Saturday, January 19, 2008
|
|
SOUTH CAROLINA'S BIG LOSER: TALK RADIO
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
11:46 PM
|
|
SOUTH CAROLINA’S BIG LOSER: TALK RADIO
It’s obvious that the big winner in South Carolina was John McCain (grabbing 33% of the vote in a hard-fought win and 19 of the 22 awarded delegates), but it’s also worth pausing for a moment to identify the primary’s biggest loser.
That loser wasn’t Mike Huckabee (who ran a strong second with 30% of the vote and will certainly continue his underdog campaign), nor was it Fred Thompson (who placed third with 16%, despite talk of his last minute surge) or even Mitt Romney (with a feeble fourth place finish, despite investing more money in the state than any of his rivals).
The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight.
For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If you’ve tuned in at all to Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck. As always, led by Rush Limbaugh (who because of talent and seniority continues to dominate the medium) the talk radio herd has ridden in precisely the same direction, insisting that McCain and Huckabee deserve no support because they’re not “real conservatives.” A month ago, the angry right launched the slogan that Mike Huckabee is a “pro-life liberal.” More recently, after McCain’s energizing victory in New Hampshire, they trotted out the mantra that the Arizona Senator (with a life-time rating for his Congressional voting record of 83% from the American Conservative Union) is a “pro-war liberal.”
Well, the two alleged “liberals,” McCain and Huckabee just swept a total of 63% of the Republican vote in deeply conservative South Carolina. Meanwhile, the two darlings of talk radio -- Mitt Romney and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson—combined for an anemic 31% of the vote.
How conservative was the electorate that cast ballots on Saturday (in a big, enthusiastic turnout despite inclement weather)? Exit polls showed 69% of GOP voters described themselves as “conservative” (as opposed to “liberal” or “moderate.”) Among those self-styled conservatives, an overwhelming 61% went for Mac and Huck; only 35% for Mitt and Fred).
The exit polls even sorted out voters who described themselves as “VERY conservative” –a group that represented a full 34% of the primary day electorate. If any segment of the public should have been influenced by all the apocalyptic shouting about “the end of conservatism” if Huckabee or McCain led a national ticket and defined a new direction for the GOP, it would have been these folks. Among “Very Conservative” voters, however, Huckabee won handily (with 41%). Again, the Huck-and-Mac duo, representing talk radio’s two designated villains, swept 60% of the “Very Conservative” voters in very conservative South Carolina while Mitt and Fred combined for only 38% (22% for Thompson, 16% for Romney).
In other words, even among the most right wing segment of the South Carolina electorate, talk radio failed – and failed miserably – in efforts to destroy and discredit Huckabee and McCain.
As the campaign moves forward, my colleagues in talk radio (along with program directors, general managers, advertisers and the other segments of our industry) ought to reconsider the one-sided, embittered negativity toward two of our four surviving candidates for President (Fred Thompson’s departure from the race is reportedly imminent, after he “consults” with his hospital bound mother).
McCain and Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives --and so, for that matter, are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter (who’s due to leave the race within twenty-four hours). Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates each of whom, in his own way, represents different aspects of the Reagan legacy?
There’s no need to pretend that the candidates are identically conservative (they’re certainly not), or equally qualified, or similarly appealing. But they’re all solid Republicans, dedicated public servants, and worthy contenders for the party’s nomination. Most important, each of them is vastly preferable to Clinton or Obama.
Heading into Florida (on January 29th) we need to acknowledge that one of four remaining contenders will almost certainly head the Republican ticket. He (whoever he turns out to be) will need a united party and a revived, renewed conservative coalition.
South Carolina demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of concerted efforts by the conservative media elite to derail the campaigns of two popular candidates. Continued efforts in that direction will prove no more effective, and will hurt both our industry and the Republican Party.
In other words, the talk radio jihad against Mac and Huck hasn’t destroyed or even visibly damaged those candidates. But it has damaged, and may help destroy, talk radio
|
|
Michael, yes they are all good men. However, McCain is NOT what he pretends to be. You would have to live in Arizona to know just how true everything that Rush, and even your friend, Hugh Hewitt, says. I do, Michael, and John McCain, although a war hero and a patriot, is only conservative when it is in his best interest . . . such as a presidential election. He is NOT a conservative when he really should be; such as, taxes, judges, the environment, etc., etc., etc.
Talk radio has lost nothing, but the republican party will suffer a big loss if John McCain is nominated.
Pat
Prescott, AZ |
|
Michael,
The same argument about McCain's victory can be said about Romney's win last week. How do you explain Romney's 9 point blowout of McCain, when Independents and Democrats could vote.
To say that South Carolina of all places is a bell weather for what is to come is a joke. Rudy get's his say in 10 days so please stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Your burning some bridges with your colleagues at an alarming rate and for what? Because you have this deep seeded passion to say "I told you so?"
Congratulations McCain on a good win, but you have a lot more people to win over before you get the nomination.
|
|
This is a minor battle in a long War. If Huck had won you would be saying the same thing. 1/4 of the voters were military and it is an open primary. That is highly unique. 55-60 % of the voters were Evangelicals that is also highly unique. Rudy was not in the race and Romney went to NV. A great number of things favored McCain and Huck in SC.
Talk Radio did not lose. It won when it stopped McCain and the Amnesty Bill last summer. That took some time. Beating McCain in closed primaries will also take some time. The field is too fragmented right now but pretty soon it will be down to 2 or 3 candidates and McCain will not be able to win with 30 percent (1/2 of Independents and the rest Military).
As volatile as it has been so far, McCain may not even be viable after FL and Super T. |
|
The GOP has lost when they insist on cramming a RINO down the throats of conservative voters.
They, accompanied by old media, constantly beat the drums for Huckabee and McCain...hoping that this will create "inevitability" on the part of these two candidates, thinking voters will be stupid enough to fall for it. Don't think so. |
|
|
..when the majority have their say. Talk radio represents a small percentage of the GOP vote. Most Republicans are much more concerned with the war on terror and on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage than some of the crazies on talk radio who think that Mexicans picking tomatoes at 5 bucks an hour is our biggest threat. Wake up people and vote for someone who is our only chance of holding the white house in November...John McCain. |
|
|
If McCain's win means a victory for centrism then it may be reflecting the same thing as Obama's popularity, and the total meaning may simply be that Americans are sick and tired of extremism and are ready to come together and compromise. McCain offers a moderate kind of Republicanism. Obama's message is one of unity. In both cases, people are offered an alterantive to extreme partisanship. |
|
|
About a year ago, Medved consistently moved away from the critical thinking (that I used to admire in him) and just started venting at some unknown slight against him. I think the conservative base's absolute rejection of McCain's amnesty bill (that Michael fully supported) really angered and offended Medved and he's been in payback mode ever since. What is the point of this recent blog entry? He's saying since South Carolina voters didn't automatically vote for who the majority of conservative pundits wanted...that's a bad thing? That talk radio's real power (including his own) is only manifest when controlling the minds of the conservative base? What an absurd statement to make. I do wonder where Michael will go after this election, once he's done burning all conservative bridges and trashing his peers as irrelevant. Get over it Michael and move on... |
|
|
I have said this a couple of times recently, but it needs to be said again. John McCain was under serious consideration for the vice-presidency with John Kerry. Why? I can only guess, but the Dems must have felt McCain agreed with them on their most important issues. |
|
I've been hearing so much about how McCain is the only electable candidate in the fall. Wow, if that's the case then our party really is in trouble.
Romney and Giulliani have much better ideas for our country than does McCain. Because when it comes down to our nominee versus their nominee, our ideas will trump theirs. And who says Independents won't vote for a conservative Republican? I think one of the massive failures of this administration has been their incompetence in articulating to the American people why conservative principles are truly better for them.
Romney and Giulliani can and will articulate the conservative message better than McCain. Many feel Giullian's personal baggage would sink him, I think McCain's Washington baggage and horrible legislation failures is baggage the American people don't want. McCain is Bob Dole with less hair, a Washington insider who has a lot of favors to repay.
There's a reason why so many liberal pundits are quick to say that Giulliani is done and Romney is unelectable...they hope to change the minds of those conservatives to vote for McCain and Huckebee because that's who they really want to face. |
|
America is sick and the people are looking returning to Conservative principles.
America will not continue to give up individual sovereignty to corporate greed.
Not matter what Bush and his RINO wanna be Reaganites do or say America has always been and will always be the greatest Nation on God's green earth. |
|
|
has become powerful and corrupt. The new media has become the old media and America has become responsible. Our choices are not perfect but they are our own and that is enough to scare the crap out of the establishment |
|
Michael,
I'd take your proposal more seriously if you didn't take every available opportunity to smear Mitt Romney. You call him a good man, but then in the next breath you call his actions "pathetic", "sleazy" or the like...hardly the words of someone interested in unity and reconciliation. As far as I'm concerned, you've done your best to completely destroy the chance of Republicans truly coming together over a nominee by being such a homer for McCain and by your vicious personal attacks on someone who truly IS a good man, Mitt Romney. |
|
|
They have jumped the shark and take themselves way too seriously. |
|
Giuliani is a LIBERAL.
