The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm no Jesse Jackson fan, but I don't think him and Al Sharpton should ever be painted with the same brush.

 

Post 1995 they are one and the same - old, annoying, and irrelevant.

[EvilMonkey]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...-taxes-irs.html

 

41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not alone....................

 

In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.

 

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes

 

[NorthSideSox72]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...-taxes-irs.html

That's embarrassing, and I doubt its party-specific. People who work for the federal government should not be allowed to hold positions if they owe back taxes unless they are in an arbitration process. It should be that simple. Pay, go to arbitration, or goodbye.

 

[greg775]

Just wondering why all the major talk show hosts on radio seem to be conservative?

Why is that?

Seems we have more Democrats/liberals out there. Why does the conservative radio/TV host thing seem to be the norm?

[lostfan]

Just wondering why all the major talk show hosts on radio seem to be conservative?

Why is that?

Seems we have more Democrats/liberals out there. Why does the conservative radio/TV host thing seem to be the norm?

Man. There's not a short answer to this really. There's like an entire industry dedicated to it, before cable TV was the big thing, talk radio was pretty much the exclusive domain of conservatives and that's where your Limbaugh types came from. Liberals tried it but what they come up with is a joke compared to conservative talk shows. Conservatives just weren't as successful on TV as they were on radio, for as much of a household name he was from radio, Limbaugh's attempt at a TV show was a total bust. Then came Fox and conservative hosts just kind of slid naturally into it. Liberals for the most part don't believe there is a "liberal media" (that argument's never going to be settled, people believe what they believe) so they just don't have the talking head factory the conservatives do. To a liberal, the "liberal media" is basically "the media" which includes everything that isn't Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, talk radio, Andrew Breitbart, Matt Drudge, the New York Post, and the Washington Times. That's basically the entire conservative media though and conservatives scoff at the rest of the media.

 

That's the short version, the long version is probably like book length.

[greg775]

Nice answer. Thanks.

I asked the question, because there's even a local morning radio show here where the host is like a mini-Limbaugh. I happened to have it on in the car for some reason.

 

It's all conservative. He had a guest from NY who wrote a book on how bad Obama is.

 

This author basically said Obama is not intelligent and on and on.

 

Then I turned on Limbaugh and it was all Obama, all the time. Obama being awful of course.

 

Man, those Bill O'Reilly videos on youtube are awesome when he fights with people like Phil Donahue.

Some amazing screaming.

And isn't that Glenn Beck guy conservative as well?

 

Like you said though, the media is considered liberal in general. You'd just think they'd have the national talk show voice. With all the liberals out there, you'd think it'd be tough for these shows to get advertising, but no prollem for Limbaugh, et. all.

Edited September 14, 2010 by greg775

[Rex Kickass]

Nice answer. Thanks.

I asked the question, because there's even a local morning radio show here where the host is like a mini-Limbaugh. I happened to have it on in the car for some reason.

 

It's all conservative. He had a guest from NY who wrote a book on how bad Obama is.

 

This author basically said Obama is not intelligent and on and on.

 

Then I turned on Limbaugh and it was all Obama, all the time. Obama being awful of course.

 

Man, those Bill O'Reilly videos on youtube are awesome when he fights with people like Phil Donahue.

Some amazing screaming.

And isn't that Glenn Beck guy conservative as well?

 

Like you said though, the media is considered liberal in general. You'd just think they'd have the national talk show voice. With all the liberals out there, you'd think it'd be tough for these shows to get advertising, but no prollem for Limbaugh, et. all.

 

There was a "liberal talk radio" moment, but it kinda fell apart because the people behind it were pretty shady and had some really questionable financial backing. There was a crop of radio stars that I thought could have actually had some staying power and created a really counterpunch to right wing talk radio, and been fairly successful at it. But one became a Senator (Al Franken), one became a TV star (Rachel Maddow), and one went bat s*** crazy (Randi Rhodes).

 

Part of the other problem is that "liberal" audiences tend to like more in depth reporting than they like opinions and rants. So there's NPR for that. And the NPR audience is huge. Rush gets about 12 million listeners weekly, Morning Edition is on the magnitude of 20 million listeners weekly. Are they all liberal? Of course not. But a big chunk of that potential audience is right there.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There was a "liberal talk radio" moment, but it kinda fell apart because the people behind it were pretty shady and had some really questionable financial backing. There was a crop of radio stars that I thought could have actually had some staying power and created a really counterpunch to right wing talk radio, and been fairly successful at it. But one became a Senator (Al Franken), one became a TV star (Rachel Maddow), and one went bat s*** crazy (Randi Rhodes).

