Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   Scarborough: McCain can't win without Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson   (newsbusters.org) divider line 151
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

885 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2008 at 11:00 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-01 12:42:42 PM  
bacccc: Who is naive enough to believe a brother (or a chick for that matter) can win in today's VERY bigoted America? Really ... who? It's sad, but you know in your heart it's true.

Only if you're a racist, racist.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 12:48:31 PM  
Jon Snow It has nothing to do with "conservative" values and everything to do with unrestrained corporate profiteering. They make millions off of fools who think they actually care about conservatism, what's good for the country, or what their own audience thinks.

Rush has more money than god. He doesn't need to pander to corportations. They pander to him for advertisement time.
 
2008-02-01 12:51:35 PM  
Republicans love Limbug because they love drug abusers, adulterers, liars, hypocrites, draft dodgers and fat tubs of goo as long as they use small words and have repetitive sophomoric phrases.

Shucks, if they talk fast, they must be SMART!

I'm sure the apologists will show up with their well-worn "liberal" this and that macros, but guess what, I'm not a liberal. I just hate dumbf**ks.
 
2008-02-01 12:52:00 PM  
MFL: Rush has more money than god. He doesn't need to pander to corportations. They pander to him for advertisement time.

He's converting their 'we need to reduce government involvement with our multinational so we can exploit more Chinamen' message into 'The Socialist Democrat Party wants to raise taxes so that they can redistribute wealth to Welfare Queens.' He doesn't need to 'pander' since he's already on their payroll. It's just doing a job.
 
2008-02-01 12:57:20 PM  
MFL: Rush has more money than god. He doesn't need to pander to corportations. They pander to him for advertisement time.

He's not pandering to them, he is selling their product. He could retire, sure. Or he can keep getting paid to hawk their brand of "conservatism" which is basically nativist, pro-Corporation, anti-regulation, partisan divisiveness. It only overlaps with conservatism when convenient.
 
2008-02-01 12:57:46 PM  
Shaggy_C: It's amazing to me that the Republican 'coalition' lasted as long as it has.

It doesn't work without a strong leader for them all to rally behind. They need someone who can create the illusion of a unified common goal (they once accomplished this by antagonizing liberals). They tried that with Bush, but it fell apart due to Bush's utter incompetence.
 
2008-02-01 01:02:13 PM  
Jon Snow:

He's not pandering to them, he is selling their product. He could retire, sure. Or he can keep getting paid to hawk their brand of "conservatism" which is basically nativist, pro-Corporation, anti-regulation, partisan divisiveness. It only overlaps with conservatism when convenient.


Or pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, anti-politically correct and pro-American.
 
2008-02-01 01:03:01 PM  
schnarff: Too Old!! He's immortal!! -grin-
 
2008-02-01 01:03:48 PM  
rosebud_the_sled: Republicans love Limbug because they love drug abusers, adulterers, liars, hypocrites, draft dodgers and fat tubs of goo as long as they use small words and have repetitive sophomoric phrases.



uglydemocrats.com

/but but
 
2008-02-01 01:04:52 PM  
bacccc: Who is naive enough to believe a brother (or a chick for that matter) can win in today's VERY bigoted America? Really ... who? It's sad, but you know in your heart it's true.



So is the fact that one of them is going to get the nomination at all proof of how bigoted America is?
 
2008-02-01 01:07:00 PM  
Shaggy_C Quote 2008-02-01 11:37:02 AM
Question: By most measures, doesn't [Mr. McCain] have a pretty mainstream conservative record?

Answer: And, by the way, I think it would be hard for people like Jack Kemp, and Tom Ridge, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, and Phil Gramm, and all of the long list of conservatives that support me, both governors, conservative governors, and, in fact, your former lieutenant governor, who is spending a lot of time on the campaign trail with us.

But the point is that I'm proud of the people that have surrounded me and are supporting me. And whether they come from one part of the spectrum or the other, strong conservatives are ones who are supporting me, and I'm proud of their support. And I'll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep.


Question: Tax cuts - So which is it? And if they were too skewed to the wealthy at first, are they still too skewed to the wealthy?