On all of the social issues, and some fiscal ones, their hearts are 100% liberal Democrat and they have the track record to prove it.
Pro-choice.
Pro-gay marriage.
Pro-euthanasia.
Anti-second ammendment.
Anti-Reagan (in the case of Romney).
Giuliani is Unelectable.
Romney is Unelectable.
The Christians will NOT vote for either man and the GOP cannot win in November without massive Christian votes. Not gonna get it.
Mitt Romney is the second coming of Bob Dole.
A laughingstock of a candidate who becomes a parody of himself. |
|
As an Arizonan, I've always voted for McCain over the democrat.
No more. While McCain was pushing amnesty, ranchers and farmers in southern Arizona were having their lands and crops trampled under by illegals crossing the border. Many farmers and ranchers endured the trespassing and wasting of their lands while John McCain ignored their plight.
No, if McCain were a conservative who cared, he would have done something. He would have made it his quest to protect his constituents. Instead, he works with Ted Kennedy to advance the liberals agenda.
Don't give us McCain as the nominee. Let him move to South Carolina or New Hampshire. They're welcome to have him. |
|
I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement with MedVed, but I do agree that talk radio hosts have thought way too highly of themselves and tried to push Romney through by trashing others. They are driven by blind ideology that demands 100% conformety and in their crazed drive to attack Huckabee they shot themselves in the foot, putting McCain in position to win the nomination.
Talk radio went out of it's way to trash Huckabee and outright lie about his positions, characterizing him as a dumb Christian hick, naming him the "Huckster". Without these attacks Huckabee could have defeated McCain. Instead, McCain, the guy talk radio hates the most (and perhaps the most unorthodox of conservatives) is now poised to take the nomination. A fitting pay-back and slap in the face to the talk radio pundits.
And one more thing. If anyone thinks Huckabee supporters will ever support Romney after his attacks and the attacks made on his behalf by talk radio, they will again be sadly mistaken. If Huckabee has no chance to win in a state and they can help McCain (or anyone) beat Romney they will do it in a heart beat. They know the GOP elite who are behind Romney will never let Huckabee on the ticket as V.P., but with McCain they will at least have a shot.
The V.P. ticket is going to be critical for Huckabee. If he wins with McCain, Huckabee is young and could have a shot in 2016 or maybe even 2012 if McCains age and health don't allow him to seek another term. And if he's on the ticket and looses, well then Huckabee will be in good shape to run again in 2012.
So basically, MedVed is on target here. South Carolina shows that talk radio lost big. Their game backfired on them and they now have what they say is their worse nightmare. The only question now for talk radio is who can they attack next to try and save Romney?
|
|
Therefore in Nevada TALK RADIO is the big winner.... OOPS,,, sorry Medved
I forgot you did not want to mention that part. cheery pickin nitwit |
|
is principled conservative only in the meaning that he is willing to use gay bashing as campaign strategy. Like Hitler who gained access to power through democratic process by spreading hatred and fear towards a minority, Huckabee is doing the same. Great conservative credentials and if he wins it won't be only squirrels that end up dead.
Huckabee is a totalitarian lunatic who has stated that he wants to replace US constitution with a Bible. He is the true voice of Christianists and theocrats. |
|
|
...for finally mentioning Duncan Hunter's name...now that he has dropped out. |
|
For some time now Medved has been the only one willing to break ranks with the other Talk radio people. Sure people don't call him a Great American or wish him megadito's when they call but he was write one immigration when all other where irrational, and he is right about McCain. I find it funny that no matter when you blog there is always some Romney supporter to attack you for what you said. I think highly of you and hope you keep of the good work. As for Nevada if you listened to any talk radio this week you know most of the big talker didn't give two licks about it and historically North Carolina has been the tie breaker for Republicans.
But give Romney Credit he is leading the delegates because he has gone after states that others have written off or simply didn't try for and as long as he keeps writing checks to himself he is going to be a force. |
|
MM continues to beat the pro-Illegals drum whenever the opportunity arises...regardless of the facts.
If Duncan Hunter drops-out, would not his anti-Illegals supporters mirror what Tom Tancredo's supporters did (at his suggestion) and move to Romney?
If Fred Thompson drops-out, would not his pro-Reagan supporters migrate to the only remaining candidate who is articulating them (both on domestic and foreign policy fronts?).
If Rudy mis-fires in Florida (which appears likely, according to trends, despite his having visited The Villages on a weekly basis since September), then the risk of a third-party (pro-Life) candidacy will have passed.
If the Huckster continues to win, essentially, only a portion of the Evangelicals, he will become an asterisk (*).
When future primaries exclude Democrats and Independents, McCain will fall.
That will leave Mitt.
|
|
Having provided my "disclaimer" (and, perhaps, fantasy, although I think it's reality-based), it is necessary to confront MM's hypothesis.
He says the Talk Radio hosts have lost because of the continued presence of the Huckster and McCain. I say the Talk Radio hosts have won because they have educated listeners nationally as to the fatal-flaws of these two faux-Republicans.
If there is ANYTHING that ALL of the candidates has consistently articulated, it is reverence for REAGAN. This means that one does not pander on one's principles to get elected. This means that the Reagan Revolution (particularly as it has affected this convert) needs to be reapplied to current circumstances.
Thus, noting the unabashed success in killing McCain-Kennedy over the summer, the Talk Radio hosts have "earned" empowerment in a key-way. They may not merit the ability to endorse, but they certainly deserve the ability to demonstrate flaws.
This counterbalances the MSM, of course, and so what else is new? |
|
67% of SC voters voted against McCain.You also have an oxymoronic situation where people who listed the economy and illegal immigration as the top two issues voted for McCain. This shows they voted for him based on his military service and actually ignored the issues. The big winners yesterday were the people in Mexico and illegals already here. If you wind up with a Hillary vs. McCain general election, it's gaurenteed that within 6 months,illegals will be permanent residents and deport proof. Hillary won Nevada yesterday by saying no woman is illegal.
You can talk all you want about fighting pork but that money isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what the illegal turned legal immigrants will cost this country over the next 20 years.
McCain won in SC because his buddy Thompson went on the attack against Huck and peeled away a lot of evans.Independents also played the sopiler role again.
I would never count Limbaugh out.Until McCain gets the nom he's still the man that runs America. Florida is a much more wide open demographic state. |
|
|
Medved doesn't speak for those of us who haven't voted... er... "primaried" yet. I thought it ain't over until the fat lady screams. On second thought when the dragon lady closes her mouth. |
|
|
|
I would advise that anyone trying to find any inconsistency in my (extensive) postings, please, to review those of Friday-a.m. and Thursday=a.m. on the above-hyperlink.
You will find that I concluded the following:
"Specifically, symptoms have included: NEGAGIVE MIND-READING, OXYMORONIC, SOUR GRAPES (#1), DISINGENEOUS, SOUR GRAPES (#2), DENIAL, MEAN-SPIRITED, PSYCHOTIC, RHETORICAL-MANIPULATION, GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION, BIAS, CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, TAKING-OUT-OF-CONTEXT, ANTI-INTELLECTUAL, ANTI-PATRIOTIC, UNDOCUMENTED ATTACK, KILLING-WITH-FAINT-PRAISE, ANTI-REAGAN."
These symptoms are now becoming increasingly exacerbated due to MM's unmasked exhibit of psychotic-thinking (with all due respects to Pop Psychology). The "Four A's of Bleuler" are (1)--Flat Affect, (2)--Loose Associations, (3)--Ambivalence, and (4)--Autism. He has 2/4 of them.
Granted, he remains animated and forthright, but he has VERY loose associations and is increasingly self-isolated (by his own admission). As noted by multiple listeners, his shows are far more strident than those of the Talk Show hosts he has lambasted.
I will go further.
MM insults the intelligence of a thinking listener when he excerpts "outrageously."
For example, take his "index" essay, supra....
|
|
To refute MM, consider:
(1)--"Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates each of whom, in his own way, represents different aspects of the Reagan legacy? There’s no need to pretend that the candidates are identically conservative (they’re certainly not), or equally qualified, or similarly appealing. But they’re all solid Republicans, dedicated public servants, and worthy contenders for the party’s nomination. Most important, each of them is vastly preferable to Clinton or Obama."
As noted earlier, what MM is trying to do is to minimize faults in the two people he favors by suggesting that all the candidates have faults. This rhetorical manipulation is to be condemned. The Huckster's brand of "Republicanism" is reprehensible to anyone who can see beyond his efforts to portray himself as "pastoral" (recall the disgusting display, when he suggested that those who criticize S.C. should have a flagpole placed up their rear-ends). McCain's dependence on his early support of the Surge is getting "old," for his opposition to Coercive Interrogation (as per prior discussions in other blogs) is inconsistent with (1)--logic (for we won't stop them from torturing us if we don't torture them, as McCain's own experience proves), and (2)--common sense (for we will need to be able to de-fuse the proverbial ticking-timebomb).