 

Part of the other problem is that "liberal" audiences tend to like more in depth reporting than they like opinions and rants. So there's NPR for that. And the NPR audience is huge. Rush gets about 12 million listeners weekly, Morning Edition is on the magnitude of 20 million listeners weekly. Are they all liberal? Of course not. But a big chunk of that potential audience is right there.

 

You sir, are a freakin' delight to read. This is what I thought of while reading that sentence:

How's it smell?

[Balta1701]

You sir, are a freakin' delight to read. This is what I thought of while reading that sentence:

How's it smell?

 

Ok, that was a solid reply.

[NorthSideSox72]

You sir, are a freakin' delight to read. This is what I thought of while reading that sentence:

How's it smell?

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you here.

 

Here's the thing. Populist movements attract the ignorant and uninformed. In 2007-2008, with everyone pissed at W, ObamaCo did a spectacular job overcoming major hurdles by harnessing that anger and frustration. There were a lot of people who fell into the "hope" thing, and thought Obama was going to fix everything. Now, that does NOT mean that everyone who voted for Obama is ignorant.

 

Same thing with this Tea Party movement. It attracts all manner of the hateful and ignorant, but that does not mean everyone in it is that.

 

Neither party has a particular hold on intelligent discussion, over time.

 

[Rex Kickass]

You sir, are a freakin' delight to read. This is what I thought of while reading that sentence:

How's it smell?

 

Nice. But I'm not saying anything that ratings and surveys don't already play out.

 

Pew Research did a survey on people's media habits when it came to where people get their news and news type programming from.

 

The top five news and opinion sources for the average NRA supporter are - 1. Rush Limbaugh, 2. Sean Hannity, 3. Glenn Beck, 4. Bill O'Reilly, 5. Fox News

The top five news and opinion sources for the average gay rights supporter are - 1. The New York Times, 2. Colbert Report, 3. NPR, 4. Daily Show, 5. Keith Olbermann

 

You can call me smug all you want, but I think there is a reason why Fox News is so popular with conservatives - and its because their flagship programs (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck) all focus on opinion making rather than news reporting.

 

http://people-press.org/report/652/

[NorthSideSox72]

Nice. But I'm not saying anything that ratings and surveys don't already play out.

 

Pew Research did a survey on people's media habits when it came to where people get their news and news type programming from.

 

The top five news and opinion sources for the average NRA supporter are - 1. Rush Limbaugh, 2. Sean Hannity, 3. Glenn Beck, 4. Bill O'Reilly, 5. Fox News

The top five news and opinion sources for the average gay rights supporter are - 1. The New York Times, 2. Colbert Report, 3. NPR, 4. Daily Show, 5. Keith Olbermann

 

You can call me smug all you want, but I think there is a reason why Fox News is so popular with conservatives - and its because their flagship programs (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck) all focus on opinion making rather than news reporting.

 

http://people-press.org/report/652/

well, let's be honest here. Of the five you cite among liberals, only two are actual news sources (NYT, NPR), and both have a liberal slant at one level or another.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Nice. But I'm not saying anything that ratings and surveys don't already play out.

 

Pew Research did a survey on people's media habits when it came to where people get their news and news type programming from.

 

The top five news and opinion sources for the average NRA supporter are - 1. Rush Limbaugh, 2. Sean Hannity, 3. Glenn Beck, 4. Bill O'Reilly, 5. Fox News

The top five news and opinion sources for the average gay rights supporter are - 1. The New York Times, 2. Colbert Report, 3. NPR, 4. Daily Show, 5. Keith Olbermann

 

You can call me smug all you want, but I think there is a reason why Fox News is so popular with conservatives - and its because their flagship programs (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck) all focus on opinion making rather than news reporting.