Answer: I was part of the Reagan revolution. I was there with Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman and all these other fighters that wanted to change a terrible economic situation in America with 10 percent unemployment and 20 percent interest rates.



John McCain - Because he KNOWS people.




I think this needs to be posted again. What a joke McCain has come .

"Judge me by the company I keep"

Yeah, sure, dont' judge me on my record or my stances or anything of substance. Just judge me by the friends i've made over the years (oh, except all the liberal, democratic and moderate republican ones. Only judge by the friends of mine who you like)
 
2008-02-01 01:07:14 PM  
Hang On Voltaire:
/but but


He is a tub of goo, isn't he. I think the easterners like him because they are really into royalty on the east coast.
 
2008-02-01 01:14:28 PM  
Jon Snow: nativist, pro-Corporation, anti-regulation, partisan

Hang On Voltaire: Or pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, anti-politically correct and pro-American.

i91.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-01 01:19:40 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: Or pro-freedom

Extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeus corpus, erosion of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, unsupervised domestic spying, etc.

pro-capitalism

Corporate welfare, no bid contracts, etc.

anti-politically correct

? Who cares about political correctness? Is this 1993?

pro-American

Unless you happen to be gay, an environmentalist, a Democrat, a Muslim, an atheist, etc.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 01:24:56 PM  
Shaggy_C Contrast that with the Democrats, who have been a hodgepodge of insanely different viewpoints since the Dixecrat split, but they all want to help not only themselves but everyone. It's just a different mindset, and it's the reason the Republicans are having so much trouble right now.

That is the appearence of the debate now. But I don't believe for one minute Democrats really want to help people. Getting people hooked on entitlements isn't helping people in my opinion. It's expanding the power of the government while taking personal freedoms away.

What liberals (and some modern conservatives) fail to understand is that what Reagan brought was a broad appeal that tied small government, god (didn't say religion), and a strong national defense together. One couldn't exist without the other.

Right the party reminds me of the Superman comics that came out after he was killed off.
 
2008-02-01 01:25:47 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: Or pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, anti-politically correct and pro-American.

There is no candidate who stands for that. Mitt Romney, the new hero of the right, passed a socialist health care plan in Taxachusetts, and is pushing economic policies that benefit business because they force people on pain of government punishment to consume. Of course forcing millions of consumers to buy something is going to drive prices down. It's also anti-freedom and anti-American. Just because something is "pro-business" doesn't mean it's capitalist.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 01:29:23 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: Or pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, anti-politically correct and pro-American.

LocalCynic There is no candidate who stands for that. Mitt Romney, the new hero of the right, passed a socialist health care plan in Taxachusetts, and is pushing economic policies that benefit business because they force people on pain of government punishment to consume. Of course forcing millions of consumers to buy something is going to drive prices down. It's also anti-freedom and anti-American. Just because something is "pro-business" doesn't mean it's capitalist

He's no hero of the right. He's a shiat sandwich just like McCain, but just has a little more bread than shiat.
 
2008-02-01 01:29:39 PM  
I thought Dobson was endorsing Huckabee?

/Don't really care that much
 
2008-02-01 01:30:08 PM  
There's no such thing as "Politically Correct".

"Politically Correct" is a non-phrase made up by bigots to cloud the issue of their own bigotry.

A: "Those damned Mexicans all ought to be deported!"
B: "That's a rather ignorant thing to say."
A: "Aw, you're being politically correct!"
 
2008-02-01 01:31:18 PM  

That is the appearence of the debate now. But I don't believe for one minute Democrats really want to help people. Getting people hooked on entitlements isn't helping people in my opinion. It's expanding the power of the government while taking personal freedoms away.


You are missing the point. Whehter or not something like, say, welfare truly helps people is a matter of debate.

But certainly you can't argue that regular middle-class democratic voters who SUPPORT welfare are doing so because they THINK it helps people. It IS, as shaggy points out, a matter of wanting to help people.

Democratic voters (not talking about politicians here) support these thigns because they believe it makes society better and helps everyone. They don't do it because they get an erection at knowing the federal budget has increased or that they gism when their paycheck is lower.

