Posted on 02/02/2017 1:11:57 PM PST by TakebackGOP
Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow 23m23 minutes ago
Thank you conservatives. No thanks to the pompom boys. http://fb.me/8ARjGokf6
Lightweight Ben Shapiro, "They’re fully within their rights to mock those Constitutional conservatives – like me! – who said that Trump would never appoint a conservative to the Court.
But they are ignoring one rather crucial point: if had been up to them, they wouldn’t have pressed Trump for a damn thing. Trump appointed a conservative to the high court because he needed to please Constitutional conservatives. He didn’t do it because he is a deeply knowledgeable Constitutional scholar (he once said in a presidential debate that his Supreme Court justice would have to prosecute Hillary Clinton and also said he might appoint his leftist sister to the Supreme Court); he didn’t do it because he’s an advocate of Constitutional separation of powers (he’s never made any comment along those lines). Trump appointed Gorsuch because he promised he would. And he only promised he would because he needed to gain the support of doubtful conservatives, which he almost universally did."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13102/thanks-gorsuch-mr-president-bigger-thank-you-ben-shapiro
I am the same age as you.
Conservative talk radio may have existed in a few local markets before the fairness doctrine was taken down, but it certainly was not a national force.
You have your dates correct. Rush started his national radio show the same year that GHW Bush was elected.
Kudos for stating the obvious and setting up a straw man.
The fact is that before the fairness doctrine was repealed, there were very few and limited political talk radio shows.
Once it was repealed, in 1987, the talk radio shows boomed, Rush Limbaugh particularly flowered and became a major conservative media voice.
While this is from the Politico, hardly a conservative site, it sums up the essence of the demise of the fairness doctrine:
“Still, it’s hard to overstate the importance of the Fairness Doctrine to conservative commentators — its demise in 1987, through an executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan, is credited with the creation of modern-day talk-radio, because broadcasters no longer had to offer competing views on the same broadcasts. (The Fairness Doctrine sometimes gets confused with equal-time provisions that still apply to modern broadcasting, but equal-time rules only apply to political candidates, while the Fairness Doctrine applied to controversial issues.)”
I am not sure why you are attempting to deny the obvious here. Maybe you can explain the rise of conservative talk radio some other way. I will read your explanation.
Here is a reference to the congress of 1994 making Rush Limbaugh an honorary member:
“Limbaugh was presented a “Majority Makers” pin, the emblem of the newcomers who have given their party majority status in the House for the first time in 40 years. Six GOP women in the class added their own special thanks, presenting Limbaugh with a plaque that said: “Rush was right.” And Rep.-elect Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo.) added: “There’s not a femiNazi among us.”
I am sure you watched political events. So have I. So, I am sure, did the Congress elected in 1994.
How? All Mark Levin does is negatively critique everything that Trump does.
“Kudos for stating the obvious and setting up a straw man.”
Sorry if I was encroaching on your own territory.
“The fact is that before the fairness doctrine was repealed, there were very few and limited political talk radio shows.”
Political talk shows were in every major market, they just weren’t national. The repeal of the fairness doctrine didn’t create a new media, it created a business opportunity in an old one which was recognized and developed by Ed McLaughlin. He selected Rush as his talent.
“I am not sure why you are attempting to deny the obvious here.”
One of us has been denying the obvious, it just isn’t me.
The obvious is that Rush revived the old media of AM talk radio, something that he repeatedly acknowledges. He never claims to be a “pioneer of the new media”, because he’s not delusional and he knows better, apparently unlike at least one ardent fan.
That could be, I don’t know the genesis of Fox News other than that Murdoch was the big money and he hired Ailes to run it. I’d quit cable by the time Fox came along so I’ve never paid much attention to it
I used to regularly watch Crossfire over on CNN in the Buchanan vs Braden/Kinsley days. McLaughlin Group. Probably some others that I’m not recalling.
Exactly. And now they want us to credit them with the amazing foresight of knowing that their luke warm, phony `support` of Trump during the general election would cause Trump to nominate a conservative justice rather then get Hillary elected. What geniouses /s.
Our disagreement is clearly on the definition of “new media”.
You are fixated on a technological definition.
It is true that radio and talk shows have been around a long time.
I am talking about new media in the political sense, which you ignore.
Rush, and the host of conservative talk shows that sprang up after the removal of the fairness doctrine, were new political media.
If you do not wish to acknowledge that fact, it is your privilege.
Tuning into his show you would think we were still in the Obama era. He is mean spirited and he shames his callers. You would think he would get behind Trump but instead he ridicules and complains. Why this and why that. If it were me I would.... so in the spirit of Mark Levin I will do the same as he would....WELL, ITS NOT YOU YOU LOSER! GET OFF THE AIR!