 

http://people-press.org/report/652/

 

Perhaps the obvious answer (bringing this back to the poster's question about why there isn't much of a liberal radio presence), is that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the message isn't all that popular? The fact is there's very little difference between talking heads like Limbaugh/Hannity or Olbermann/Maddow other than the viewing numbers. They all give you the good zingers, they often interrupt people and pretend like they're the smartest person alive, they attack the other side and speak in ridiculous hyperbole (all to a varying degree, sure, but they all do it). The only difference at the end of the day is the message.

 

Clearly we know your view on that - the fox news audience is just a bunch of morons. But maybe, MAYBE (i know, big stretch since conservatives are the racist, homophobic idiots), the liberal message isn't all that popular? That (gulp) even intelligent people don't care for it? Maybe?

 

 

(also, I find it funny that 2 of the 5 news "sources" for liberals are comedy shows. If that doesn't scream irony i dunno what does)

Edited September 15, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

well, let's be honest here. Of the five you cite among liberals, only two are actual news sources (NYT, NPR), and both have a liberal slant at one level or another.

 

That's one more news source than the conservatives have in their top five. And the New York Times and NPR hardly paint the shrill voice that Limbaugh, Hannity or Bill "f*** it, we'll do it live" O'Reilly have.

[Rex Kickass]

Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell defeats GOP Establishment candidate Mike Castle in the Delaware primary.

It's also not looking good for Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire against a tea party insurgent.

 

Good news for tea partiers, not so good news for the Republican party. According to Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight, if both win their primaries tonight, GOP chances of taking the Senate are roughly halved.

[mr_genius]

That's one more news source than the conservatives have in their top five. And the New York Times and NPR hardly paint the shrill voice that Limbaugh, Hannity or Bill "f*** it, we'll do it live" O'Reilly have.

 

no one is more shrill than NPR. lol.

[lostfan]

Perhaps the obvious answer (bringing this back to the poster's question about why there isn't much of a liberal radio presence), is that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the message isn't all that popular? The fact is there's very little difference between talking heads like Limbaugh/Hannity or Olbermann/Maddow other than the viewing numbers. They all give you the good zingers, they often interrupt people and pretend like they're the smartest person alive, they attack the other side and speak in ridiculous hyperbole (all to a varying degree, sure, but they all do it). The only difference at the end of the day is the message.

 

Clearly we know your view on that - the fox news audience is just a bunch of morons. But maybe, MAYBE (i know, big stretch since conservatives are the racist, homophobic idiots), the liberal message isn't all that popular? That (gulp) even intelligent people don't care for it? Maybe?

 

 

(also, I find it funny that 2 of the 5 news "sources" for liberals are comedy shows. If that doesn't scream irony i dunno what does)

No. It's really not that simple, like I said you could write an entire book for all the different reasons. That's just fantasy thinking, and frankly kind of lazy actually. Really there is not necessarily a "liberal narrative" to oppose whatever conservatives might be talking about (it's really not a coincidence that all the different outlets are roughly talking about the same thing at any given time either) and there is not usually a unified message (see the Democratic Party). It's just not how that crowd works. Only recently did liberals start to define things as "us vs. them," it used to be like a world with a bunch of different opinions but now it's two entirely different worlds. Conservatives felt that the status quo wasn't adequate so they just went out and made their own. Liberals haven't even attempted to do that sort of thing (for every Maddow you can name at least 5 conservative pundits)

[Jenksismyhero]

No. It's really not that simple, like I said you could write an entire book for all the different reasons. That's just fantasy thinking, and frankly kind of lazy actually. Really there is not necessarily a "liberal narrative" to oppose whatever conservatives might be talking about (it's really not a coincidence that all the different outlets are roughly talking about the same thing at any given time either) and there is not usually a unified message (see the Democratic Party). It's just not how that crowd works. Only recently did liberals start to define things as "us vs. them," it used to be like a world with a bunch of different opinions but now it's two entirely different worlds. Conservatives felt that the status quo wasn't adequate so they just went out and made their own. Liberals haven't even attempted to do that sort of thing (for every Maddow you can name at least 5 conservative pundits)

 

It's probably not that simple, but you're naive to think that the answer is some complex mystery. The democratic party does have a message - it's protect the little guy and let the government help you. That works for some people depending on circumstances, but not always. Most of the time the majority of the country doesn't like government, doesn't trust the government, and doesn't want the government telling them what to do.