Thus, it is maliciously misleading for MM to elide over such fundamentals while trying overtly to poison the discourse on TownHall.com. |
|
MM concluded thusly:
(2)--"In other words, the talk radio jihad against Mac and Huck hasn’t destroyed or even visibly damaged those candidates. But it has damaged, and may help destroy, talk radio."
First, of course, equating what Talk Radio hosts have done to engaging in "jihad" would be the very type of reference which, in any other context, MM would condemn with justifiable zeal.
This reflects the depth of his anguish over his increasingly-isolated posture. Essentially, he is projecting upon others the pathology that he, himself, is exhibiting.
Second, he's incorrect. The Huckster has not budged beyond his (partial) Evangelical support-base into the world of economic populism that he has consistently attempted to cede to him during the past few weeks (on his radio show and on TownHall.com essays).
As I wrote earlier, Talk Radio hosts have earned the right (noting the successful efforts AGAINST certain initiatives, such as Harriet Myers) to show FAULTS in people, preferentially to showing whom they might prefer. McCain lost in Michigan and the Huckster lost in S.C. as a direct result.
The MSM will proclaim otherwise, for they want to hurt the GOP....even when they assiduously cite the continued peskiness of Ron Paul.
But a recent Politico.com column noted that only Mitt has the $$$-reserves to compete in the upcoming 22-state Super-Duper Tuesday effectively.
Regardless of the Florida results, can the MM-apologists reasonably suspect that he won't continue accruing the plurality/majority of delegates in the process? |
|
|
Talk Radio has and will be I suspect a true voice in the political and social discourse in this country and deservingly so. BUT and a BIG BUT, what talk radio has lost track of is one of the most important tenants that they constantly and at this point over play is that WE, the listeners are NOT mind numbed robots, but an informed and intelligent audience. Maybe it is time for talk radio to take up the position of audience. We the people are sick and tired of nothing getting done, constant ranker, incessant pontificating, and more and more the perception that just as talk radio has pointed out that the Democrats have their talking points, talk radio it would seem have daily conference calls to ensure a united set of put downs on the two candidates McCain and Huckebee. Talk radio is sounding more like the "hate filled and resentful" Democrats that the Democrats. We need to unite with the eventual outcome of the nomination process, so I agree. |
|
|
Wakeup Conservatices before you go to the polls and do a little research on Mccain! He is not a conservative and will be the worst candidate for the Republican party. I will not vote for Mccain if he is the nominee. I will sit out. I would rather have a republican over Hillary but I can not in good faith vote for the old man. Just because someone was a POW does not qualify him to be president. A fighter pilot flys alone unlike Mitt Romney who has worked difficult situations with a team of people for 25 or so years. You may not agree with Mormon theology but do you agree with Mccainology???? That is the question. |
|
|
[I keep trying to post a summary note, but it doesn't appear to register; anyone have a comparable experience?] |
|
|
What the talkers lost was listners. It was almost as bad as trying to listen to Air America. Almost. |
|
To summarize (in two parts, to increase the chance that this will get uploaded):
(1)--MM continues to abuse the privilege of functioning as a reputable pundit whose citation from the universally-accessible database can be trusted.
(2)--MM's thesis is incorrect, for Talk Radio reflects what mainstream R's [in counterdistinction to either the MSM or the Independents/Demoncrats who have voted in the R-primaries, thus far] think/feel about the candidates.
(3)--MM is ignoring the pivotal facts (recalling the Reality Show compulsion to "vote off of the island" the least viable candidates) that two of the remaining candidates will predictably fade:(a)--The Huckster has no appreciable non-Evangelical support within the GOP, and (b)--Rudy is not going to dominate Florida, yielding uncertain consequences (even in larger states) for this pro-Choicer.
|
|
(4)--MM is trying to do precisely what is most venal when heard on MSNBC, namely, to defame the qualities of Mitt (or Rudy, or Fred) while elevating "carefully crafted" (to qutoe how he tried to character-assassinate Mitt's off-the-cuff acceptance speech) excerpts from the postures of his pro-Illegals (the Huckster and McCain).
(5)--MM may take pleasure in provoking people to exert energies to refute his inanities (does he think, for example, that his editorialization will forestall el-Rushbo's EIB discussion of "jello's"?), but he will only yield even more focused presentations of the disgust that his Illegals have provoked in thinking-R's.
(6)--No, folks, MM is going to provoke people (at least this one) to try to get the local radio-station to relegate him to a different time-slot. For example, in Philly, he is on from 3-6 p.m. and Hugh Hewitt follows him; perhaps a switch is in-order...and perhaps he might swap-spots later-on with Michael Savage (who is delay-played @ midnight).
This may be the only language that he will understand, for such a fate is decidedly unlikely (within the industry he claims to be defending) to be visited upon Laura, or the rest. |
|
The diagnosis for the delay in uploading the above posting was that it fell into the cracks of the length-limitation.
Although the red-print "warning" didn't appear, the posting didn't upload.
This is information that others may find useful about TownHall.com
Otherwise, my concerns with MM are unaffected by interim-postings.
CRITIQUE INVITED! |
|
|
MM is right. Conservative talk radio has lost much of its influence, as on-air hosts clearly recently came as close as they thought they could to issuing "directives" to listeners to vote for Romney (Mark Levin even expressly said so). There was a time that Rush, for example, could get people to wear his gaudy ties, take up smoking cigars, playing golf - whatever he espoused - simply because he was Rush. But South Carolina indicates acknowledged conservatives are no longer drinking the same quantity of talk radio Kool-Aid. If they were, they would have heeded the clarion call and voted for Thompson or Romney - but it didn't happen. Don't get me wrong - I'm not for McCain or Huckabee - but it seems clear to me that Talk Radio's ovedrwhelming influence is on the wane. It could be that those working in the conservative talk radio universe seem to have become more interested in promoting each other's books (like Levin's book "Rescuing Sprite") and other merchandise (Manheim Steamroller) of the Conservative Marketing Machine, assuming that listeners will continue to do as they're told and buy them, enriching one another. My own thinking has moved away from conservative monolithic thought and towards more of a "menu" approach. My thinking has evolved, more in the line of Newt Gingrich, who is now more interested in tangible results for our nation than conservative rhetoric for its own sake. This means I can now choose to accept some negative aspects of a candidate (like Romney's late conversion to his pro-life position) rather than rejecting the entirety of his or her candidacy. Rush et al must accept the fact that a generation of talk radio listeners has grown up and have now chosen to think for themselves, whether those thoughts align with those of classic talk radio or not. |
|
|
Michael is to the Republican Party, What Squealer was to Napoleon. forget conservatism, its all about the party. he doesn't really care who runs on the R Ticket. |
|
|
Your assessment is dead on but talk radio are the true Republican Conservatives. The Republican Party is now a Socialist monster that has as its goal to "out-Socialize the Radical Left. If you do not call Socialist by their right name, "Communist", you are providing them cover and some credibility. Republicans honestly believe there is a difference but there is not. The redistribution of wealth is Communism and "forced benevolence" at the ballot box is Communism ; Republicans now vote Communist but refuse to acknowledge it. Taking money from my pocket(against my desire) and giving it to another (by name) as in College grant, food stamps, housing or utility subsidy,Katrina debit cards, or any of the other give aways is an act of Communism and if you support that, you are a Communist. Republicans and conservatives have not traditionally been Communist--Democrats have a protracted history of Marxism. |
|
It's almost humorous. Reagan wasn't really a social conservative. Reagan's Supreme Court nominees were social moderates with the exception of Scalia.
Reagan was an economic conservative for smaller government, except for defense, where he promoted irresponsible spending. Reagan was an insprirational leader, but his administration was by no means the shining example of government competence that revisionists like to claim.
It's 2008, not 1980. Invoking Reagan every 5 minutes doesn't address the problems we face today, just as the problems we faced in 1932 were a world away from those we faced in 1960. |
|
|
What happenned? No Democrat Caucus in SC. No wonder McShame won. Beware of Fox News they are pushing him. I watch CNN much more and look for Lou Dobbs. Michael Medved is pulling a Tony Snowe and it didn't look like it helped Tony Snowes health. Would love to see MM's tax return. Before getting into the White House Tony Snowes show was blatantly open border. No fence, no border patrol, we need the workers, illegal immigration is down, economy is better with illegals. This was his show. I wish someone could dig it up. He even had a suspicious border patrol agent repeat tha above. |
|
MM -
How proud you must be, that Johnny McCain and Mikey Huckabee, won.... Yeehaw.... While it shows that Conservative talk radio did not influence the people of South Carolina, this does not dispell that the talking points hold true. You can claim what you want to about how conservative SC is, but, I think at the end of the day we still have real problems with our Republican choices. I disagree that Mac or Huck are the best choices for the party. Why? They are not bringing liberals or Democrats to conservative thinking, they are going to liberal thinking. Global Warming, Illegal Immigration, just to name two.... You keep glossing over the "Illegal" part for all those who are here and not supposed to be.... You think Johnny McCain will save the planet from global warming. He and Al Gore should both go to China and India, and demand they clean up their acts.... Ha Ha.... I think Global warming would be a good thing, it would lessen our need for heating oil and we could tell the middle east kooks to stick it. They could sell it all to China and India, make the planet warmer and stinkier.... So, please don't point the finger at Rush, Sean, Laura, Dennis, Mark, and the others, because you have had your own jihad against Mitt, and then claim disdain for the other talk show host.... |
|
I agree and disagree with Medved on this. First of all I do not think talk radio moves people's opninions. Mitt Romney did not win in Nevada and Michigan with talk radio, it was his conservatice progressive message on economic issues (Combined with hard work and lots of money), which did not receive huge talk radio play, but played extremely well on the much maligned main stream media.