Stop being silly.
 
2008-02-01 01:33:01 PM  
MFL: What liberals (and some modern conservatives) fail to understand is that what Reagan brought was a broad appeal that tied small government

maybe what Liberals don't understand is how someone who increased the federal debt by many billions of dollars could be remembered as someone who was for small government.
 
2008-02-01 01:33:02 PM  
MFL: That is the appearence of the debate now. But I don't believe for one minute Democrats really want to help people. Getting people hooked on entitlements isn't helping people in my opinion. It's expanding the power of the government while taking personal freedoms away.

I see. You're a prohibitionist.
 
2008-02-01 01:41:16 PM  
MFL: What liberals (and some modern conservatives) fail to understand is that what Reagan brought was a broad appeal that tied small government, god (didn't say religion), and a strong national defense together. One couldn't exist without the other.

Reagan was a lying scumbag. He may have talked about those things, but it was only lip service. It was all an illusion. Our government is bigger than ever because of Republican policies that Reagan initiated, more people than ever before are questioning the existence of the invisible sky wizard, and our country's long-term national defense is weak because Republican policies have crippled our economy, our currency, and our military.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 01:43:09 PM  
Hideously Gigantic Smurf I see. You're a prohibitionist.

I'm smoking a cigarette illigally right now.
 
2008-02-01 01:45:20 PM  
Headso: maybe what Liberals don't understand is how someone who increased the federal debt by many billions of dollars could be remembered as someone who was for small government.

Expanded the War on Drugs, added the Department of Veteran Affairs, grew the number of federal employees by 61,000 (Clinton reduced it by 373,000), bailed out and expanded Social Security by increasing payroll taxes, added Social Security tax to wealthiest recipients, etc.
 
2008-02-01 01:48:06 PM  
MFL: Hideously Gigantic Smurf I see. You're a prohibitionist.

I'm smoking a cigarette illigally right now.


xore.ca
 
2008-02-01 01:51:04 PM  
Hang On Voltaire:

Or pro-freedom,


Surely you jest.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 01:59:12 PM  
Bill Frist

That is the appearence of the debate now. But I don't believe for one minute Democrats really want to help people. Getting people hooked on entitlements isn't helping people in my opinion. It's expanding the power of the government while taking personal freedoms away.

You are missing the point. Whehter or not something like, say, welfare truly helps people is a matter of debate.

But certainly you can't argue that regular middle-class democratic voters who SUPPORT welfare are doing so because they THINK it helps people. It IS, as shaggy points out, a matter of wanting to help people.

Democratic voters (not talking about politicians here) support these thigns because they believe it makes society better and helps everyone. They don't do it because they get an erection at knowing the federal budget has increased or that they gism when their paycheck is lower


This is nothing new. That's always the appearance of the debate.

Democratic voters who believe in this are usually very well intentioned people. But good intentions doesn't mean they are right. Giving a homeless guy 20 bucks makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But when you walk away feeling good about yourself he uses it to buy crack. Karl Marx had good intentions.

I personally believe many of the elites in charge don't give a damn about helping people. They want as many people dependant on them as possible. Once you get the middle class dependant on you for their livelyhood it's all downhill from there.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 02:02:09 PM  
Mnemia

Reagan was a lying scumbag. He may have talked about those things, but it was only lip service. It was all an illusion. Our government is bigger than ever because of Republican policies that Reagan initiated, more people than ever before are questioning the existence of the invisible sky wizard, and our country's long-term national defense is weak because Republican policies have crippled our economy, our currency, and our military.

I don't remember Reagan starting social security, medicare, madicaid, and welfare.
 
2008-02-01 02:07:00 PM  
MFL: I don't remember Reagan starting social security, medicare, madicaid, and welfare.

Did I say that he did or even that he was responsible for the majority of current government spending? No. I said that it's bigger than ever because of Republican policies that he initiated (and that Bush continued). He was talking about small government while making the government bigger. One of the big ones is defense. Reagan was one of the main people responsible for the idea that defense spending should be allowed to grow at an unlimited rate. Completely out of control "defense" spending is incompatible with "small government". Republicans are still claiming that we should follow Saint Ronnie's example, so his lies are still damaging our country.
 