 

And you think the Republican party always has a unified message? Look at the "republicans" versus the "libertarians" versus the "tea party." I'd hardly call that a unified message.

 

You make it sound like liberals have been a minority power during its history, with no strategy. It was the majority for a long, long time. They absolutely attempted the "status quo isn't good enough" mantra, what do you think the message was during the Bush years (and now)? Top 1% holds all the wealth, society has left you behind, wall street has failed you, blah blah.

 

And there's 5 conservative pundits for every one of Maddow because, again, the message sells. They're the same people with different opinions. If those opinions resonated with the public, they'd be popular (see, the daily show, colbert report). I'd consider Obama's campaign "liberal," and he caught the attention of a lot of people, including moderates and republicans. Just because liberals haven't created a Reilly (who's really more moderate that people think) or Beck (who is creepy, no lie), doesn't mean that anyone who follows those guys are just morons like Rex thinks.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

And there's 5 conservative pundits for every one of Maddow because, again, the message sells. They're the same people with different opinions. If those opinions resonated with the public, they'd be popular (see, the daily show, colbert report). I'd consider Obama's campaign "liberal," and he caught the attention of a lot of people, including moderates and republicans. Just because liberals haven't created a Reilly (who's really more moderate that people think) or Beck (who is creepy, no lie), doesn't mean that anyone who follows those guys are just morons like Rex thinks.

 

Way to put words in my mouth. I don't think that "conservative" listeners are morons. In fact, as an unapologetic Democrat, I honestly wish that we had a stronger echo chamber similar to what the Republicans have. It would make for a much stronger position this November, because the party's message might actually get some traction in pundit land.

 

But the demographics of the "liberal"audience are different, because the "liberal" audience is frankly more diverse. I don't have the numbers, but I'd wager that the average Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, random Conservative pundit audience is pretty much the same - white and primarily male. Not making a judgment call on what that means, that's just what the audience appears to me to be.

 

On the other hand a "liberal" audience is more female than male, and is more likely to consist of multiple minority communities, each of whom have their own narrative. "Liberal"audiences don't maintain the kind of ideological purity that "conservative" audiences tends to have, because so many communities come from completely different places. And that audience doesn't tend to be attracted to political talk radio - at least partially because its not marketed to those people, partially because its not created with those people in mind, and partially because they aren't inclined to that kind of format.

 

I think this is the point I was trying to make earlier.

[Chisoxfn]

 

Ok, that was a solid reply.

The initial response was not appropriate either. It clearly was a shot at the republican base and the type of radio we listen to and it was in the republican thread.

[lostfan]

It's probably not that simple, but you're naive to think that the answer is some complex mystery. The democratic party does have a message - it's protect the little guy and let the government help you. That works for some people depending on circumstances, but not always. Most of the time the majority of the country doesn't like government, doesn't trust the government, and doesn't want the government telling them what to do.

 

And you think the Republican party always has a unified message? Look at the "republicans" versus the "libertarians" versus the "tea party." I'd hardly call that a unified message.

 

You make it sound like liberals have been a minority power during its history, with no strategy. It was the majority for a long, long time. They absolutely attempted the "status quo isn't good enough" mantra, what do you think the message was during the Bush years (and now)? Top 1% holds all the wealth, society has left you behind, wall street has failed you, blah blah.

 

And there's 5 conservative pundits for every one of Maddow because, again, the message sells. They're the same people with different opinions. If those opinions resonated with the public, they'd be popular (see, the daily show, colbert report). I'd consider Obama's campaign "liberal," and he caught the attention of a lot of people, including moderates and republicans. Just because liberals haven't created a Reilly (who's really more moderate that people think) or Beck (who is creepy, no lie), doesn't mean that anyone who follows those guys are just morons like Rex thinks.

I'm not saying it's some complex mystery. I don't think it's naive at all, just that there's a lot of different reasons going into it. If you picked 10 elected Democrats and asked them to list 3 goals they have in government you'll probably get all kinds of different answers but if you do the same for Republicans you'll probably see that they're remarkably consistent. Lower taxes, smaller government, personal liberty, etc. something off that list. You hear Boehner and McConnell talk on separate days and then you pick a random Republican off TV and they are saying the same thing. I see your point in the lack of cohesion sometimes and the different competing factions in the party (Tea Party rallies look disjointed sometimes when you have people conflicting each other) but I don't think that it's that significant.

