The Drudge Report headline was two quotes from an Associated Press story. It links to the Washington Post. Are these bastions of right-wing hate?
I thought tomndeb made a good point early on, which has been ignored, about the Republican party being home to more extremists right now, since the Dems have moved more to the center, leaving liberal extremists out in the cold.
How’s this for another explanation, though? Contempt is more or less equal on both sides, but it takes different forms (as Asmodean pointed out.) Republicans tend to use catchphrases like “values”, “responsability”, and “moral accountability”. When they disagree with someone, they aren’t about to cut them any slack–liberals are bad because they are bad people. Democrats, on the other hand, are “softer,” and blame society. It’s not the Rebublicans’ fault they’re so bad, they’re just stupid and mean 'cause their mama’s didn’t raise 'em right.
I do not record Rush so I can’t give you a site, however he has said time and time again that Gore and the democrats are the enemy who want to destroy our country.
I am not making this up or exaggerating, if you listen for about a week he will repeat these slanders.
As for the massive conservative “media” you have as follows:
Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, FOX News, CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, Insight magazine, American Spectator, National Review, Weekly Standard, Human Events, Rutherford Institute, Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, Independent Women’s Forum, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael Medved, Cal Thomas, Peggy Noonan, Bob Novack, David Horowitz, George Will, Mona Charen, Media Research Center, Dr. Laura and our truth detector and excellent role model (3X married) for the youth of America Rush.
In addition you also have the rest of talk radio which is 90% conservative, short wave radio, the religious TV stations like TBN, EWTN, the 700 Club, Falwell’s Liberty University, Bob Jones University (an essential Republican stopover) Pepperdine.
The belief that conservative don’t have a massive presence in the media is simply ludicrous, the examples I list above is just a small sample of this and I am sure fellow dopers can list more of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”
I wasn’t the first to bring up the Clinton hatred; I also wasn’t the one to group all three together. And I hope my observations are not the norm.
As for some of your other points:
When was the last time you heard someone use Howard Stern as a citation?
You fell back into the ALL hate so-and-so, when I’ve made it clear several times I am talking about a generalization.
I think your comments make a very good overall assessment of our current situation, JustAnotherGuy, which fills me with mirth since I normally think you are full of it.
That’s a nice list you have there, icerigger, but just because there is a noticeable conservative presence doesn’t mean there is some sort of conspiracy, and it certainly doesn’t automatically equate to hate. I’m not sure how you wish that list to be taken. Are you suggesting examples of hate-filled Republicans to support the OP? Submitting proof of a right-wing conspiracy? Or did you just want to provide a Christmas reading list for the Republicans on the board?
I’ve read/listened to most of the people/outlets on that list, and I would be hard-pressed to say any of them were filled with hate. Most are overtly political, but well within the mainstream. I’ll grant that maybe a couple fall outside (Bob Jones and, well, Bob Jones). But the others? Conservative, yes. Lots of rhetoric, of course. But not spewers of hate-filled speech.
I don’t get a chance to listen to Rush much anymore, but I recall him as being first and foremost, an entertainer. You know, parody, satire, hyperbole. He seemed to range from jolly to indignant, occassionaly into being mad. But never a red-faced, spittle-flying, epithet-spewing caricature of Republican hate. I’ve read both his books. He seems pretty buoyant and good-natured, actually. (I’ll look again for the hate parts when I get home.) Is it automatically hateful to have a vociferous opinion that criticizes Democrats?
I don’t think Bob Novak hates anybody. Have you seen him on TV? He’s always laughing along with Al Hunt and Mark Shields, even when telling them they’re full of it. Horowitz, Medved, Charen, Will? Who do they hate? This is not just a question for you, icerigger, as you may not have listed them as examples of hate. But it seems there are those out there who do. Sofa King even goes as far as to put “partisan” and “sarcastic” in a list with “hate,” as if they all belong to the same category.
Maybe I just have a higher threshold of what constitutes “hate” vs. political rhetoric.
I guess we could play tit for tat. For every over-the-line quote by a Republican against a Democrat, I can find an example of a Democrat going way overboard with the hyperbole, even into the realm of hateful remarks. But what purpose would that serve?
*Originally posted by Icerigger *
First, Rush is not exactly the shining symbol of Republicans. He is a talk show host. AKA Larry King, Howard Stern, both of whom support Gore, both with highly rated shows, both who have cast negative comments at Bush. I am a life long Republican, I think I have heard Rush’s show once in my entire life and I laughed at some of the extremist comments he made. Point is, yes there are some far right liberal haters. I used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy alot and while I agreed with some of his views, I disagreed with many others.
I think the problem is that liberals don’t give Republicans enough credit. SOME Democrats think themselves so intellectually superior to Republicans that they can’t understand that Republicans actually have brains and can think for themselves without the right wing leadership. We are not blind followers of a distant light. Most of us recognize political positioning for what it is.
What happened to Newt? He was pretty much kicked out by his own Party after his near-psychotic pursuit of Clinton failed. He didn’t get the support that he thought it would bring and, personal legal conflict aside, he lost that personality contest with Clinton. Republicans are not blindly being led by hatred to their postions. Most positions of Republicans have to do with how we consider people are better capable of governing themselves than the government… Before you throw in the abortion issue, some Democrats are pro-life and some Republicans pro-choice. The parties are not solely divided upon this one issue and it is narrow minded to reduce it to such.
I will tell you that the media seems to be based upon it’s constituency. I cannot find an impartial or right aligned news program in Baltimore or in my New York television feeds.
So religion belongs solely to Republicans now? Interesting how many Democratic politicians farcely go to church on the appropriate days. Please don’t be so naive.
as would be a belief that liberals don’t have a massive presence in the media.
I would say the same thing to someone who believes that Clinton is evil incarnate as I would to someone who believes the same of Reagan. Two well-liked Presidents, two differing sets of opposition propaganda, and from the Republicans I know, less of them hate Clinton than the Democrats I know who bought into the ‘Reagan is anti-working class’ horseshit and hate him.
Now, Democrat propaganda would lead you to believe that Republicans abhor Clinton, but it simply isn’t as widely accepted as some Democratic media wants you to believe.
Scylla, surely you jest about the specific Rush citation. He says this “liberals-as-the-enemy of all things American” stuff almost every day. I cite your radio.
According to the logic put forth by Freedom2, none of Icerigger’s examples will count, am I right? Before I could post this, I saw some responses. And what do you know? I am right. Icerigger’s list was a response to presence of conservative media, not specifically a hate-media list.
When biased media is discussed in general, it seems to always be the “mainstream” media, defined as the main TV networks and entertainers–presumably because these are the media with most influence? What conservative critics seem to be concerned with, in my observation, is what they consider the idiot masses, and their being influenced by the mainstream. This, however, doesn’t hold water, but merely serves to give those who must “seek out the truth” on less accessible AM radio a sense of intellectual or some other such elitism.
And perhaps this is the heart of the matter. (SOME) Conservatives feel they are justified in their vitriol because they think they are the underdogs, though this does seem to go against their political ideologies.
No, but religious media do.
**
I have said MANY, MANY times this debate wasn’t founded in what the media has said, but what has been encountered on the street. It has already been asserted in this thread that some Republicans hate or at least have extreme contempt for Clinton for his “the rules don’t apply to me” attitude. JustAnotherGuy, you seem to be developing a habit of taking quotes out of context. The assertions of conservative media, religious media, etc. have been direct responses to other comments, not axiomatic proclamations.
I do agree that media serve constituencies, and good point about Newt. However, Newt obviously still holds respect and influence for SOME, or he wouldn’t be on TV.
I’ve read this thread with interest, and I keep being reminded of things I saw on TV in my early childhood. Not being nearly as addicted to the news as I was to Saturday morning cartoons, perhaps my recollections are false, but I seem to remember a lot of hateful Democrats during Watergate and Viet Nam. I believe there were some riots, no? Violent protests, clashes with police, assaults on Viet Nam vets and so forth? Wasn’t there vociferous, scathing, acidic criticism of Nixon in the media even before Watergate from the left wing?
Either party has its element of haters, those who will be ready to demonize the opposite side under any circumstance. When the situation gets tight, and especially when there is a person that seems to symbolize the objectionable philosophy/action/situation, like Nixon or Clinton, that hate seems to creep into more of the partisan populace. Clinton has long been an object of hatred for the Republican party, and Gore is perceived by many as Clinton-Lite, and he inherits some animosity in addition to that which he has earned on his own. Add to that this brouhaha and it’s not difficult to see why there are some Republicans out there vilifying him and, by extension, Democrats in general.
I have no doubt that sooner or later we’ll see another Republican in office that will cause the Democratic partisans to start blowing their fuses just like many Republicans seem to be doing now. Perhaps then there will be a thread here titled “Why are Democrats such hotheads?”
IceRigger wrote:
And then jumblemind wrote:
So I admit that I am confused.
I thought my “logic” or standards to be called conservative media went more like this:
Now when I apply my standards…Everyone I know on Iceriggers list counts as media. They are all operating for profit, and most of them strike me as conservative. I do know that at least some of them balance themselves out on their shows with a liberal content. (ex. Oliver North - Paul Begala)
I think there is a vast difference here in what we are talking about. Conservatives do not claim that there are no other conservatives in the media, we claim that there is no OBJECTIVITY in the media.
For example…I don’t care all that much if a station is all liberal as long as we know they are.(can’t NPR just ADMIT IT?:)) It is when they try to play themselves off as objective reporters, yet slant the whole report that we get upset. Rush is not a good example for you to use, nor is any other conservative commentator. We all KNOW they are biased. Somewhere in here I think we are confusing the word “media” with anylysts and columnists.
It is the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN crowd that CLAIM not to be biased that piss us off when they are.