Talk radio also has not derailed Huck and McCain because a good number of Republicans hate being told by anyone, even people thay like, what to do. The more talk radio criticized Huck for example, the more Evangelicals rallied behind him. This is the same thing that happened with blacks for Obama. Most blacks love Bill Clinton, but they sure are not going to accept him telling them not to vote for a black man.
Where talk radio though is brilliant at is mobilizing people who share the same views on a subject. In the immigration debate talk radio was successful because people were already upset about it. It gave voice to their anger and mobilized it. This has happened before, usually at the expense of George W. Bush. Remember the talk radio stand against Harriett Myers. Remember the not so subtle digs in 2006 to change from the destructive Rumsfeld plan for the war. Most of all remember immigration.
It is ironic that Rush Limbaugh is often looked at as a George W suck up but his biggest accomplishments have been in bringing down his man, with Harriet Myers and with the immigration debate.
Rush and all the talk radio hosts are shrewd mobilizers of anger. They may be down on their luck at the moment, but there are always many opportunities to be a mouthpiece for conservative rage.
.
|
|
Go ahead and crow Michael. But I will positively NEVER, EVER vote for McCain, NEVER.
And I'm not alone. |
|
to read the lunatic fringe meltdown here.
Carry on. |
|
While I agree with a lot of what you wrote I wish you wouldn't lower yourself and write thing like this:
"For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain."
You are better than that. Too point out someones record on the issues considered important only to be accused of demonizing that someone is a tactic of the left or of someone who doesn't want to argue on the merits.
Michael Medved is better than the liberals who use this tactic and I hope it's not something that will repeat. |
|
|
I will never vote for a candidate that is pro abortion, pro illegals, pro gun control, pro gay marriage, anti military, anti business, pro global warming theory, buddy buddy with Leftists sooooo I reckon I am on the lunatic fringe. I prefer to be on the fringe than to be in the mushy center only wanting to win and not caring what it is you win. |
|
I have REALLY grown tired of Medved of late. He used to be a favorite but his open borders bent along with his promotion of the center/left McCain is infuriating. It's not that he doesn't have a right to his opinion or that McCain doesn't have a right to his liberalism, it's just that it's a lie to claim that either of these guys are conservatives.
THE conservative in talk radio is Rush. He has NEVER been a partisan and I, along with millions of other Americans consider him the most articulate promoter of conservative values alive. Rush has never liked McCain because politician McCain has always been about McCain and not about the country. Rush detests people who undermine conservatism which is why he has been on the Fred bandwagon and vociferously against the populist Huckabee.
Finally, it is idiotic to look at S.C. and claim McCain's win means that conservative talkers lost. That is a laugh. Given that Indies, and Dems could vote for McCain in our primary, I find it amazing that he didn't get 60% of the vote. The fact that the cerebral Thompson, who has very little money, came in third despite this reality, indicates to me that Rush had a huge effect in S.C. - he got a bunch of the Huckabee voters to move over to Thompson.
P.S. to spidey who said "McCain won in SC because his buddy Thompson went on the attack against Huck and peeled away a lot of evans.Independents also played the sopiler role again."
Get real. You do realize that McCain voters are NOT Thompson voters don't you? Thompson beats up on Huckabee because without Huck in the race ALL of his votes go for Thompson. Thompson is trying to convince people who would naturally gravitate to him to NOT vote for Huckabee.
Huckabee is the spoiler in this race and I wish he and his pompous populism would just go away and let Thompson clean Romney and McCain's clock. |
|
These few, being the frontrunners, are validation that the conservative movement, as we knew it, under Reagan, then Newt, is over. There are no leaders who speak to the nation from a true conservative position. There are those who speak to their "audiences", as conservatives, but this only solidifies what already is - it does not multiply the base.
Reagan has lost followers, and Newt is trying to be a "leader" in another direction, with eyes on himself, not established conservative principles that work. Innovation, in order to place the focus on himself, rather than the foundational facts that do not fail when they are implemented. I guess he is smarter than conservatism . . .
Some of those who have been mentioned in these comments are NOT conservatives. Just because a radio personality does not espouse a liberal bent doesn't make them a conservative. Some are just self aggrandizing navel gazers, along for the ride, as long as the money is good. When the tap gets turned off, they won't be giving you a ride to the polls in their Italian sports cars, on their way to the "rich hotel". You have friends of the movement, and you have acquaintances - there are few friends in most movements, many of the latter.
Newt and Reagan weren't the only leaders with influence, of the last conservative revolution. There were the Buckleys as well, but they are no longer heard by the masses. Out of the current crop of politicians vying for our attention - NONE cared enough for conservatism to selflessly defend it against the constant barrage by the left in the last few years, they only cared enough to enter the latest popularity contest, to see if, they, could be KING OF THE HILL! |
|
Les, the reason that conservatism is losing its influence is that the political process is gradually becoming more corrupt. Take for example, the S.C. primary. How is it that Dems and Independents can vote in the Republican primary thus undermining the process and marginalizing conservative candidates?
The reason is corruption in South Carolina that allowed the primary process to be destroyed.
The same goes for the cockeyed cauci in Iowa. These are corrupt forms of choosing candidates because they simply do not represent the will of the people.
Conservatives lose in these battles because we are not willing to stoop to corrupting the process so that we can win. Thus, in the end, we are completely marginalized by both the process and by the establishment wing of our own party resulting in the Dems taking the White House.
|
|
The fact that Micheal couldn't give a hoot who runs on the R ticket makes his candidate rhetoric pointless. Spending countless hrs on the radio saying nothing of substance. He wont endorse a candidate, until "the party" tells him who and when....same with his views on the economy..he spouted for weeks about how the economy was doing so well, even though the public knew months in advance the chicken were coming home to roost...yet he wouldn't concede ( at least to his listeners ) until "the party" admitted to the decline. Mindless Medved is entertaining, nothing more... he is just a Republican mouth piece. ( forget conservative )...want to know what the Republican party's views are?..listen to Medved Republican Radio!..
Thats M-E-D-V as in vacuous E-D. |
|
Michael,
Talk radio is doing just fine, thank you. With your views supporting illegal immigration and your mindless support of RINO's McCain and Huckabee, you may not be doing so fine. At least with me, as I choose not to waste my time listening to you.
The perfect Republican team will be Romney/Thompson. If either McCain or the Huckster gets the nomination I will sit out the election. Better to have a professed Democrat elected than a stealth Democrat like those RINO's |
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the laws. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
If the GOP thinks they can continue to import cheap labor for their donors at the expense of the citizens, they will. I will not vote for that again. If we continue to play the game of "the other guy is worse", we will lose our country. Sorry, but I will not participate in that game any longer. The GOP power brokers think we will vote for "anybody but a Democrat" so they can continue to ignore securing the borders and enforcing the laws. I'm hoping GOP primary voters give the party elites some surprises in the primaries. The levers of power and the money in the GOP are all in the hands of the cheap labor express. They do not want anyone who WOULD enforce the laws and secure the border. WE have to make sure the nominee WILL by voting in the primaries. We have to talk to our friends and neighbors about this issue. It's going to have to be a grass roots effort. I WANT to vote for a GOP candidate in Nov.'08, I WILL NOT vote for any of the amnesty supporters. If it takes crushing the GOP so a new party representing American citizens can arise, so be it.
|
|
I have looked at McCain and Huckabee's records in depth--and I DON'T LIKE what I see regardless of what I hear on talk radio.
McCain has a hair-trigger temper, not what we need in the leader of the world's lone super power. Also, he's very liberal in MANY ways--pro-illegals, pro-tax, anti-free speech. Almost all the support for his bills comes from Democrats. Who wants Democrat-lite?
Huckabee is ethically-challenged, has poor judgment. In Arkansas he paroled/commuted 1,033 convicted criminals, including 12 murderers now walking the streets. Was for open borders, in-state tuition for illegals. He had 14 ethics violations, had to pay fines. Took $70,000 worth of furniture from the governor's mansion when they moved out, was forced to return it. State ethics rules bar gifts over $100 except for wedding gifts--so he signed them onto wedding registries around the state (married 28 years). He strong-armed a sheriff to let his son off when the kid hung a dog at scout camp.
Jews have suffered from derision and much worse over their religion, so you would think Medved would be repulsed by Huckabee's snide bigotry toward Mormons. I find it extremely off-putting. Most Americans are not nearly so narrow-minded as Huckabee is. We are tolerant for the most part and actually admire Romney for the good life he's lived.
