Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Give us 22 minutes, we'll give up the country (ANN COULTER)
worldnetdaily ^ | February 19, 2003 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 02/19/2003 4:11:43 PM PST by TLBSHOW

Rich liberals are planning to fund a talk radio network because they believe – as The New York Times put it – they have been "overshadowed in the political propaganda wars by conservative radio and television personalities." If liberals think they are losing elections because of the conservative bias in the media, they may as well give up right now.

But liberals insist they need a radio network "to counterbalance the conservative tenor of radio programs like 'The Rush Limbaugh Show.'" Rush has been driving them crazy for years. In 1994, CNN dedicated an entire program to figuring out how the "mainstream media" could combat Rush Limbaugh. The host, Deborah Potter, introduced the program's topic: "Does Rush Limbaugh deserve all this attention, and what should the mainstream media be doing about it?" In 1996, the Democratic National Committee went so far as to establish a speakers bureau/talk radio initiative to strike back at conservative talk radio by monitoring talk radio and teaching liberals "radio skills."

Among the "alternatives to Rush" that liberals have tried over the years are: former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker, former California Gov. Jerry Brown, former U.S. Sen. (and Monkey Business skipper) Gary Hart, and former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder.

The crowd attending a "Carol Moseley-Braun for president" rally last week compared favorably to the radio audiences for these guys. To be sure, conservative radio talk show hosts have a built-in audience unavailable to liberals: People driving cars to some sort of job. So liberals keep serving up their own dreary radio hosts, and the public keeps turning the dial back to Rush Limbaugh.

Not surprisingly, when given a choice, people don't want liberal hectoring being piped into their homes and cars. It would be like being Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984," forced to listen to Big Brother 24 hours a day. It's difficult to imagine a world in which people voluntarily choose to listen to liberals. There is no evidence that it has ever happened.

For years, liberals would pass off mediocrities as broadcasting geniuses for surviving the brutal competition of a monopoly market. In the pre-cable era, Phil Donahue was promiscuously called the "daytime guru," a "legend," "daytime television's biggest star," a "star" – even a "major star." In 1993, Donahue was inducted into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' Hall of Fame. His millions of viewers were touted as evidence of his gift for television.

Of course, back when there were only three TV stations, it was impossible to tell whether television "stars" like Donahue were actually popular. Did people enjoy watching a man with the IQ of the average TV newsreader who passed himself off as Bertrand Russell? Or did they just want to watch something on TV?

We have the answer to that!

In a controlled scientific experiment, Donahue was given his own TV show on MSNBC in the new competitive environment of cable TV. That Boy's ratings are the lowest in primetime TV for any news program. They are so low, Nielsen can barely detect them. One wishes bitterly that MSNBC could give shows to all the other pompous liberal blowhards once forced on the public, like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, so we could see how they'd fare with a little competition. Nielsen would not be able to "See It Now."

Since liberal speakers lose in competitive environments, they can win only by force. In 1995, Mother Jones was haranguing its readers to "call your local talk station and demand some balance." One of many failed "alternatives" to Rush, Jim Hightower recommended that liberals make "stronger efforts to insist that their voices be heard." Conservatives, he said, "do this all the time." They "hammer the networks and the owners to be heard." That's how we ousted Katie Couric and Dan Rather from the airwaves and ended up with a solid lineup of authentic Americans on ABC, NBC and CBS. Oh, no wait. That didn't happen.

One thing about liberals is they're pesky devils. They'll never quit. And now they are back again looking for the next "liberal alternative" to Rush Limbaugh. They have the money, the business consultants, the radio talent. Now all they need are ideas. There's the rub.

If liberals cared about ideas or knew any facts, they would cease being liberals. Even the audience for the left's government-supported radio network, National Public Radio, has more conservative listeners than liberal listeners. According to a Pew Research Center study released last summer, conservatives consume far more news than liberals – including listening to NPR and watching PBS more than liberals. (As Mickey Kaus said, "No wonder conservatives are so pissed off.")

Liberalism thrives on ignorance. Their media are "Lifetime: TV for Women," NBC's "The West Wing" and 4 billion "Law and Order" episodes in which the perp turns out to be a Christian, white male who recites the Second Amendment before disemboweling a poor minority child.

Liberal persuasion consists of the highbrow sneer from self-satisfied snobs ladled out for people with a 40 IQ. This is not an ideology that can withstand several hours a day of caller scrutiny where their goofball notions can be shot down by any truck driver with a cell phone.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; liberal; radio; rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 last
To: TLBSHOW
Liberal persuasion consists of the highbrow sneer from self-satisfied snobs ladled out for people with a 40 IQ.

Absolutely right! You're supposed to take it from them (the new illuminati), then go forth to 'question authority'.

101 posted on 02/20/2003 2:24:54 AM PST by ARepublicanForAllReasons (Hmm, and just whose authority are we talking about here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
self-satisfied snobs

The biggest conservative fear is not the snobs but the mobs.

As in the mob at the gate.

The mob must be fed just enough crumbs to keep them off the streets.

But not a crumb more.


BUMP

102 posted on 02/20/2003 3:11:01 AM PST by tm22721
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
A Morning Coulter Bump!
103 posted on 02/20/2003 7:08:09 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Thanks! I was already here.
104 posted on 02/20/2003 7:08:59 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
It's difficult to imagine a world in which people voluntarily choose to listen to liberals. There is no evidence that it has ever happened.

Is Ann Coulter the greatest or what.

I am all in favor of the libs wasting the bucks that they could be spending on defeating Republicans on a wild goose chase like this. The longer they hang on, the more it will drain liberal pockets. This is the best news I've heard since election night 2002.

105 posted on 02/20/2003 7:16:01 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thanks. Looked it up in FR. Maybe I saw this, but quite frankly, *YAWN*.

IMO, she's just reaffirms who she is just about everyday. Thesis, smeshis. Spots haven't changed.

106 posted on 02/20/2003 7:30:43 AM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
BTTT
107 posted on 02/20/2003 9:24:46 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Given the liberals' propensity for shouting down, with rude interruptions, anybody who seems to be on the verge of making a point, that truck driver with a cell phone would likely never get much of a chance
. . . and the audience hears it--and changes the station to Rush Limbaugh.

The deadline makes journalism ineluctably superficial; even the most topical book imaginable will have more fact checking, and more perspective, than the reporter on deadline can possibly do. And in contrast to the news report, the book will not be written unless the topic still seems important a month after the event!

So the journalist has a built-in "out" to explain the superficiality of the news--but we-the-people are catching on to the obvious fact that the short-deadline superficiality of journalism runs as cross purposes to serious discussion of serious issues.

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

108 posted on 02/20/2003 11:08:41 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
bump
109 posted on 02/20/2003 7:35:58 PM PST by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson