a host on NPR.
Shodan:As a sidenote, I am amused by liberals who heatedly deny that NPR is at all biased towards the left.
Where are the liberals who “heatedly deny that NPR is at all biased towards the left” with respect to the average American media perspective?
I know many liberals who reject the frequent conservative assertion that US mainstream media as a whole is left-biased, but none who would disagree that NPR is somewhat on the left side of the spectrum that mainstream media represents.
I don’t want to interfere with your amusement, Shodan, but I think you might be laughing at a strawman.
I only side with the Democrats because they annoy me less.
And besides, I can’t support anyone who throws out lines like “The terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom.” Because that means either the speaker is an idiot, or he thinks we are.
That’s the funniest thing I have ever heard (at least around here). Given the curent discussion, has anyone ever heard the title to Franken’s book? Not a sound bite? Not talking down?