Limbaugh Lower Now

[sealybobo]

And I always noticed a liberal bias in Bryant Gumble's sports reporting

I will admit that I don't get a right wing vibe from a lot of the people she listed, but that doesn't make them liberal. That's another trick from the GOP.

If it aint conservative, then label it liberal.

 

[Article 15]

And I always noticed a liberal bias in Bryant Gumble's sports reporting

I will admit that I don't get a right wing vibe from a lot of the people she listed, but that doesn't make them liberal. That's another trick from the GOP.

If it aint conservative, then label it liberal.

When you are far right everything looks left.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the media is not liberal. If it were, where is our version of Rush?

Randi Rhodes is the closest thing we have, and the Corporate Radio Station she works for fired her.

And don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him.

So basically, Corporate Right Wing Republicans pick who we get to listen to. And they pick what those "celebrities" get to talk about on the air.

And every "liberal" political show always seems to have on a guest like Rove, Delay, Newt or Pat Buchanan on, so the Republicans always get their say, even on liberal shows.

where is your equivilant to Rush you ask? why dear that would be bobble necked maddow and olberman throws paper breaks glass on MSNBC what a bunch of crybabies.. jeez

They might be the counter to the guys on Fox News, but who is our radio version of Rush?

We don't get one. That's because the media has been purchased and taken over by the Republican party.

And when you give us a token spokesman, it's a pussy like Ed Schultz or Bill Press.

Randi Rhodes beat Rush in head to head markets.

Ah, explaining it to you is like explaining why your cooter is so full of yeast. Why bother explaining when its not going to change anything.

You don't 'get' one? ROFLMNAO...

And "THE MEDIA" bought up all the radio stations to put Rush on, but that SAME MEDIA puts on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and the Comedy Channel (which is where the Left gets most of their news... which serves reason TO THE BONE.)

You've tried to establish a Leftist Limbaugh and you've failed miserably with each attempt... As is noted above 'the reason disp-Air America failed is that liberals don't THINK...'

And FTR: there is no such thing as 'head to head markets' and Rhandi Rhodes never beat Limbaugh... in any market. In their wildest DREAMS the sum total sum of disp-Air America ratings didn't come CLOSE to Limbaugh's. Now how can we know that? Disp-Air America is bankrupt and Limbaugh is breaking new records, with advertisers lined up on a waiting list, eager to pay the highest ad rates in media to be there...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Can you show me that Rather, Couric, Brokaw or Jennings, or Koppel or Rooney are considered liberals?

ROFLMNAO... Well let's see... they each chronically harp upon leftist policy initiatives, cling to leftist talking points, openly advocate for leftist political candidate and just as openly denigrate American policy and American candidates... and in some cases going to far as to create false documents in hopes of buttrussing absurd leftist concspiracy theories... documents which brought their leftist careers to a screaching halt.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And I always noticed a liberal bias in Bryant Gumble's sports reporting

You really are a moron aren't ya sis? I mean we kid each other about how stupid you people are... but you're the genuine Article...

Gumble is a longstanding leftist media personality... 'reporting' on the Today Show for a generation and other not so notable efforts at be 'taken seriously'... and after a while he returned to the heady intellectual heights of Sports.

 

[Article 15]

And I always noticed a liberal bias in Bryant Gumble's sports reporting

You really are a moron aren't ya sis? I mean we kid each other about how stupid you people are... but you're the genuine Article...

Gumble is a longstanding leftist media personality... 'reporting' on the Today Show for a generation and other not so notable efforts at be 'taken seriously'... and after a while he returned to the heady intellectual heights of Sports.

I don't buy your whole "leftist media personality" assertion on its face but yes, my mistake, he's been a sports reporter my entire adult life hence my confusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the media is not liberal. If it were, where is our version of Rush?

Randi Rhodes is the closest thing we have, and the Corporate Radio Station she works for fired her.

They fired her because of her foul mouth.

[qupte]And don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him.

So basically, Corporate Right Wing Republicans pick who we get to listen to. And they pick what those "celebrities" get to talk about on the air.

Listnership determines who gets radio airtime. On broadband TV, entrenched Liberals determine that Conservatives get no air time, thus the success of FOX.

And every "liberal" political show always seems to have on a guest like Rove, Delay, Newt or Pat Buchanan on, so the Republicans always get their say, even on liberal shows.

Not true.

You should have a glass belly button, so when your head is so far up your behind you can see what the rest of us are doing.

Liberal media is all you can find in the main stream. No right-wingers pick your radio, only listenership does that.

Left-wing Liberals:

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss.

Can I see a similar list of Conservatives?

These are mainstream media types. Certainly not liberal.

Do you even watch George Stephanopoulos' show? What is liberal about it?