 

Democrats are just really, really bad at communicating their goals. Conservatives figured this out a long time ago, before I was born. The conservative message is much simpler and easier to follow IMO, it's spelled out in Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative and so on. Sure, Krugman wrote "Conscience of a Liberal" but that hardly compares.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell defeats GOP Establishment candidate Mike Castle in the Delaware primary.

It's also not looking good for Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire against a tea party insurgent.

 

Good news for tea partiers, not so good news for the Republican party. According to Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight, if both win their primaries tonight, GOP chances of taking the Senate are roughly halved.

I've thought for a while that a growing Tea Party is good for the Democrats. A Tea Party candidate vs a Democrat only energizes the dem base ("we don't want that Tea Party wacho in there") and disenfranchises the more centrist republicans.

[southsider2k5]

I've thought for a while that a growing Tea Party is good for the Democrats. A Tea Party candidate vs a Democrat only energizes the dem base ("we don't want that Tea Party wacho in there") and disenfranchises the more centrist republicans.

 

I don't think that is true at all. The centrist repubs are the ones who wanted limited interference in all aspects of their lives. They are excited by this movement because it not only focuses on taxes, but also spending and rules. The real center of the party is much more hands-off. The Democrats are threatened by this which is why they have mobilized so quickly to label the entire movement as racist and uneducated, which you are seeing on this very board. They are painting a vocal minority as much more than it really is. It would be akin to painting guys like Al Sharpton and the guy who took Discovery hostage as the center of the Democratic party.

[Balta1701]

I don't think that is true at all. The centrist repubs are the ones who wanted limited interference in all aspects of their lives. They are excited by this movement because it not only focuses on taxes, but also spending and rules. The real center of the party is much more hands-off. The Democrats are threatened by this which is why they have mobilized so quickly to label the entire movement as racist and uneducated, which you are seeing on this very board. They are painting a vocal minority as much more than it really is. It would be akin to painting guys like Al Sharpton and the guy who took Discovery hostage as the center of the Democratic party.

But sir...the reason why the racial angles and everything else comes up is that "limited interference in all aspects of their lives" is a slogan that goes away the moment that it becomes inconvenient. By far the best example I could ever give of this effect is SB 1070...which, whether you want to admit it or not, is by definition a gigantic government interference in people's lives. "I'm from the government and I'm here to check your papers to make sure you're not breaking the law" is about the most classic oppressive government line you can come up with, yet, that bill has gotten virtually zero anger out of the tea party.

 

I can come up with a solid variety of continuing examples from the past couple years as well. "I'm from the government and I'm listening to your phone calls to make sure you're not breaking the law" would be one of those things that would get a legimate "limited government interference" group riled up, but because the Terrorism excuse gets applied...no one cares. I'm from the government and I'm here to torture you until you talk, or I'm from the government and you don't get a trial because I say you don't...same exact line.

 

The center of the Republican party is no more hands-off than the center of the Democratic party, it just picks different issues to be hands-off about.

[Jenksismyhero]

But sir...the reason why the racial angles and everything else comes up is that "limited interference in all aspects of their lives" is a slogan that goes away the moment that it becomes inconvenient. By far the best example I could ever give of this effect is SB 1070...which, whether you want to admit it or not, is by definition a gigantic government interference in people's lives. "I'm from the government and I'm here to check your papers to make sure you're not breaking the law" is about the most classic oppressive government line you can come up with, yet, that bill has gotten virtually zero anger out of the tea party.

 

I can come up with a solid variety of continuing examples from the past couple years as well. "I'm from the government and I'm listening to your phone calls to make sure you're not breaking the law" would be one of those things that would get a legimate "limited government interference" group riled up, but because the Terrorism excuse gets applied...no one cares. I'm from the government and I'm here to torture you until you talk, or I'm from the government and you don't get a trial because I say you don't...same exact line.

 

The center of the Republican party is no more hands-off than the center of the Democratic party, it just picks different issues to be hands-off about.

 

You don't think there's a difference between government action to combat illegal acts and needless government action mandating how Americans should live their lives (and how to spend their money)? I haven't heard the Tea Partiers claiming that we don't need police departments either, but that doesn't make their message of limited government interference invalid.