Thompson and Guiliani both have pros and cons, either would be better than any Democrat. But, I think Romney is the best of the bunch. He's brilliant, decent, highly accomplished, would do wonders for the economy. The rest have not so much as run a lemonade stand much less launched Staples, rescued Domino's Pizza, the Olympics, and Massachusetts. Also,he's cool under pressure, wise and thoughtful. Has no skeletons in the closet for the Clintons to exploit, can articulate well conservative positions. I think Mitt would make a fantastic president.
Medved is WRONG about McCain, Huckabee, and talk radio. |
|
While your notion of corruption being the enemy of conservatism victory is in part correct, local corruption is not the whole enemy and neither is fighting corruption with more of the same.
No one is willing to take the bully pulpit and educate the public of the atrocities taking place in politics today. It is the public, when educated, that will be the difference - some day. When the fight begins on capitol hill over some perceived wrong, local or national, the reps we send there cave EVERY time. They NEVER fight, even when their opponents give them the room to do so, because they were so obviously wrong.
I no longer hold out ANY hope that there will be anyone in the near future who will make any changes in this, regardless of who is elected.
When people are given the hope that things will be better, that they really have an advocate FIGHTING FOR them in Washington, they will ENTHUSIASTICALLY turn out to vote for that person. You will notice, however, that conservatives are not showing up to vote and THAT is why it matters that dems and independents make the difference in this part of the electoral process.
You can not, though, have someone show up at the beginning of an election cycle, claiming to be something they are not, representing those they don't, with NO understanding of what the majority of the people in this country would endorse whole heartedly, if they did, in fact, represent the views they claimed they do.
They don't represent conservatism, don't understand it, are embarrassed by the notion they have to "pander" to those who believe in conservatism and do what they do out of their own self interest.
The absolute best example of this is one of the front runners for the GOP. Guess which one . . . |
|
I agree with you. What you are saying is what Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
When conservatives don't show up to vote or they don't think through the ramifications of their vote (for example, I believe most Huckabee supporters are conservative yet are ignorant of the ramifications of voting for a populist) they allow evil to triumph.
When this happens, the party gliterati start believing that the base has moved left (and it has, in fact moved left in practicality because conservatives are not showing up). I don't hold the establishment in the Republican party culpable in believing that they should field and support left/centrists as long as the voting public ignores the true conservatives like Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson (and to a lesser extent, Paul).
Conservatives have left the field in the first half and have allowed the Left to march down the field unopposed. |
|
Could it be that so many actually have arrived at their own independent-minded analysis and are not in lock-step engaged in a "jihad" Mike?
Focus like a laser beam and tell me again you are on record saying that Dennis Prager not only is part of the angry right (the loud folks), but receives his talking points from Rush!
For shame, if you had any point it's lost in your own angry talk. I guess it would only be natural that after so many right turns a person has to make a few left ones. |
|
OK, I listen to conservative talk. I like MM, in fact, though I can't get him here in East Texas and he isn't on Sirius.
I listen to Levin and Rush, though. And I learned on Mark Levin's show that McCain voted against drilling in ANWR. Actually I knew that, but his show reminded me of it. I LEARNED from his interview with Rick Santorum that when Santorum was in leadership, McCain was constantly fighting against bringing up "divisive" social issues legislation to the floor for a vote - even those where he wound up voting "aye."
I don't get it Mike. McCain isn't a conservative. That isn't a slam, but for CONSERVATIVE talk show hosts to bring that to our attention isn't an attempt to do something nefarious; it's just them doing their jobs. Do I need to recite the littany of McCain's unconservative positions? NO, I don't. Not for the people here, and that's largely because of talke radio. Though I'd add that he's apparently on board with the Global Warming Chicken Litleists as well. Does that give you no cause for alarm, Mr. Medved?
Look, I'm a Fred supporter, but we're realistically down to McCain, Romney, and possibly Guiliani if he can do well in Florida. Huckabee is through, and if it wasn't for talk radio, I believe he might have gotten away with portraying himself as a conservative. It was mainly talk radio, I believe, that kept him strictly in the evangelical box by pointing out his comprehensive nanny-statism. Score one for talk radio.
If leftist policies are to be enacted, let them be enacted by the Democrats, so they can read the electoral fruits of their consequences.
Guiliani and Romney have their faults. But they both know they NEED conservatives. McCain doesn't think he needs conservatives - and with the adoration he has by the MSM and Democrat party, he may be right. That's why McCain must be stopped if there is any hope for the conservatives over the next several years.
|
|
"But according to exit polling, McCain narrowly trailed Huckabee in support from the 80 percent of primary voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Huckabee won 32 percent of their support compared to McCain's 31 percent."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ |
|
This spin is all a mind game to trick us into giving in to the Democratic candidate, John McCain. We don't have to surrender or lose.
http://article.nationalreview.com /?q=MzY0M2U3ZTExMGExM2Q4YTJhYzJkZDMzYzgwMDAzZmE=
That is an excellent article explaining why. Here is an excerpt about amnesty:
You ask, in essence, that we ignore McCain’s leadership in the amnesty debate and his course reversal of recent months as he seeks votes. What does this tell us about the man? The bill he co-authored with Ted Kennedy (and which was foolishly supported by the current president) would have caused enormous economic and cultural dislocations. ... As the Heritage Foundation and many others pointed out at the time, the McCain-led effort would have resulted in tens of millions of new illegal aliens coming to the country with the likelihood of eventually receiving citizenship; the expedited bankruptcy of major entitlement programs, including Social Security; and the imposition of massive new costs on state and private enterprises, from schools and hospitals to law enforcement. McCain’s bill would have made it impossible for the already hapless federal government to properly conduct criminal background checks before issuing “probationary” Z-visas to 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. And every effort to amend his bill to prevent gang members, terrorists, and others from receiving these visas was opposed by McCain. He also voted for the Specter amendment, which provided that the government of Mexico, among others, would have to be consulted before building physical barriers along the southern border. Six months later, McCain says he was wrong. He gets it now. Secure the border first. I don’t believe him. And as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, he still supports amnesty despite claiming otherwise. The American people said “hell no!” It wasn’t that long ago that he suggested they were motivated by racial animus rather than good thinking. |
|
The whole country is moving left Medved. Talk radio gives voice to a lot of folks who don't necessarily want that---with the exception of you. People call themselves conservatives and don't know what it means. Maybe you should have a show where you attempt to define conservatism.
McCain would make an outstanding Secretary of Defense but on the principles of limited government(federalism), low taxes, securing the borders and national sovereignty McCain is a loser. I'm ex-military and admire McCain for his sacrifice just like I was a big fan of war hero Duke Cunningham. But when a man's wrong he's wrong. Duke is in jail and McCain should not be President. |
|
Fred Thompson supported John McCain in 2000 and will endorse John McCain this year as well.
So much for Fred Thompson being a "conservative."
Like the blind followers of Mormon Mitt and his liberal track record in Massachusetts, the Fredheads are also blind.
Will the Fredheads support McCain?
Why not?
Your man Fred does! |
|
Calling one's self something does not make it so. Believing something does not make it so.
Is Bloomberg(?) a conservative because he ran in the Republican party?
People do not follow, because, like children with hypocritical parents, they do not believe what they are being told.
Past actions are most likely to be repeated, and this is what defines us. We are NOT remembered as we wish, but by what we have done.
|
|
This morning, I demonstrated why MM remains demented in his attitudes, writings and overall professionalism.
Interim postings have served to corroborate that viewpoint, particularly those that warn of trying to encompass liberalism by adopting its tenets...instead of standing fast on fundamentals.
Interim postings have also illustrated how the evolution of events is PRECISELY what the Talk Show hosts (whom MM attacks) have been successful.
Look at how the winnowing-down process is proceeding.
With the imminent drop-outs of Hunter and Thompson, the key-event yesterday also was the impending dissolution of the Huckster's campaign. Inasmuch as he's the most dangerous of the remaining candidates (due to abject ignorance regarding foreign policy and idiotic pronouncements regarding domestic policy), this is the type of welcome news that the educators on Talk Radio have promulgated.
I would commend to your attention the contents of the blog--
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/06347e23-448f-40eb-9bf7-acd8 4d72b678?comments=true#comments
--posted earlier today (consistent with mine):
[see next posting, due to spatial limits] |
|
This summarizes Mitt:
Steve writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 9:04 AM
Mitt's My Man!
Ever since Fred Thompson entered the race, it has concerned me because I figured he'd draw votes away from other conservatives who would have a better chance of winning the election. Most significantly, his presence in the race would split the conservatives and give the campaign to McCain. I never figured that Huckabee would be viable and his success has surprised me. Huckabee has contributed to the splitting of the conservative vote as well--even though I don't consider him a true conservative. Fred Thompson is a good and wise man and I could definitely support him, but I've been for Mitt Romney, ever since I heard he was going to run for president. It was the Olympic story that caught my attention. He is the first candidate for president that I've ever supported financially, and I did so at the maximum allowable level. I support him for all the reasons already stated: 1) he's really smart, 2) he understands economics, 3) he understands the global struggle against those who would want an Islamic caliphate, 4) he's true to his faith, 5) he's true to his family, 6) he's true to our country, and 7) he has had diverse and successful experiences as an executive in business, government, and the Olympics.