Do you not know that Stephanopoulos worked in the Clinton Administration, (Matthews also worked for Democrats, as did Jim Lehrer) and is still known to huddle with Democrat planners.

Tell me something left wing that Anderson Cooper said recently.

I don't even know who half of these people are, and I watch everything.

CNN is clearly left wing, See definition above. Certainly you do not watch everything if you do not know those I mentioned above. Every one has been around for years if not decades.

So I'm a flaming liberal and I can't even agree on one of your choices.

You think centrists are liberals. This is great!!! [/quote} Again, if they supported Obama and voted same and are registered Democrats, yes.

I don't get a right wing or left wing slant from ABC, CBS or NBC. You might, but that's because you are a wacko.

If wacko means Conservative, yes.

The radio trade magazine Talkers has released its annual "Heavy Hundred" list of the top talk hosts, and probably the easiest two selections were No. 1 and No. 2: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Limbaugh and Hannity, who are also the country's two most popular talk hosts, run back-to-back daily, noon-3 p.m. and 3-6 p.m. respectively, on their flagship station WABC (770 AM).

WABC also carries Talkers' No. 6 host, Laura Ingraham, and its No. 7 host, morning man Imus.

Coming in at No. 3 is the hot Michael Savage, heard locally on WOR (710 AM), followed at No. 4 by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who is heard on WMCA (570 AM) and WWDJ (970 AM).

The rest of the top 10 are not currently on major stations around here: Glenn Beck at No. 5, Ed Schultz at No. 8, Mike Gallagher at No. 9 and Neal Boortz at No. 10.

Schultz is the only progressive in the top 10.

I believe that I explainded why Conservatives dominate talk radio: listeners.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity still rule in the talk radio game

First, let me apologize for the "glass belly button" reference, as I thought that your respose was either untrue or outside the bounds of reality.

I now understand that a definition is necessary: liberal news media includes all those who voted for President Obama, supported canditate Obama, and/or are registered Democrats. That would include every mainstream individual that I named.
Next, ABC, NBC and C'BS represent the news source for 25-30 Million Americans. The Fox Cable News has bout one tenth that number.

Next, talk radio is the only place that you can find Conservative viewpoints. Liberals fail on talk radio because their shows are filled with vitriol and untruths, as represented by some individuals on this board who refer to their political opponents as "hacks," or "wingnuts" or even "imbeciles."

It is absurd to define Matthew's politics in this way: "don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him." He is by any objective standard, way way left.

 

[editec]

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

Vague, ponderous, and essentially silly.

 

[Bern80]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the media is not liberal. If it were, where is our version of Rush?

Randi Rhodes is the closest thing we have, and the Corporate Radio Station she works for fired her.

And don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him.

So basically, Corporate Right Wing Republicans pick who we get to listen to. And they pick what those "celebrities" get to talk about on the air.

And every "liberal" political show always seems to have on a guest like Rove, Delay, Newt or Pat Buchanan on, so the Republicans always get their say, even on liberal shows.

You don't seriously believe this analogy proves msm isn't liberally biassed do you? The fact is the conservative programming that is out there makes no bones about who they are. Rush is a conservative and says so. Katie Couric is a liberal pretending to pass herself off as unbiased objective, journalist. MSM doesn't have the equivalent of Rush on air because at some point people would call you on it. They won't take someone like Al Franken trying to give them the news which is suppossed to be spin free and un-editorialized.

 

[editec]

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

Vague, ponderous, and essentially silly.

Yes, fundamental truisms often appear that way to the stunningly uniformed.

 

[Bern80]

So you can list 100 people named Tom Brokaw or Katie Couric. Where were they on WMD's? They said nothing? Then they are not liberal.

They are mainstream/corporate media.

Now we are finding out she was right, because we finally have US attorneys who are not doing the White House's bidding.

A fine argument, NOT. Unless of course you want to admit that would mean John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi aren't liveral either.

 

[Bern80]

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

Vague, ponderous, and essentially silly.

Yes, fundamental truisms often appear that way to the stunningly uniformed.

that is really funny, coming from you. I mean really funny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

Vague, ponderous, and essentially silly.

Yes, fundamental truisms often appear that way to the stunningly uniformed.

Ah, my pompous friend, your verbiage is stunningly inarticulate, and, in some circles, that passes for intelligent comment.

Not here.

BTW, I may be stunning,but I am far from uninformed.

 

[Toome]

Interesting read on the current Republican party dilemna. Best read from the beginning, not just the quote below.

Talk radio is the only medium that conservatives dominate in America. Is it really shrewd for conservatives to begin their political exile by attacking the leading figure in that world? To ask is to answer.


Limbaugh and his conservative critics have more in common than they think. The political import of the last two weeks of Limbaugh-mania is this: The Republicans' decline is now entering a phase in which its members are more emotionally invested in attacking each other than in attacking Obama. As long as that holds true, the White House can safely ignore the opposition, no matter how loud it gets.