Okay, a little confusion between media and mainstream news media. Freedom2, I understand. I, too, get a bit incensed at news agencies that pretend to show bias but obviously do not. All of those major networks you listed are obviously biased. However, I believe they are biased toward profit.
I think it has become obvious during this whole election that the mainstream news has been very tilted in favor of Bush (or at least against Gore), including and especially all networks that Freedom2 mentioned. I suppose extreme liberals would say this is proof that the left-leaning media is open-minded and can see the other side, too, while extreme conservatives would say this is proof that the Right is right, and the left-leaning media are finally recognizing it.
Mainstream news jumps on the stories that they think will sell, not what they determine to be watchdog-worthy. This is, of course, axiomatic. How much influence this has on public opinion is subject to another debate, I suppose.
I started this thread because of personal observances. I suppose that, in a few years, the situation may reverse itself, and we could indeed see a thread on why Democrats are so much more hateful. But I still stand by the point that the conservative media is more fervent in demonization than liberal media. I also think that if you take the personality-type line, Republicans by and large would lend themselves more to love or hate, black or white (wanting and using just the facts) while Democrats by and large would lend themselves to the contempt, gray area (wanting and using the sensory/feeling approach).
So, apparently, with venom and biased media on both sides, there are two deciding factors that tip the winner of the hate-mongering race in one direction or the other. The first is geography–not correlative geography, just where you happen to be and the people you are with when a political conversation strikes. The second, which seems to carry the most weight despite my feeling, is the party in power. The party in power will always be less fervent because they have only to defend the hill. The party not in power must take the hill by force. Hence one side must push its point harder and use harder language to be heard enough to overturn.
I think one of the problems here is that one sees people like Rush and Newt and considers them examples of conservative thinkers. There are many openminded people on both sides of the political spectrum, but they tend not to get the airplay. So the opinions of either side are to some degree filtered of moderation, because extremism gets people’s atention. Intelligent and openminded people probably ignore the extremists on their own side without even thinking about it.
Conservatives like to brag sometimes that liberals see them as bad people, while they only think of liberals as having bad ideas. I would say that that generalization is about as true as the OP’s. Both can be supported with some evidence, but neither would be evident to an impartial observer.
Also, I figure I should add that anyone who makes blatant generalizations about people is an idiot.
I could say the same for people who don’t read entire threads, but instead I’ll laugh and say:
“I am an idiot, so it works out.” –Billy Madison.
is that the word “liberal” is now demonized, as well.
In MI it was a hotly contested presidential state, hotly contested US Senate race, school vouchers, and here in Mid MI there was a hotly contested US Rep seat(- I even did a thread on how sick I was of ads).
And especially for the US Senate race, daily there were the ads: Debbie Stabenaw [sneering voice] Liberal [/sneering voice] on taxes, [sneering voice] liberal[/sneering voice] on crime etc. and that was the jist of the ad - no examples, nothin’ more than “she’s Liberal” and we’re all supposed to shudder in unison and then beam fondly at the likeable, hugable and notliberal Spence Abraham. :rolleyes:
Is that what you’re talking about? then, oh, yeah, I’ve noticed. (and no, there were no corresponding ads by anyone using the word “conservative” in a sneering tone)
Then, of course, when he lost, the claim (by our governor) made that it was those blacks, union members and hispanics that did it (like their votes aren’t supposed to count? good call Engler)
I think this entire thread proves my point about democrats thinking republicans are somehow lesser than them. As if that were even possible. No its entirely bias clouding your own perceptions that they even seem to hate more now.
Answer: The Democrats are projecting.
[Ducks for cover, laughing maniacally.]
~~Baloo
[sub]Be aware – Your reaction to this reply reveals more about you than it does me. ;)][/sub]
wring, I think the point of the ad may have been the use of liberal to mean “not strict” or “giving generously” as well. While I’d like a candidate that was liberal with the chocolate syrup when making me a sundae, I would less appreciate that liberalism in taxation. While I’d like a liberal interpretation of the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, I’d be less in favor being similarly liberal when it comes to permitting criminals to walk the streets.
Of course, Liberalism is not exactly in favor in most places (alive and well in Massachusetts, though). However, in that specific ad, it seems to be also using other denotations of the word.
…also be using…
So sorry for having split the infinitive. Also, for feeling strangely compelled to impulsively correct it.
OK, now I think I’m just being silly. Maybe I need more sleep or something.
OK, now I’ve apparently gone nuts. The first was awkwardly phrased, but it was in the second that a split infinitive occurred. The best way to say it would have been “also seems to be using”.
I feel so stupid and nitpicky all at once. I suppose it’s inevitable to make a grammatical mistake when pointing out a grammatical mistake, but it’s somewhat surreal to be wrong about the mistake made, then “correct” the original incorrectly so as to make the mistake that was claimed to have been in the original. Especially considering the fact that I’m correcting myself.
Please, for the love of God, let this post be correct.