Forget about McCain, forget about Obama, vote Independent, vote for Bigfoot!
- Thread starter Priced_Out_IT_Guy_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I agree.
No. You can disagree with the man and still be respectful. The POTUS deserves a certain respect after the election. It wasn't extended to Clinton by the Republicans (many of them) and it wasn't extended to Bush by certain Democrats. Election season or after somebody leaves office is different.
IMO, I think Rush Limbaugh ripped the lid off this Pandora's box. The tone of political discussion changed in this country in 1988, as a whole section of the electorate found a voice. Problem is, they didn't find a brain and just became 'dittoheads'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/3286392/Rush-Limbaugh-The-man-whos-always-Right.html
Sadly, I think Rush is right about tapping the views of his conservative listenders, but he convienently ignores the darker side of many of his listeners' psyche. He (and Hanity, and O'Riley, and even Lou Dobbs) elevates his viewpoints (and the viewpoints of his listeners), but at the expense of everyone elses viewpoints (which are quashed).
But the world has changed too. My mom and I were talking last weekend about how in the 1970's she was the most religous person we knew (if she had time she'd go to mass every day). She is no less religous now, but the statement isn't true (almost all of the Evangelicals we know have surpassed her).
I love politics but there is no room for polite discussion anymore. Maybe there never was.
No one else's viewpoint is being quashed. Rush found an untapped market using what was then a wasteland of radio spectrum. He's successful because people tune into him which drives ad revenue. If he wasn't popular, he wouldn't be on he air. Air America was launched as the "anti-Rush" network but it hasn't had nearly the success because people who have that same point of view are less likely to listen to talk radio and more likely to watch TV or read blogs. Keith Olbermann seems to be doing pretty well representing the other side, and Rachel Maddow has gotten some success as well. Not to mention the newspapers, local television, etc. But let's get back to your implied point.
No one is quashing anyone's viewpoints. Prior to 1987, the conservative side had no voice in media... none. Now, with the ubiquity of the internet in American households, the explosion of cable TV channels, and the retooling of AM radio programming more people are expressing more viewpoints than ever. Contrast Rush with Keith Olberman and you see two people doing the same thing in seperate mediums and from opposite ends of the spectrum. How many websites are there that do nothing but push a liberal or progressive point of view? According to Alexa.com, 592 versus 490 for conservatives. Yes, Rush and his ilk dominate the AM talk radio market, but not because they force stations to carry their shows. They dominate because they have listeners that tune in, they frequently have guests or callers arguing for the opposition on any number of topics, and they rarely cut people off (unless they are breaking FCC rules, lied to get past the screener, etc.). I would argue that more viewpoints are being expressed than ever before, and Rush was the first "alternative viewpoint" to make money doing nothing else. But he isn't the only one (Daily Kos, annual revenue of $50-100 Million according to Alexa.com) nor will he be the last.
Oberman is a direct counter to Bill O'Riley. Somebody at MSNBC did the market research, and found a niche for Oberman to be a notch smarter and a notch snarkier and 180 degrees politically opposite of O'Riley.
Oberman was the best sportscaster on ESPN. Ever. Better than Dan Patrick. Better than Chris Berman. Greater than Howard Cosell? Nah. But certainly the best of our generation.
Matthews is a genuine human being, but with extreme liberal bias. When Tony Snow announced he had terminal cancer and would be leaving the White House, Matthews broke down on camera when he announced it. For the uninformed, Tony Snow used to fill in for Rush when he was on vacation. Tony took guests. He couldn't fill three hours of time with just a monolouge.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
I hear he's got these guys lined up to bankroll the whole thing.
stepping_up_IHB
New member
ummm, I'm kind of sick of the neanderthals in office.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
I know more about 43 than any other President, and I've been highly respectful of him in his time in office. After Tuesday, I guess I can let loose on how I really feel.
Trouble is, I like to start early, and Paul Begala sums up how I really feel.
(embedded video no longer available)
The problem with this clip is it cuts off too soon. Neither of the two panelists challenged what Paul said. Rather, they just nodded in agreement.
I seriously doubt the Republicans will show a President Obama the same courtesy I extended President Bush.
Trouble is, I like to start early, and Paul Begala sums up how I really feel.
(embedded video no longer available)
The problem with this clip is it cuts off too soon. Neither of the two panelists challenged what Paul said. Rather, they just nodded in agreement.
I seriously doubt the Republicans will show a President Obama the same courtesy I extended President Bush.
Trooper_IHB
New member
"He's a high functioning moron."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Nude_IHB
New member
Expect Republicans to extend the same courtesy Democrats have extended Bush. You might have been respectful, but even you have to admit the left hasn't been. I look forward to an end to the Bush bashing that has gone on since Florida2K. Besides, trying to hold an entire party to your personal standard is pretty silly, don't you think?no_vaseline said:
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
Nude said:
I agree.
No. You can disagree with the man and still be respectful. The POTUS deserves a certain respect after the election. It wasn't extended to Clinton by the Republicans (many of them) and it wasn't extended to Bush by certain Democrats. Election season or after somebody leaves office is different.
IMO, I think Rush Limbaugh ripped the lid off this Pandora's box. The tone of political discussion changed in this country in 1988, as a whole section of the electorate found a voice. Problem is, they didn't find a brain and just became 'dittoheads'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/3286392/Rush-Limbaugh-The-man-whos-always-Right.html
Sadly, I think Rush is right about tapping the views of his conservative listenders, but he convienently ignores the darker side of many of his listeners' psyche. He (and Hanity, and O'Riley, and even Lou Dobbs) elevates his viewpoints (and the viewpoints of his listeners), but at the expense of everyone elses viewpoints (which are quashed).
