I've always said that, though I don't agree with him on all things, Medved is someone I'd want on my debate team. His knowledge of history is impeccable and he often takes liberals apart who try to go toe to toe with him.
That's why when I heard Sarah surprise him by calling in I rushed to put this up and hear her do more than rally the faithful.
That’s pretty much why I listen to him. Also since he lives in King Co. he sometimes deals with Puget Sound issues.
I disagree with your high assessment of Medved’s knowledge of history. Anyone can google up a little background on anything and pick what fits their preconceived schtick.
Years ago Medved ranted on and on about the impossibility of deporting millions and millions of illegal aliens. His so-called impeccable history left out the important piece with how Ike Eisenhower dealt with illegals in sending millions of them back to Mexico and beyond.
Medved is shrill and bloviating, impolite and obnoxious. He talks down to people that don’t agree with him and he barely allows a word in edgewise from an opposing POV. And I don’t think he’s that smart or good at debating.
Conservatives can do better, much better with someone other than Medved, say like Mark Levin.
Medved is good when he controls the debate, you may have noticed that when he gets a sharp cookie on, Medved filibusters and then the caller is never heard from again, changing the topic and filibustering is also his favorite, and his history sounds good until you hear his many exclusions and mistakes that he uses to hammer his own view on a topic that you know well.
That is why I used to like to listen to him. The radio station I would get him on went all ESPN all day long. :-(