Who's your favorite in Conservative Talk Radio?

Vanity

[Arch-Conservative]

I have noticed the broad spectrum of "conservative" opinions that emerge from the threads on this website. There is a similar diversity of "conservative" thought in talk radio, and I was wondering which of the preeminent talk hosts you identify most with - and, of course, why you choose that particular spokesman over the others.

[sixmil]

I have tried to listen. But, the gaydar just won't allow their tranmissions into my head.

LOL. Alexander actually is gay, but Batchelor isn't even though he sounds like he is. Anyway, they do put on a good show except when they have that idiot Gotfried on to talk about the NYC budget.

[breakem]

Was going to do a long post, but I'll just co-sign your first three.

[Arch-Conservative]

You are completely wrong on many fronts. Multiculturalism is the exact opposite of the "melting pot" theory of American society. While the "melting pot" suggests that immigrants would bring elements of their own culture, but largely accept our established American culture - multiculturalism is the "salad bowl" theory, in which immigrants practice their own distinct culture, and the US must oblige. Multiculutralism, or the denial that there exists a distinct American culture, is the problem. If immigrants would assimilate, immigration wouldn't be a problem.

Second, conservatism is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Conservatism is a solidified belief in the superiority of the individual, that humanity is endowed with the rights to economic and political freedom, and that the United States, in all its glory, has the responsibility to export those freedoms that have made it great. Pat Buchanan used to be a 100% conservative, but he has left the reservation since. His anti-free trade stance is simply not conservative, nor is his isolationism on foreign policy. I have tremendous respect for Buchanan, and agree with him regarding most domestic policy - but regarding foreign policy, he's gone leftist.

A.D. Elrod

[Arch-Conservative]

I disagree that Rush has become a parody of himself. If anything, he has become more tame in his later years. He seems to concentrate more on substantive conversation, and less on parody. In his early years, he was known for gags such as the hilarious "caller abortion", and the "disgronificatior" fiasco. He had more parodies, and talked more about his weekends in early years.

Now on to Savage -- the problem is, the "take the high road" is what makes conservatism great. Conservatism is all about the "high road". Conservatism carries with it an inherent rational respectibility - but Savage doesn't.

Now, this does not mean not to "make waves" - merely espousing conservatism will inherently create controversy. This is the problem with some in the Republican Party - they take liberal position to avoid making waves. True conservatives, like Limbaugh, espouse conservatism whether it makes waves or not. Savage, on the other hand, seems to make waves just for the sake of making waves. He doesn't seem to espouse conservatism - he seems to espouse "making waves". If any conservative host is a parody, it is Savage. His shows are a three hour tirade, and he simply presents a horrible image for conservatism.

Don't shy away from an opinion to avoid controversy - but don't take disingenuous positions just to create controversy either. Savage has the opposite problem of the weak Republicans - but it is still a problem.

Ciao,
A.D. Elrod

[Let's Roll]

Rush, Dr. Laura, Michael Medved and Roger Hedgecock (subs for Rush - may be on tomorrow?)

[Age of Reason]

Looks interesting.

I bookmarked it.

Thanks.

[Arch-Conservative]

You, my good friend, are the one who may be confused. I was speaking of LEGAL, not ILLEGAL, immigration. Illegal immigration, as I said in the original post, must be cracked down on. LEGAL immigrants must be taught what it means to be American. Multiculturalism is the problem - not LEGAL immigration.

Sincerest regards,
Adam D. Elrod

[Arch-Conservative]

"Rush has been on my dirty list ever since he took a series of cheap shots at Dubya as a ratings-raising stunt during the last ratings sweeps period."

This is something I've been meaning to ask. I have seen many people on this very forum say they don't listen to Rush because he is nothing but a shill for the Republican Party, and still other say they don't listen because of his anti-Bush "George W. Algore" stunt. How can both be true? Rush can't be a Republican shill, and criticize Republicans too much ... can he? Perhaps he's consistent - which I think he is - and you're too fickle. Perhaps some are too knee-jerk against the Republicans - even when they are conservative; and others are unable to recognize that the Republicans are not a perfect Party. Good grief.

A.D. Elrod

[fellowpatriot]

Your welcome.

He can be pompous at times. He refers to himself as Deus Ex Machina - God From the Machine.

He is also humourous, he refers to liberal swill as 'Bull capital S with a hit'.

And he doesn't tolerate fools very well at all.

[quidnunc]

Arch-Conservative wrote: I have seen many people on this very forum say they don't listen to Rush because he is nothing but a shill for the Republican Party…

Limbaugh used to be unabashedly GOP-friendly but during his Bush-bashing frenzy during the last ratings-sweeps period he also pointedly disassociated himself from the GOP.

…and still other say they don't listen because of his anti-Bush "George W. Algore" stunt.

As I said, Rush engaged in a rating-enhancing stunt at the expense of Bush and for this I consider Limbaugh to be a crass, lying hypocrit.

I say this because Limbaugh has always brags that he always stays true to principle and never bends to the pervailing political winds.

I guess one of his principles is that his political principles take a back seat to his financial principles.

I was a charter subscriber to The Limbaugh Letter and Rush's 24/7 subscription Web site, but now as far as I'm concerned Limbaugh can go straight to hell.

[Arch-Conservative]

I still have a couple of problems with your post. First of all - since when has Rush had to pull a "stunt" to get ratings. His rating have been consistently high for 14 years, and have only increased since 9-11. I don't buy your "ratings-stunt" theory ... it just doesn't add up.