2008-02-01 02:07:47 PM  
MFL: I don't remember Reagan starting social security, medicare, madicaid, and welfare.

Nah, he just made them bigger. He lowered income taxes on businesses and rich people, then jacked up SS taxes to cover the shortfall a year later. Funny how he basically screwed the middle class and the poor on taxes so that the rich could have more money. Isn't that what we call 'taking from Peter to give to Paul?'
 
2008-02-01 02:23:52 PM  
Nestea Plunge:

Surely you jest.

Unassailable platitude. I'm pro-respiration and you and your kind will never convince me that anyone, even you, shouldn't have a right to freely inhale and exhale.
 
2008-02-01 02:24:17 PM  
In an effort to unwind the threadjack.......

Will Rush stay true to conversatism, or turn into a tool of the party and promote McCain (or whatever other clown) they put up this time?

/This lifetime Republican will not be voting straight ticket for the first time.
//You country club Rockefeller Republican can feel the sting of defeat for awhile.
 
2008-02-01 02:32:46 PM  
cchris_39: In an effort to unwind the threadjack.......

Will Rush stay true to conversatism, or turn into a tool of the party and promote McCain (or whatever other clown) they put up this time?


It looks like there is an all-out revolt amongst conservative talk-radio and foaming-at-the-mouth pundits.

Rush claims he may vote third party (Rush will certainly not support Hillary).
Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter back Hillary over McCain.

Snowmen, in Hell, are asking for heavy overcoats.

I just don't understand the logic of their positions -- but I generally don't try to understand
them completely.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 02:34:31 PM  
MFL: I don't remember Reagan starting social security, medicare, madicaid, and welfare.

Mnemia Did I say that he did or even that he was responsible for the majority of current government spending? No. I said that it's bigger than ever because of Republican policies that he initiated (and that Bush continued). He was talking about small government while making the government bigger. One of the big ones is defense. Reagan was one of the main people responsible for the idea that defense spending should be allowed to grow at an unlimited rate. Completely out of control "defense" spending is incompatible with "small government". Republicans are still claiming that we should follow Saint Ronnie's example, so his lies are still damaging our country.

Reagan significantly reduced the size of the federal government in his first term. Unfortunately, he tended to cut programs rather than eliminate them, and today most of the programs he cut in his 1981 budget are larger today than ever before.

You need to put this stuff in perspective. When Ronald Reagan took oath in January 1980, America was a declining power. President Truman's policy of containment that Kennedy had followed was abandonded by Ford and Carter which allowed nation after nation to fall to Soviet control. America was on the defense as Communism was spreading. Our economy was also shiat.

Ronald Reagan was a visionary. He challenged the Soviets to an arms race, halting Soviet expansionism everywhere, and reasserting the moral superiority of freedom in the language of Churchill and Kennedy. Reagan destroyed the evil empire by bankrupting their government while pushing capitalistic ideals to their people. He brought Truman's vision to life without a 3rd world war.

He also cut the federal tax rate from 70% to 28% which resulted in one of the longest economic booms in history.

Reagan transformed the Republican party into a conservative party. (They aint anymore unfortunatly) Like Eisenhower's turning the Republicans into internationalists rather than isolationists, or FDR's turning the Democrats into the party of vigorous federal government.

The "national malaise" of Carter was replaced by the renewed confidence of the Reagan era.
 
2008-02-01 02:55:50 PM  
MFL: He also cut the federal tax rate from 70% to 28% which resulted in one of the longest economic booms in history.

The boom that started after Clinton took office a full 12 years later?
 
2008-02-01 03:07:42 PM  
MFL: I personally believe many of the elites in charge don't give a damn about helping people. They want as many people dependant on them as possible. Once you get the middle class dependant on you for their livelyhood it's all downhill from there.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion you still live with at least one parent?
 