Why Rush Limbaugh Is Good for the Republicans

Very difficult to determine if Limbaugh's ratings are up or down. There is no single source that can confirm that information because of the nature of radio programming. Limbaugh's radio program is broadcast at different times and is accessed through different media. It's not the same as television ratings. One way to measure Limbaugh's popularity is the fact that his contract is renewed at higher rates. Nobody throws money at failures (well, except Congress).

Whether or not Limbaugh is the "voice" of the Republican Party is something that can always be argued without any resolution. I believe the mainstream media is projecting Limbaugh in this role because it takes the attention away from the miserable failures of the Obama administration, and the White House adds to this by taking the unprecedented (as well as unpresidential) step of commenting on Rush Limbaugh. This only adds to Limbaugh's popularity (or notoriety, depending on your view). Conservatives flock to listen to Limbaugh and liberals tune in hoping they can go on the air to debate, argue or otherwise challenge Limbaugh's views. It's a win-win situation for Limbaugh and only increases his salary.

As for the Republican Party being in a dilemma, I have to strongly disagree. The GOP cracked the code already: sit quietly and watch the train wreck.

It's the Democrats who are in a dilemma.

There's nothing to cheer about. WE are the ones who lose in the end.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

ROFLMNAO... The right defines the left BY WHAT THE LEFT DOES!

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

The only place where 'the right' fails is where it DOES WHAT LEFTIST DO! We don't give a damn what the left says... until they use their voice to infringe upon our means to exercise our rights...

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

Is it? LOL... Well that's fascinatin'... would ya have an example to offer? I'm not askin' you to go find a specific post, just to post an example of where an American is misrepresenting a leftist position...

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

I disagree and even if it happened, Americans don't give a red rats ass what Leftists say about them...

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

I notice that I spend a GREAT deal of my time on this board asking YOU TO POST SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE GENERALIZATIONS YOU make... this post is no exception... Now give specific examples of Americans misrepresenting Leftist positions...

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

ROFL... Ed... Get serious... there is no mystery about what 'the Left is'... there is no mystery about what Americans are... There's no difficulty in recognizing either... all you're trying to do here is to discredit IN GENERAL, the posts which NAIL the left to the post...

Now if you need a specific example of your chronic run to vaguery... then here ya go:

The rightists don't get to define what the left is..the left does

Likewise the lefties don't get to tell Righties what they believe.

About half the ascii wasted here is some right winger tell us what the left stands for and geting it wrong.

The other half is lefties telling righties what they beleive and ALSO getting it wrong.

If some of you would stop presuming what others actually think these discussion, and actually start READING what others are truly saying, this board would be far less contentious and far more productive, in my opinion.

But the urge to turn people into caracatures, the desire for the intellectually challenged to argue with straw men of their own devices, is just too much a part of the human nature of nitwits for that to ever happen.

Vague, ponderous, and essentially silly.

Yes, fundamental truisms often appear that way to the stunningly uniformed.

To what specific 'truisms' and to what specific 'stunningly uninformed are you referring?

 

[Yukon]

No thinking, rational person could listen to Rush Limpdick and come away without knowing he's nothing but a radio-clown, a showman, comic,....you can't take him seriously?

 

[Toome]

No thinking, rational person could listen to Rush Limpdick and come away without knowing he's nothing but a radio-clown, a showman, comic,....you can't take him seriously?

Interestingly enough, your comments only serve to have others listen in if for no other reason than just plain old curiosity to see what all the fuss is about.

I have to wonder that if you truly believe that it's a waste of time listening to Rush that you would bother to comment that it's a waste of time. In other words, if you truly believed that it's not worth your time, then why waste the keystrokes saying so?

Rush is the one with the last laugh....all the way to the bank.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No thinking, rational person could listen to John Stewart and come away without knowing he's nothing but a Comedy Channel-clown, a showman, comic,....you can't take him seriously!

Huh...

 

[PeterS]

Yes, that is a petetrating analysis of the Rush v RNC flap, I agree.

However, I do NOT think that the liberals will EVER come up with the equivalent to Rush.

About as close to Rush as the Liberals can get is NPR, and the liberal dish they serve up is wildly different than the pap that Rush's listeners seem to think so delicious.

Air America is failing because liberals do NOT think in the same way (forget content, I mean HOW they think, not WHAT they think) as most conservatives.

Conservatism is based on irrationalism. For validation irrationalism uses affirmation. Liberalism is based on rationalism. For validation rationalism uses confirmation. You are correct that liberals will never come up with the equivalent of a Limbaugh. They do not need someone to tell them that what they believe is true. You are also correct in that 'how' not 'what' we think is what marks the difference. Irrationalism and rationalism are polar opposites in philosophical thought...