If you want proof that he's the best candidate for conservatives, just look at the fact the MSM doesn't like him. If you want proof that McCain is not our best choice, just look at the fact that he is the choice of the MSM.
--more-- |
|
THIS is a subsequent posting on that same page:
GB writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 10:30 AM
I hope Fred
gets behind Romney's bus because idealogically they are they most similar. I have a dread that he will get with his good old buddy McCain, but hopefully common sense will reign. Dr. Bob wrote a good piece on why all the voters for the other candidates should get behind Romney, it's just that voters haven't done very much that has made too much sense in the early primaries.
Romney is the candidate most likely to hold together the conservative coalition, and with Hunter gone and Thompson looking fragile he is the most conservative left in the group. Please Ron Paul supporters hold your diatribes. No one is interested anymore.
I hear a lot about a Romney/Thompson ticket but I think that is a bad idea. We need a younger VP who will have an inside track to the white house for the following election.
*
Remember, the theme of that blog was directed at Fred-supporters who would have to choose an alternative...and two conclusions emerge:
(1)--the target-audience has switched to Mitt, and
(2)--the discussion on that site (of all comers) supports unifying around Mitt...asap.
--more--
|
|
More from the other site is relevant here:
Dan in SC writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 12:30 PM
Electability
I'm tired of hearing about how electable McCain is and how unelectable Romney is. Consider this, only Romney has proven he can win the primaries without the support of the MSM. Both Hickabee and McShame have been given a pass by the MSM because they are trying to give them the nomination. In the end, the MSM will turn against whoever the Repbulican nominee is, so at least Romney knows how to handle this. How will McCain handle not being the media darling?
*
This is the type of sentiment that illustrates the proper trends:
Pedro writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 4:04 PM
ANYONE BUT McCAIN
I can't believe SC voters put mister anti-conservative in the lead. Being a war hero and a hawk on national security just doesn't make up for his stance on immigration and taxes. How can it? U.S.Grant was a war hero also and probably one of the worst Presidents in American history. Let's not do the same thing. Give him the Secretary of Defense job but NOT President for god's sake!!!
|
|
Even though your post is meaningless drivel, you could have at least ended your post with a degree of honesty.
You wrote "Your man Fred does"
Even if this statement were true, it should be in the past tense, not the present. Fred does not currently support McCain.
|
|
To summarize:
Playing the game of "last man standing," we will be faced with the quadrad in Florida. It is true that, currently, Rudy has support in other big states, but people still feel he should not be out-distanced in Florida if he has any realistic prospect of proceeding further. I would add that his pro-Choice posture would ultimately be a killer, once a pro-Life candidate (i.e., any of the other three) were to emerge. Thus, although Rudy may not survive Florida, he is doomed if he does, anyway.
The Huckster is the most immediate next-victim and, clearly, he's the most dangerous of the lot. I HATE POMPOSITY and DISINGENUOUSNESS. He has demonstrated the inability to extend support beyond his base, despite all MSM-generated efforts. And how many "populists" are there in the GOP that would be so attracted to him (preferentially) so as to swell his ranks? He will be down to single-digits in most of the Super-Duper Tuesday races, and he'll be back down to second-tier (where he belongs, prior to becoming third-tier) immediately thereafter.
That leaves the faux-Republican McCain to oppose the Mittster; where will most of the TRUE Republicans gravitate???
Everything is going along as planned!
[BTW, Mitt was great on Leno!]
|
|
Romney is hated for several reasons:
1. Success in liberal Massachusetts is taken by republicans who don't know him as a problem because he must have been liberal to be elected. Many of our issues he could not take on there because of their electorate. Why can't we see that for what it is? He was successful at fixing the finances of that state and fought courageously against gay marriage.
2. The MSM including apparently Michael Medved can't stand him because he is a flip flopper. This stems from #1 because he agreed to keep some of his deeply held personal views on a few key issues out of politics in that state. The Nation is far different than the electorate in Massachusetts; why shouldn't he be able to campaign more on his personal views when they are more in line with the country than the state he governed. If the US was as liberal as Massachusetts we would consider his election a coup if he were able to pull it off, and be very happy, as conservatives, that he was able to win the election considering the major obstacles he faced.
3. He is mormon. Undeniably many hate him for no other reason than he is LDS. In Nevada and Michigan, where they are more comfortable with mormons, he won the evangelical vote.(In Nevada, everyone knows a good mormon, In Michigan, Mitt's dad was a good mormon governor, so the electorate isn't as threatened by his religion.)
All of these reasons are ignorant ones. It is unbelievable to me that he doesn't have more support. Do your research instead of relying on sound bites about a candidate. Find out why Mitt was so loved by the GOP when he nearly pulled off getting elected over Senator Kennedy, fixed the olympics, and got elected as Governor in Massachusetts.
He is articulate, conservative, and amazing at fixing business. Remember his promise to tear apart Washington and make it leaner, stronger, and more effective. He is not a big government liberal. He is exactly what America needs. |
|
Dennis Prager and Michael Savage are the two best talk show hosts on radio, in my opinion, and the two I try to listen to if it is possible. They are consistent in their ideals and don't insult their audience. Sean Hannity is my favorite TV host. I don't listen to Rush, but was surprised to hear from you that he supports Romney. Neither Dennis nor Michael have tried to push any of the candidates on their listeners, so you are being dishonest.
|
|
Since summer I have been expecting MM to slam his fellow talk show hosts. Now after taking quick shots at them for months he has full blown attacked them. Another question is have other talk show hosts publicly bashed you for your support of two non-conservative candidates?
Disturbing, "will need a united party and a revived, renewed conservative coalition." To me this states that MM thinks we need to reorganize the Reagan Coalition. Nothing could be further from the truth. |
|
|
If everyone would keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannidy and others are not the deep thinkers of our time.....They are entertainers....I mean when selecting a candidate you should not pay any attention to this group...........I mean you don't listen to Jerry Springer to get a wife..... |
|
Medved is jumping the shark here, by falling backwards into the dubious psychedelic days of his past, when he was a front and center paid shill, for the emerging 70's Lefty movement.
Mike, if you really want to lead another movement (towards the soft squishy center), you should see if Air America Radio will carry you and your muddied water, so you can be useful there by bringing the unthinking mind numbed Left, towards the thoughtful, proven, positive solutions, of the Right.
|
|
other than 12 hours of sleep a day, is to knock out Huckabee so that his buddy McCain can win the nomination. In return Fred gets the VP nod. He can take his wife to state dinners but not have to put in the presidential hours. Win win for the Thompson family. Fred is the spoiler here, not Huckabee. Huck was in the race first, Fred had to dilly dally about before even getting into the race. Last I looked Huckabee is 2nd in term of the number of delegates he holds, Fred? either fourth or just after Ron Paul. Not sure.
Talk radio is 100% responsible for the state of the elections. McCain favored to win the nomination is a direct result of the shameless Romney and Thompson butt kissing that the media engaged in to completely discount what the people want and put an elite in the office.
I have turned off my radio and tv to these guys as it was unbearable to watch and so obvious what these new media elite were up to. |
|
You must be talking of a Savage I have not heard. He constantly insults everyone around him. He always sounds like a bitter, angry man.
I don't know this "Dennis".
Hannity has a self-esteem problem, evidenced by injecting his personal self into almost every situation. It is unseeming.
Rush has not endorsed anyone. What he has done is define conservatism, and delineate the candidates records, comparing their records with what conservatism actually is. That is not an endorsement in my experience.
Medved is mistaken in his apparent belief that he must endorse someone. That is the faux pas here. |
|
|
They all want Mitt, and to hell with the rest of us who spoke up with our votes, and will continue to speak with our votes. Don't they realize that when they trash someone we voted for, they are trashing us too? I find myself tuning these four out....many, many others are as well. |
|
Listen up Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager:
If a child spoke the same words and in the same manner as each of you have in anger and animosity towards others, that child wouldn't even be allowed to play with other children and would be recommended some serious therapy.
So why is it okay for you, a grown-up to speak as you do?
I did conservative talk radio and TV with Wally George, who started combat radio and TV, in many ways your mentor, where conservative talk show originated. And do you know what plagued him during his last years of life? A gut-wrenching, unsettling guilt for verbally assaulting folks for years. He finally came to terms with this towards the end of his life, by fully denouncing his behavior and making a 360 degree turnaround. Make no mistake about it, you cannot spew hatred and anger, no matter under what guise, and not expect it to have to take a toll on your own soul. The difference is Wally tempered his shows with humor, as he was the consummate entertainer. Yet, if even he doing it for humor felt the convictions of his actions before his death, how much worse for you who overtly do it with deadly intention?
You label yourselves as religious, some like Coulter, as a born-again Christian. But if you spent one fraction of the time reading the good book that you do verbally murdering others, you’d see you are in complete opposition with Jesus who said, "You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.—Matthew 5:21-22
No one is permitted to murder, and especially not with our tongues.