2008-02-01 03:24:25 PM  
MFL: MFL:
You need to put this stuff in perspective. When Ronald Reagan took oath in January 1980, America was a declining power.
Reagan destroyed the evil empire by bankrupting their government


I don't know which freaking country you were in back then, but the west coast was happening. Perhaps the midwest (which is always a welfare region) was doing poorly, but the electronics and computer industry was doing great.

Where do you people get "evil empire" from? The comic books? The soviets were doomed because of economics, plain and simple. They were already bankrupt. Reagan pissed a huge amount of money away on "Star Wars" for no good result. I should know, I made a killing off of those programs. Stupid money. But if an idiot wanted to throw away money, I might as well be the guy to catch it.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 03:26:06 PM  
MFL: He also cut the federal tax rate from 70% to 28% which resulted in one of the longest economic booms in history.

Shaggy_C The boom that started after Clinton took office a full 12 years later?

November 1982 to July 1990 was the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy
 
2008-02-01 03:41:29 PM  
MFL:
November 1982 to July 1990 was the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy


That's because the defense industry was booming, the rest of America was the same as it ever was, and Reagan screwed the middle class, just like everybody else.
 
2008-02-01 03:48:21 PM  
MFL: November 1982 to July 1990 was the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.

Wasn't that the longest time since WWII we weren't involved in a war?

1945-1950=5 years
1953-1959=6 years
1975-1982=7 years.
 
2008-02-01 04:03:29 PM  
MFL: November 1982 to July 1990 was the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.

Hey, you know the economy has grown consistently since Bush took office - I guess he's a Reagan Revolutionary, huh?

Look - during Reagan's years, we had a crack epidemic, the race riots, increasing violent crime rates, increasing poverty, 'white flight' from inner cities, savings and loans scandals, insider trading, secret wars, homeless rates rising like crazy...Look: During his time in office, the super-rich got ultra-rich, the middle class floundered, and the poor sank. But the GDP was up, so it's ok right?
 
2008-02-01 04:06:30 PM  
....and the crooks in the S&L fiasco got a free pass and pappy Bush pardoned everybody who took part in criminal activity that St. Ronnie conveniently could not remember.

Yeah, great great times, those 80s....
 
MFL
2008-02-01 04:16:36 PM  
rosebud_the_sled Where do you people get "evil empire" from? The comic books? The soviets were doomed because of economics, plain and simple. They were already bankrupt. Reagan pissed a huge amount of money away on "Star Wars" for no good result. I should know, I made a killing off of those programs. Stupid money. But if an idiot wanted to throw away money, I might as well be the guy to catch it.

Bullshiat. You are clueless.

In 1980 the USSR was the leading steel and oil producer in the world. They were the most powerful nation in the world. Their empire was expanding with no end in sight.

Reagan new what their Achilles heel was. Their economy. He implemented a strategy towards the USSR that included confrontation through the employment of insurgents--formerly a communist monopoly. His financing of insurgents cost the United States less than a billion dollars each year while the Soviet Union paid eight billion dollars to finance counter insurgency. The soviets were spending money they didn't have to fund thier client states such as Cuba who demanded massive supplies of weapons when we invaded Grenada.

Reagan also delayed construction of a pipeline which would have sold over seven billion dollars worth of Soviet Union natural gas to Europe. His other measures, driving down the cost of oil (the Soviet Union's largest export), swelling the size of the United States military, and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), cost the USSR dearly. The American military buildup and SDI induced the communists to attempt to compete with increased military expenditures. Against approximately 32 billion dollars in exports, Reagan's initiatives were estimated to cost the Soviet Union between 36 and 46 billion dollars each year. The Soviet Union was operating a deficit and international financing was also being cut off.

These expenditures along with them losing 20 billion a year in oil revenues because of Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani altering the Saudis oil policy, helped cheapen the Soviets biggest export.Gorbachev desperately sought Reagan's assistance in extricating the Soviet Union from the Afghanistan situation and in reaching an international agreement which would end the SDI. On both accounts, Reagan refused.

They couldn't expand their empire, feed their people, and keep pace with our military spending.

Your talking points are weak.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 04:18:37 PM  
Hideously Gigantic Smurf
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion you still live with at least one parent?

because you are a poor judge of character.
 