Secondly, George W. Bush, while an excellent President, is not Christ. He has made mistakes in office, and he diverged from his conservative roots for a while. With the signing of the CFR Bill, the Farm Bill and the implementation of Steel Tariffs - how can anyone possibly disagree? These items are NOT conservative, and they should have been summarily vetoed.

Rush only pointed out the minor failings of our illustrious President. He did not abandon ship - but he did not accept liberal infiltration of a Republican President. As far as I can tell, Rush was entirely consistent in his criticism of Bush, just as he is in his genuine support of many Republican causes. The Republican Party is generally correct on most issues - but it is far from perfect. Its members have been known to sway now an then - and it is good for commentators like Rush and Hannity to keep them in line.

Ciao,
A.D.E.

[BUSHdude2000]

I have not listened to Lush in months. I just go to the RNC website and read their latest press release and I know what Lush will be talking about. When Impeached President Clinton was in office, Lush went after him and he was a voice for those on the other side of the fence. I'm not looking for Lush to Bush bash, I'm looking for him to be objective and to criticize Bush when he needs to and to keep his listeners tuned in to what is conservative.

I love it when Savage starts ranting about illegal aliens because he is so right. Bush wants to bring them in and give them amnesty with the hopes that they'll vote for him. This to me is more of this "compassionate" conservatism crap. I want that voice of dissent. Not to criticize Bush left and right, but to offer the conservative views on issues. Just because Bush does it, doesn't make it right.

[Lord Basil]

Lee and Melanie (KSFO) probably have the best morning show in the country. They have interesting guests and a good survey of the news of the day.

[Arch-Conservative]

I agree with you to a point. The movement needs good conservative hosts to keep the RNC in check - but I certainly don't think Savage is the man for the job.

As far a Rush goes, I think he's struck a good balance of support and criticism of the administration. The administration has made serious mistakes - which Rush has pointed out - and has many achievements - which Rush has pointed out. I listen to Savage, and he is quite entertaining - but he seems to be a parody of the "angry white guy" image of the conservative. He says things to make people angry, then hangs up on them when they get angry. He's hilarious at times - but a bit too cranky for my tastes.

You really should have a conversation with the guy in post 150 - he has exactly the opposite criticism of Rush that you have. It is really quite incredible. But, since you "haven't listened to [Rush] in months" - you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.

A.D.E.

[quidnunc]

Arch-Conservative wrote: I still have a couple of problems with your post. First of all - since when has Rush had to pull a "stunt" to get ratings. His rating have been consistently high for 14 years, and have only increased since 9-11. I don't buy your "ratings-stunt" theory ... it just doesn't add up. Secondly, George W. Bush, while an excellent President, is not Christ. He has made mistakes in office, and he diverged from his conservative roots for a while. With the signing of the CFR Bill, the Farm Bill and the implementation of Steel Tariffs - how can anyone possibly disagree? These items are NOT conservative, and they should have been summarily vetoed. Rush only pointed out the minor failings of our illustrious President. He did not abandon ship - but he did not accept liberal infiltration of a Republican President. As far as I can tell, Rush was entirely consistent in his criticism of Bush, just as he is in his genuine support of many Republican causes. The Republican Party is generally correct on most issues - but it is far from perfect. Its members have been known to sway now an then - and it is good for commentators like Rush and Hannity to keep them in line.

Bull!

Rush spent the better part of a week bitterly denouncing Bush for some mild comments Dubya made criticising Israel for it's offensive into the West Bank.

Never mind that Bush was attempting to keep the whole damned Middle East — especially Jordan — from boiling over and never mind that Bush never did anything concrete to force Israel to withdraw.

As for Bush signiung the farm bill et al, these are piddling matters compared with our war against radical Islam and Bush can't allow himself to get bogged down in a series of battles over domestic issues, especially when some of the major bills would have been passed over his veto.

Make no mistake, this war against the Islamic terrorists will determine whether the West will survive and the outcome is far from certain.

Look at Europe; France, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries may well become Muslim nations within the lifetimes of today's children.

If Bush can be today's Charles Martel we may not need tomorrow's el Cid.

[BUSHdude2000]

I'll agree with you that Savage is not the ideal spokeman or message carrier. He is #1 in San Francisco, which is left-wing hell, so hopefully he's reaching those that need to be reached out there. Once Lush went to the paid website and all that, he lost me. He also lost me with the golf and cigar talk. There's a guy on KPRC that has a cigar show and a show on 610 if I want to hear about golf. If Lush has changed, please let me know and I'll give him another try. When Savage stays on topic, do you agree with him politically? If not, tell me where you disagree with him.

[Colorado Buckeye]

My vote is for Robby Noel. I'm not sure if he's still around here or not, he's been banned several times.

[who knows what evil?]

I like to say that when you're in a streetfight, you don't fight by Roberts Rules of Order. You bash a garbage can over your opponent's head, you grind a broken bottle into his face, and then "continue to kick and stomp until victim is subdued."

Yahoo! Just the way dear 'ol Dad taught me how to fight! The Republicans could learn a thing or two from this strategy.

[antivenom]

They moved Savage to beyond midnight here in Houston....

[antivenom]

Rush has changed a bit since ear surgery...don't give up on him yet...OHHH and you need to keep up with his editorials in the WSJ and such...he is still doing alot of foot work that some of our ball-less elected senators won't do...