Do you really think you can get away by murdering good men like Mike Huckabee? |
|
Listen up Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager:
If a child spoke the same words and in the same manner as each of you have in anger and animosity towards others, that child wouldn't even be allowed to play with other children and would be recommended some serious therapy.
So why is it okay for you, a grown-up to speak as you do?
I did conservative talk radio and TV with Wally George, who started combat radio and TV, in many ways your mentor, where conservative talk show originated. And do you know what plagued him during his last years of life? A gut-wrenching, unsettling guilt for verbally assaulting folks for years. He finally came to terms with this towards the end of his life, by fully denouncing his behavior and making a 360 degree turnaround. Make no mistake about it, you cannot spew hatred and anger, no matter under what guise, and not expect it to have to take a toll on your own soul. The difference is Wally tempered his shows with humor, as he was the consummate entertainer. Yet, if even he doing it for humor felt the convictions of his actions before his death, how much worse for you who overtly do it with deadly intention?
You label yourselves as religious, some like Coulter, as a born-again Christian. But if you spent one fraction of the time reading the good book that you do verbally murdering others, you’d see you are in complete opposition with Jesus who said, "You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.—Matthew 5:21-22
No one is permitted to murder, and especially not with our tongues.
Do you really think you can get away by murdering good men like Mike Huckabee? |
|
A co-worker who knows I'm an evangelical asked me if I supported Huckabee. It was then I know he can't win. The Confederate Flag and other stuff he's said recently makes him DOA in the general.
McCain's base of support is the media. They will turn on him so fast it will make your head spin. Between his temper and his unpopularity with a lot of conservatives, he's toast. So polls show him winning today? Doesn't matter. |
|
During the past two hours (after my last post), a few essential-truths have emerged that merit elaborative comment. All relate directly to MM's absurdities, and some provide clues as to their origins and implications. Some require clarification and documentation.
m2rainier (5:43 PM) summarized my sentiments with precision...and rebutted fundamental attacks on Mitt with aplomb. One would hope that those who oppose him (on this blog and elsewhere) would provide the same level of self-contemplation before they proceed with their ongoing attacks.
He was on Fox News Sunday, and he was both content-laden and openly-eloquent. He discussed his capacity to do precisely what any businessman would want to see accomplished, both in DC (cut-out the dead-wood) and elsewhere (determine the correct posture for America when faced with the polarities of globalism and protectionism).
Just-Tex (6:50 PM) wrote that MM had beeen a leftie in the 70's; is there any documentation of this fact...and its degree of intensity...and when he experienced his spiritual conversion?
carlene (7:04 PM) wrote, as had others in other contexts, that one or another of the candidates had actually been functioning to help/hurt a competitor for some strategic reason. What is clear from the aggregate of these postulates is that Mitt hasn't stooped to that level in any of the contests thus far. Behaviorally, that sends a clear message as to why he would, ultimatley, be the ideal uniter.
--more-- |
|
les (7:11 PM) wrote that Savage is, well, "savage," but a careful listener hears that he sends vital messages within his seemingly-bombastic delivery...observations that are both profound and unsettling. He also is a do-er, and a risk-taker, a trait that others in our culture would be wise to emulate.
He doesn't know Dennis Prager, but he should listen to his soft-spoken insights that admix philosophy and politics WITH CITATIONS.
He feels Hannity has a self-esteem problem,but he forgets the fact that he has the ability to USE self-referencing to ELUCIDATE truths.
He notes "Rush has not endorsed anyone. What he has done is define conservatism, and delineate the candidates' records, comparing their records with what conservatism actually is. That is not an endorsement in my experience." This is accurate, and that's why el-Rushbo sets the tone.
Finally, he correctly notes "Medved is mistaken in his apparent belief that he must endorse someone. That is the faux pas here." He could drop-the-other-shoe and confront why MM apparantly feels compelled to respond to this temptation. I postulated that it stems from his support of Illegals. If anyone else would proffer a more specific insight, I'd be eager to weigh its import. |
|
[commenting on others' notes...this is fun!]
Luce [7:16 PM] had compiled a list of Talk Show hosts that are targeted for personal boycott. This is an extraordinary reponse, for it reflects more poorly on the originator than on the targets; anti-intellectualism is what makes the Huckster (and McCain, to a degree) so attractive to the pro-Illegals.
MoniQue [7:25 PM] invokes Wally George, who has a wikipedia entry which confirmed the shock-jock history that she cites. But, as a Huckster, she tries to equate the posture of Talk Show hosts with his calculated outrages, perhaps to demean their studied attacks on her guy (and McCain).
What she fortets is that the Huckster isn't being cursed (recalling her citation of Matthew); rather, he is being scrutinized. She should accept that fact and respond on the same level, rather than taking false-umbridge when the idiocies that spew-forth from his mouth are justifiably condemned.
Just to cite a recent example, does she agree with the Huckster's endorsement of displaying the Confederate Flat in S.C., or does she think (just possibly) that this last-minute pronouncement was intended to pander to the vote that otherwise might have gone to others?
Finally, I totally concur with Geoffrey Robinson. If nothing else, the pronouncement of el-Rushbo is apt: "If the MSM goes for one guy, we should assume that Conservatives won't."
|
|
|
You are what's wrong in this country. You can't tell a bad person from a good person. When Hitlers men came door to door to take people away -you would have probably talked about the misbehavior of the jews who dared to struggle. Anyways, you suck. And maybe you should read a little more in depth- the bible that is. Shallowness is not a virtue. I like to listen to Medved to get the latest propaganda that cometh from todays Washington insiders, otherwise known as squanderers of todays and tommorrows tax dollars yesterday. Watch their bloated bank accounts grow concurrently. Weird how that works. I see no problem with this. However, those rude talk show hosts that is a problem. Monique, get off whatever high horse you are on. |
|
Dr. Bob wrote "Just-Tex (6:50 PM) wrote that MM had beeen a leftie in the 70's; is there any documentation of this fact...and its degree of intensity...and when he experienced his spiritual conversion?"
"Documentation"? How much would you like?? Prior to Medved's current (apparently deja vu inspired) clash with conservative reality, he wrote eloquently of his own dirtied past in his book: "Right Turns: Unconventional Lessons from a Controversial Life", available at: http://www.amazon.com/Right-Turns-Unconventional-Lessons-C ontroversial/dp/1400051878
I've long listened to, even met and spoken with Michael, and I agree he does indeed at times have a very brilliant mind. And, my past is remarkably similar to Medved’s, so with that, I fully understand the struggles to successfully make the necessary transitions from the far political Left, to at least the center of the political Right.
With all that said, it's far too often that Medved tends to allow his own still Left leaning emotions, to take near full control of his thought process. And among my concerns is, should Medved continue to regularly do so, he'll either be announcing little more than a daily radio soliloquy, or, jump ship fully to the other side, or, much more likely, he'll simply fade away. |
|
Just-Tex, I'm wondering if you could help establish a psychological diagnosis for MM.
Is there one event that triggered his conversion?
What type of intervention might work to help him return to his senses?
Applying Deming's "continuing-quality-improvement" principles, is it possible to facilitate his inate ability to evolve along the lines that we would desire?
Is the Illegal-Alien issue the threshold issue?
Let's see if we can convert this blog into a therapeutic intervention! |
|
|
So all the other hosts are wrong and you are the only one who is right?Well then that makes you as liberal as Hukabee and just as wrong.Besides you said he's a fine man.At least my daddy and Pastor Wells taught me not to lie even as a child.Huck needs to put down the bible and read the issues at hand his own.Go Fred! |
|
Other commentators bring up points about McCain's and Huckabee's liberal stances on immigration, taxes, etc. but I don't hear them spewing such venom the way you do about Romney. I have been trying to figure out why you have such hatred for him, and then when I heard you gushing over Jon Voight on your show the other day... the same Jon Voight who played Brigham Young in that ridiculous movie about Mountain Meadows last summer... I realized that you must have a very deep hatred of mormonism. That is very unfortunate. Once I came to that conclusion, I decided to discontinue ever listening to your show or reading your columns.
And as another Arizonan, I wholeheartedly agree wtih Pat's assessment of McCain. |
|
|
The White House and other Country Club republicans/Dem Party partnership maybe via the Council on Foreign Relations planted Medved into the scene. He applied as a fill-in for Rush and wrote a book called Right-turns to gain our trust. However, when the time came to bring the shamnesty we didn't fall for it. We are not falling for the planted Republican in case Clinton doesn't win either, this would be Huckabee and McCain. Clinton and Bush maybe partners. If one screws up bad enough they alternate with the other who is a complete opposite. One religious/one not, one Republican/one Democrat. McCain and Huckabee are purely backup and boy are all of them getting mad that we don't want to just bend over. Mikes tone is not one of indignant self righteousness, it is one of one who does not believe what he is saying but needs you to or else for Pete's sake you were supposed to. It is the same arrogant tone that I feel McCain projects. |
|
Good evening
to whom may read this. As for Rush, Sean, and the others they know who they are. I never in my life would think the hate that come out about Huckabee was very unfair. Why doesn't Rush and Hannity and others question Romney like they do Huckabee and Mccain.
