Posted on 05/15/2006 5:36:17 AM PDT by Quilla
Stated, yes - but not really proven. That proof would require much more analysis of socialism ("liberalism") than the writer attempts.But he is correct: the fact that "liberalism" cannot be effectively promoted in Rush Limbaugh's "long form" format is in fact a demonstration of the fatuous nature of its basis.
The problem with liberals is this:
They don't have a message; everything they try to do, fails; they have tried to bring down the Bush Administration and can't; they don't have anyone that knows what the American people REALLY want.
They can't send out their message, if they did, noone would vote for them, they are for high taxes, gun control, being friends with our enemies...
They have been going from President Bush to Cheney to Rumsfeld to Rice and around again, they don't know anything different, they play book hasn't been updated....
They say the economy is bad, it isn't; they say we aren't winning the war, we are; they say everything is so much worse than before, it isn't....
The American people want money in their pockets, they want a secured border, they want jobs, they want it easy for a while....The Bush Administration has or is giving them this....the only thing I can see is wrong with the Bush Administration is the border problem, and we may start to get that fixed soon, we hope.....
An excellent point. I had no idea that's how Prof. Walter Williams became a guest host. He's always been my favorite.
Rush has a sense of humor that surpasses all their schtick.
If I want information I get it from FR. If I want analysis with a good nature, I listen to Rush.
After that, the radio is OFF for the most part.
"Without a vision the people shall perish." (Proverbs, the Bible)
One of Rush's strongest characteristics is that he is optimistic. He holds up a vision of our country that is inspiring and makes you feel good about being an American. He's also got a great sense of humor. Sometimes a liberal will call in and express his views and Rush will "go along with him/her." If your a Rush fan, you know what's happening, but the caller doesn't.
He is a great gift to our country. I believe that a lot of "used to be liberals" came around to their senses through listening to the King of Talk Radio.
The Democrats think the Nazis are extreme Right people but haven't they bothered to understand that the very word Nazi is a contraction of the German phrase for National Socialism? The tactics of the Left are so akin to what the Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers) did intimidating the general public during the late 1920's and early 1930's.
Unlike a certain other talkshow host I could name, but won't. Michael Savage Did I say that outloud? Oh I'm a baaaad person!
When I listen to talk radio I use this criteria. Would I want this person in my home, imparting knowledge to my family?
As for Sean, he imparts only rants and self aggrandizement.
Savage is well....savage!!! He's not welcome in my home either.
My kids grew up with Rush on the radio every day. In the early days I never had to hurry them out of the room or turn the radio down way down.
It is natural to claim objectivity if you can get away with it. Conservatives would do so if they dominated journalism. But to claim objectivity is to undercut you own argument, since if your argument depend on the assumption of your objectivity - and your objectivity cannot be proven - your argument is rotten at its core.And your objectivity - or journalism's - can never be proven because nobody can state the whole truth. And half the truth can be a very big lie. Thus it is impossible to prove objectivity. Journalism's "objectivity" is especially difficult to prove because of the rules which make journalism commercially successful:
Journalism promotes the bad news from Iraq because it sells newspapers. Far from making the bad news from Iraq representative and unbiased, that fact makes journalism tendentious in a predictably anticonservative way.
- "Man Bites Dog" rather than "Dog Bites Man" makes journalism unrepresentative.
- If it bleeeds it leads (and the unspoken, if it's good, it will appear in an ad or not at all) makes journalism negative.
- There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper makes journalism superficial.
The interests of journalism define liberalism, because liberal politicians act on the belief that NOTHING actually matters except PR. It is scarcely to be marveled at that a political philosophy based on superficiality, negativity, and unrepresentativeness cannot stand up to polonged and focused logical critique.
With all due respect for Mr. Limbaugh, it was inevitable that a talk-radio format would excel, (if it wasn't him, it would have been somebody else) in some ways he is just a tragic comedian, pointing out the absurdities of modern "liberal" policies. Point is, there is no shortage of material, so how hard is that? The liberals got around this in past years by only presenting one point of view and/or ridiculing and marginalizing opposing viewpoints since they had a vitual stranglehold on news outlets. Astonishingly, it was possible to convince the mainstream that their views were somehow, not mainstream, which is quite a trick. The death knell for the old-school news folks was claiming they were objective, which really stuck in the craw of folks since the 60's at least.
If they have such a fatal flaw how come the liberals/socialists/communists are still so prevalent?
ie push polls with low numbers.
I have strong disagreemnt with GWBush on immigration however I will not throw the baby out with the bath water and will be voting in november.
I think many of us are able to tune out the Goebles effect of the left and bypass the MSM.
The same can be said for the fall of the USSR.
It's a question of WHEN. If RR hadn't shown up, it might have been another 50 years before the Wall came down. If Rush hadn't persevered, it might not have happened until 2030. Don't sell Rush short.
Levin? No we don't get him here (mpls) I've just started listening to Sean on a regular basis, my take...not that bad, has good guests on (always a plus) I work (or so I tell my boss) 2nd shift so AM radio is right out. There is some really good local folks here
Bob Davis http://www.am1500.com/davis.htm
Joe Soucheray (Softcore politics) http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic.htm
Dan Conry http://ktlkfm.com/pages/danconry.html
I refer you to my #49.
The second extra reason (related to the one brought up in the article) is the condesention of virtually every liberal host. They treat anyone who disagrees with them as (a) stupid and (b) not as compassionate as they are. Again, this attitude alienates all but the most rabid, extremist libs in the audience.
Simple - they use emotion-based arguments that appeal to folks who respond to issues emotionally. Those are the folks who don't know who the VP is, or who pays the taxes, or who their Senators are. But, they can agree with "tax the rich", "Bush Lied", "Conservatives are mean".
I refer you to my #49.
Because the mainstream media, where the majority of Americans receive their news and mold their views, is a gaggle of liberals, socialists, and communists.
you forget liberals use call screeners to eliminate inteligent competition and only allow those who absolutly agree or are absolute kooks.
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.