MFL
2008-02-01 04:22:27 PM  
Shaggy_C Look - during Reagan's years, we had a crack epidemic, the race riots, increasing violent crime rates, increasing poverty, 'white flight' from inner cities, savings and loans scandals, insider trading, secret wars, homeless rates rising like crazy...Look: During his time in office, the super-rich got ultra-rich, the middle class floundered, and the poor sank. But the GDP was up, so it's ok right?

We were in a depression during FDR's administration. He must have been worse than Carter using that logic.
 
2008-02-01 04:39:46 PM  
MFL: We were in a depression during FDR's administration. He must have been worse than Carter using that logic.

FDR came in during the depression and actually made it last longer due to his inability to work with the fed. The Carter years were a result of crap moves by Nixon to put price caps on things to avoid inflation, which actually led to stagflation instead. The high interest rates and high inflation rates were already leveling off by the time Ronny boy came into office.
 
2008-02-01 04:41:12 PM  
www.robbieconal.com

nuff said
 
2008-02-01 04:57:00 PM  
MFL: rosebud_the_sled Where do you people get "evil empire" from? The comic books? The soviets were doomed because of economics, plain and simple. They were already bankrupt. Reagan pissed a huge amount of money away on "Star Wars" for no good result. I should know, I made a killing off of those programs. Stupid money. But if an idiot wanted to throw away money, I might as well be the guy to catch it.

Bullshiat. You are clueless.

In 1980 the USSR was the leading steel and oil producer in the world. They were the most powerful nation in the world. Their empire was expanding with no end in sight.

Reagan new what their Achilles heel was. Their economy. He implemented a strategy towards the USSR that included confrontation through the employment of insurgents--formerly a communist monopoly. His financing of insurgents cost the United States less than a billion dollars each year while the Soviet Union paid eight billion dollars to finance counter insurgency. The soviets were spending money they didn't have to fund thier client states such as Cuba who demanded massive supplies of weapons when we invaded Grenada.

Reagan also delayed construction of a pipeline which would have sold over seven billion dollars worth of Soviet Union natural gas to Europe. His other measures, driving down the cost of oil (the Soviet Union's largest export), swelling the size of the United States military, and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), cost the USSR dearly. The American military buildup and SDI induced the communists to attempt to compete with increased military expenditures. Against approximately 32 billion dollars in exports, Reagan's initiatives were estimated to cost the Soviet Union between 36 and 46 billion dollars each year. The Soviet Union was operating a deficit and international financing was also being cut off.

These expenditures along with them losing 20 billion a year in oil revenues because of Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani altering the Saudis oil policy, helped cheapen the Soviets biggest export.Gorbachev desperately sought Reagan's assistance in extricating the Soviet Union from the Afghanistan situation and in reaching an international agreement which would end the SDI. On both accounts, Reagan refused.

They couldn't expand their empire, feed their people, and keep pace with our military spending.

Your talking points are weak.


Whata load of farking horse shiat.
 
2008-02-01 05:42:26 PM  
You have a whole demographic who only votes as they are told by 2-3 radio and TV personalities. Whoever these people support is your candidate, like it or not.

There is a 'conventional wisdom' base assumption that this is true. I'm not sure that it is. I'm not sure that this has ever been proven, as the Right-wing talk shows and the voting base have not previously ever been potentially at odds. For eight years, both Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts have been steadfastly behind Bush. For 8 years prior, Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts were steadfastly against Clinton.

Over 16 years ago, and right wing talk shows were a non-factor. Rush (the effective proginitor of the format) has been broadcasting for only 20 years. The right-wing radio phenomenon didn't really emerge until the Clinton presidency.

Both entities have been facing the same direction, and have been supplemental of each other. Now for the first time, it appears that right wing radio and America's republicans are facing slightly different directions.

I think that there is a fundamental misaprehension of the role that right wing talk radio in American politics. It is an echo chamber, not a steering force.

In short, watch closely. Popular Republican support for McCain (if it continues) will adjust right-wing radio, not the other way around - they reflect public sentiment, they do not create it.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report