I distinctly remember one day this past summer he was excoriating NeverTrumpers and the very next he declared he was a NeverTrumper after he got publicly flagged for a book deal with some large rightwing NeverTrump organization, which netted him some big bucks!
“Our disagreement is clearly on the definition of “new media”. You are fixated on a technological definition.”
It’s not “my” definition. It’s the one that a google search of the term brings up in the millions of entries. It’s the definition that everybody uses.
The term new media is a neologism that was coined by technology writers in the 1990s for magazines like Wired to describe the world of digital communication that was spawned by the internet and cellphones.
This occurred years after Limbaugh had revived the world of terrestrial talk radio. He revived a dormant industry, something he routinely acknowledges. He has never claimed to be an innovator in the world of new media because other than his website he’s not working in it.
In the 90’s, new media included talk radio. (From 1998)
Richard Davis and Diana Owen
New Media and American Politics is the first book to examine the effect on modern politics of the new media, which include talk radio, tabloid journalism, television talk shows, entertainment media, and computer networks. Davis and Owen discuss the new media’s cultural environment, audience, and content, before going on to evaluate its impact on everything from elections to policy making to the old media itself.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/new-media-and-american-politics-9780195120615?cc=us&lang=en&;
Yes, the Internet definitions are changing rapidly. “New” is a relative term.
I will concede, that to be precise, “alternate” or maybe “conservative” media could avoid that problem.
But my original post was about how Rush and his show pioneered the media that became available for Trump to use in his campaign.
In the political sense, Rush and Conservative talk radio were well recognized as “new media”.
Levin NEVER went “NeverTrump”. That is a flat-out lie.
That was a point in his favor, but sadly, this had become a dead issue.
Gee whiz, Man, Levin’s strategy was obviously to try to pressure Trump to remain true to his word, and not drift leftward. Like all the others!
Levin NEVER went “NeverTrump”. That is a flat-out lie.
?????
Reminders, in case you missed out on a few FR/Levin’s NeverTrump discussions...
.
Mark Levin - NON STOP NEVER TRUMP (Vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3464616/posts
Why is Mark Levin still smearing Trump at every opportunity?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3479925/posts
Mark Levin no longer a NeverTrumper!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3487914/posts
So, yes, as you can see from the above posts/threads....Levin actually ‘went all “NeverTrump”’.
Then you apparently flat-out never listened.
Levin’s strategy was obviously to try to pressure Trump to remain true to his word, and not drift leftward. Like all the others!
Sorry, as a Levin listener, you must know that had it in for Trump for months and months...He was supporting Cruz—and we all know the reasons why...
Levin hoped Trump would lose the GOP nomination at the convention and did not offer ANY support until a few weeks before the election....It was not an endorsement—merely tepid support—lesser of evils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l48JkRjFYEA
Until September 4, Levin was a STATED NEVER TRUMPER. He claimed he would NEVER vote for TRUMP, PERIOD. He held that stance through most of the election season, taking every opportunity to bash Trump. He was not trying to pressure Trump to keep word and not drift leftward. He attacked Trump constantly...seemed to me he hated Trump with a vengeance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br9p8n9SGqM
BTW, President Trump had the list of Supremes from which he was going to pick long before Levin actually endorsed Trump...Levin had nothing to do with the list’s compilation or the pick this week.
Therefore, Levin had nothing to do with Trump’s SCOTUS selection-—
Like the election when Levin offered luke-warm support after MONTHS OF BASHING, Levin is again trying to jump on bandwagon at the last minute and claim credit for a good SCOTUS pick...
I used to think the world of Levin—regular listener, bought ALL his books (different formats, too), but this election season has really opened my eyes...He is not helpful or dependable in his support of Trump...seems to me he was OK with the country falling to Hillary for most of the election cycle.
,
No. I told people for months, even here, that there was no way that Cruz and Levin would not support Trump. It was just a matter of timing.
You are right about Levin berating Trump during this time and up until about a month before the election. But during the time you alluded to, I remember Mark saying he liked Trump’s picks for SC, but added sarcastically, “Can we trust him?” Then went on to slam him with his repeated message about Trump at the end of nearly every sentence: a protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, agrarian... What a f”N azzwipe! Taking credit for his picks . /Bullshite/ a legend in his own mind
Maybe you did, but right up to the election itself, Levin was telling everyone to “vote their conscience” and never endorsed Trump. Quit deceiving yourself - and us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.