But the world has changed too. My mom and I were talking last weekend about how in the 1970's she was the most religous person we knew (if she had time she'd go to mass every day). She is no less religous now, but the statement isn't true (almost all of the Evangelicals we know have surpassed her).
I love politics but there is no room for polite discussion anymore. Maybe there never was.
Nude_IHB
New member
no_vaseline said:
No one else's viewpoint is being quashed. Rush found an untapped market using what was then a wasteland of radio spectrum. He's successful because people tune into him which drives ad revenue. If he wasn't popular, he wouldn't be on he air. Air America was launched as the "anti-Rush" network but it hasn't had nearly the success because people who have that same point of view are less likely to listen to talk radio and more likely to watch TV or read blogs. Keith Olbermann seems to be doing pretty well representing the other side, and Rachel Maddow has gotten some success as well. Not to mention the newspapers, local television, etc. But let's get back to your implied point.
No one is quashing anyone's viewpoints. Prior to 1987, the conservative side had no voice in media... none. Now, with the ubiquity of the internet in American households, the explosion of cable TV channels, and the retooling of AM radio programming more people are expressing more viewpoints than ever. Contrast Rush with Keith Olberman and you see two people doing the same thing in seperate mediums and from opposite ends of the spectrum. How many websites are there that do nothing but push a liberal or progressive point of view? According to Alexa.com, 592 versus 490 for conservatives. Yes, Rush and his ilk dominate the AM talk radio market, but not because they force stations to carry their shows. They dominate because they have listeners that tune in, they frequently have guests or callers arguing for the opposition on any number of topics, and they rarely cut people off (unless they are breaking FCC rules, lied to get past the screener, etc.). I would argue that more viewpoints are being expressed than ever before, and Rush was the first "alternative viewpoint" to make money doing nothing else. But he isn't the only one (Daily Kos, annual revenue of $50-100 Million according to Alexa.com) nor will he be the last.
stepping_up_IHB
New member
I'm not sure Olberman and Limbaugh are doing the same things. If any of them are closer to Rush, it would be Chris Matthews, who I cannot stand to watch. There's something about his style that hits a nerve with me the same way Limbaugh does.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
I used to work in radio. The reason Rush is on the air is he sells advertising. The reason the media is biased the way they are is it sells advertising. There is no ideology other than "get paid". I don't buy the 'fairness docturine' bias. Before Rush, AM was a wasteland littered with broke broadcasters. 20 years later, all commercial based broadcast media is starting to look the same. If they reinstate the "fairness doctuine," lookout. There won't be anyone to broadcast.
Matthews and Rush couldn't have more different programs. Rush doesn't take guests. He gets up and spews for three hours every day. His audience listens and says "YEAH YEAH DITTO DITTO". They then buy, buy, buy what is advertised becasue Rush has them so accepting of his message. If you need to buy advertising, Limbaugh will delever you customers. Beware, he's also got the most expensive buy on radio. Matthews is nothing compared to Limbaugh and his audience.
Air America didn't work because they wanted to talk about issues. Listen to KPCC if you want issues with minimal spin, KPFK if you want monster liberal bent. Discusing issues makes for an informed listener. Informed listeners are not good people to sell to via radio. What you need is a willing audience who craves reassurement. That makes sustainable, repeatable revenues.
Like it or don't, Rush delivers.
I'm sure what I wrote is going to piss some people off. That is not my intention. But facts are facts. The media business is burtal. Rush has made a fortune by telling a segment of the population what they want to hear without anyone else countering "well, hey, what about......" I don't begrudge Rush, his listeners, or anyone who advertised on his program. I listened for almost all 3 hours a day, every day, for a decade from 1992-2002. Hell, I've even been to Rio Linda!
Matthews and Rush couldn't have more different programs. Rush doesn't take guests. He gets up and spews for three hours every day. His audience listens and says "YEAH YEAH DITTO DITTO". They then buy, buy, buy what is advertised becasue Rush has them so accepting of his message. If you need to buy advertising, Limbaugh will delever you customers. Beware, he's also got the most expensive buy on radio. Matthews is nothing compared to Limbaugh and his audience.
Air America didn't work because they wanted to talk about issues. Listen to KPCC if you want issues with minimal spin, KPFK if you want monster liberal bent. Discusing issues makes for an informed listener. Informed listeners are not good people to sell to via radio. What you need is a willing audience who craves reassurement. That makes sustainable, repeatable revenues.
Like it or don't, Rush delivers.
I'm sure what I wrote is going to piss some people off. That is not my intention. But facts are facts. The media business is burtal. Rush has made a fortune by telling a segment of the population what they want to hear without anyone else countering "well, hey, what about......" I don't begrudge Rush, his listeners, or anyone who advertised on his program. I listened for almost all 3 hours a day, every day, for a decade from 1992-2002. Hell, I've even been to Rio Linda!
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
stepping_up said:
Oberman is a direct counter to Bill O'Riley. Somebody at MSNBC did the market research, and found a niche for Oberman to be a notch smarter and a notch snarkier and 180 degrees politically opposite of O'Riley.
Oberman was the best sportscaster on ESPN. Ever. Better than Dan Patrick. Better than Chris Berman. Greater than Howard Cosell? Nah. But certainly the best of our generation.
Matthews is a genuine human being, but with extreme liberal bias. When Tony Snow announced he had terminal cancer and would be leaving the White House, Matthews broke down on camera when he announced it. For the uninformed, Tony Snow used to fill in for Rush when he was on vacation. Tony took guests. He couldn't fill three hours of time with just a monolouge.