I found things about Romney,Thompson,Mccain and others so everyone in the race has done this conservatives don't like.
Governor Huckabee serving in politicial office has a outstanding record. Perfect no but he made a difference in his state.
Reagan raised taxes, signed a amneisty bill.
Everyone that goes to jail are not always guilty. Government should look out for the majority of the people not some. Better education, bring jobs back home, keeping america safe.
I would ask people to search for records to get the whole truth not half of it.
Why does the ring wing nick pick one and not the others???
|
|
AnimalFarm1984 writes:
"McCain is Price for Trashing Huckabee
...talk radio hosts have thought way too highly of themselves and tried to push Romney through by trashing others....Talk radio went out of it's way to trash Huckabee and outright lie about his positions, characterizing him as a dumb Christian hick, naming him the "Huckster"... McCain is now poised to take the nomination. A fitting pay-back and slap in the face to the talk radio pundits."
I agree with this analyis 100%
The majority of GOP voters had decided that they liked Huckabee and wanted him as their Party nominee. But the Republican Establishment didn't like him and didn't think he was electable so they started trashing him personally. Ann Coulter and co. put out a series of attack articles that were so mean spirited I started feeling bad for Huck even though he wasn't my candidate (I prefer Fred).
And the absurd thing about it is was that Coulter and co. were supporting Romney who's record is ten times more liberal than Huckabee's. So the Republican establishment put all their energy into trashing a perfectly decent guy under the guise that he wasn't conservative enough and then turned around and supported the more liberal (but handsome and "electable") Mitt Romney.
So after being called stupid hicks by the mainstream Republican media, Republican voters turned around and did something pretty clever. They said "okay if you don't like our choice cuz he's not electable, we'll give you the most electable candidate in the entire race-- John Mccain. The only one who can beat Hilary according to the polls.
I would have personally preferred Thompson or the late great Duncan Hunter, but the Republican base was wise to choose Mccain over Romney. Mccain may not be perfect but at least he has some integrity. |
|
http://www.melodylane.net/voterguide.jpg
don't forget to read the footnotes...scroll all the way down,
care to comment on this for some more fun? |
|
"The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight."
Great to hear Medved acknowlege what I have believed to be the case for a long time and the quicker, the better. I bet half the people who listen to these fakirs today probably don't agree with them like myself when I occasionally tune in. Medved has done his share to help bring this about by his support of an amnesty for illegals and his constant lies denying there is a plan to bring about a North American Union, etc. I hope these corporate whores keep this up for the sooner folks start to turn off the radio and start reading for a change, the better the chances to return to constitutional governance will be.
Neocon talk radio is every bit as bad as the crap that comes from tv and only serves as a pressure valve to allow folks to vent for no useful purpose while keeping them ignorant of what is really going on. |
|
Dr. Bob wrote: "Just-Tex, I'm wondering if you could help establish a psychological diagnosis for MM..."
Very funny Bob, but I'd never dream of attempting such a thing. As I suspect you already know, aside from being shallow, nearly impossible to accurately assess, it would also be unethical to publicly do so, as well.
However, I will say, even without a deeper evaluation, there's little doubt (Jung would agree) that the personality type would be extravert. With all associated positives and negatives attached.
Dr. Bob wrote: "Is the Illegal-Alien issue the threshold issue?"
Hardly. Arguably, although not empirical, from experience it appears this may be simply another component of the trait. |
|
A couple of points on the latest MM trash Romney piece.
1) Why does MM think that Rush, Sean, Beck, Ingrahm, Gallager, and ilk all trash McCain? It is because he is not a desireable conservative. What is so hard to grasp here? There is a viable argument that can be made as to whether or not McCain would be the candidate with best odds at a win. Let's have that argument. What the talk show hosts are arguing is that McCain has for years snubbed his nose at conservatives and conservative values. He is right on the war and Hillary on essentially everything else.
2) MM takes a disingenuous shot at Romney saying he comes in at a weak fourth. Just because conservative voters are split equally between Fred and Romney doesn't speak to a weakness, but a great strength. I don't know about anyone else out there, but Thompson's speech after SC sounded like the last in the series. Maybe FL will be his burial ground but I think the man should bow out gracefully now. Just please don't tell me Fred backs McCain. If he does it undercuts everything he has stood for. |
|
Thanks for standing up to the Republican Establishment Mr. Medved. You are one of the only conservative commentators I can listen to these days.
I usually consider myself a loyal follower of the Republican Establishment. I love Ronald Reagan, love George W. Bush, love Dick Cheney. My thinking aligns with the party line pretty much 99% of the time.
But when the Party establishment tries to tell me that Mitt Romney is a conservative I know that something is wrong. I know that there is some massive spin going on. Not only is Mitt Romney the very definition of a moderate, he is also the most morally ambiguous and disingenuous GOP candidate I have ever seen.
I am extremely grateful that a few brave souls (like Mr. Medved) have had the guts to be intellectually honest and reject the groupthink. |
|
|
Did I just hear Ann Coulter right? On Geraldo tonight she said she was sick of Evangelical Christians? I hope I heard that wrong. Can I get a refund for all the books I bought because I believed in her? Especially for "Godless" |
|
|
He is not a conservative, nor is McCain or Huckabee....I think Romney McCain would be a good ticket. If McCain wins the nomination...(by .the same group that picked Martinez as their chairman and pushed amnesty against the wishes of American Citizens.)..then I will vote third party,write in or sit this one out. McCain is no better than Hillary as far as I am concerned. To allow the flood of illegals will be the end of this country regardless of who allows it to happen. After that destruction , voting won't be worth a damn anymore anyway. |
|
|
Romney Thompson...or Romney Hunter would be a good ticket....what a MIIISTAKE!!! Gives me goosebumps!!! |
|
|
Incoherent as always. He takes his marching orders from the White House and won't rest until the big government, one world agenda is locked in place. Michael deserves his own show on MSNBC with Keith Olberman. Separated at birth. |
|
This is an impulse response, not politic at all.
Coulter has one of the most brilliant minds I have ever heard. What makes her completely unbearable is her total lack of wisdom . . .
|
|
|
McCain is a good man but he is sadly another over the hill war hero who, like Dole, will lose to a Clinton. |
|
First, as per Luce's request, I reviewed this site, and I'd be more than happy to comment on whatever he desires...although I can't read the fine-print on the references very easily.
http://www.melodylane.net/voterguide.jpg
Second, not withstanding Ryan01's claim that Talk Radio is ineffective, most commentators have signed onto the consensus view (of both D's and R's) that it continues to be potent (even after its impact on the anti-Illegals legislation).
Third, Just-Tex feels that the anti-Illegals issue isn't what triggered MM's having caught the anti-Mitt bug; rather, it's an extroverted personality-type that animates him. There are too many people in that category who aren't manifesting such symptoms to consider this to be an endpoint.
Fourth, in response to the Historian, although I have a lot of work to do, I've spent time reading-through these blogs for two major reasons.
1--I want to see how others respond to my pro-Mitt viewpoints, to validate their accuracy.
2--I want to see how others promote their anti-Mitt viewpoints, to validate my accuracy.
I've tried not to be repetitive, and to remain focused on content rather than being distracted into the low-level of diatribe that some people upload...perhaps as a form of self-amusement.
These issues are profound, and I've enjoyed noting how forthright (and consistently accurate) the pro-Mitt posters have become during the past month. This, of course, parallels the policies advocated by the Talk Show hosts whom MM would condemn.
The more Mitt is discussed, the more people will generate a comfort-level with him; this is in counterdistinction to the effect the Clintons have on people who observe them in-action (and prompt her "negatives" to sky-rocket).
Signing-off....
|
|
"Talk radio is 100% responsible for the state of the elections. McCain favored to win the nomination is a direct result of the shameless Romney and Thompson butt kissing that the media engaged in to completely discount what the people want and put an elite in the office."
I won't give them the full blame, they had plenty of help from the rest of the media as well. It doesn't matter what folks call it, MSM or the "new media." All are to blame. I would also add the horrible govt. schools. I remember at one time the Republican platform called for eliminating the DOE. (and the other DOE, too) The talk radio shills don't even talk about that anymore. In fact, for me, they don't talk about much of anything relevant, just partisan crap.
I hope these radio clown continue their food fight for the good of the country. The nastier they get with one another, the better.
"I have turned off my radio and tv to these guys as it was unbearable to watch and so obvious what these new media elite were up to."
Sage advice. More folks here should do the same thing. Good post.
|
|
So exactly what is Medved's point about Talk Radio? That it controlled people's minds to oppose the amnesty bill? But now, somehow, it is losing it's hold on people?
Here's a more probable scenario Medved: talk radio woke people up about immigration. The McCain win in SC might have been a deafening loss if it hadnt been for (once again) Independents and Democrats who boosted him. Mike Huckabee won South Carolina, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
I wasn't dogging Rush, Les. I was pleasantly surprised when I read from MM that Rush spoke positively about Mitt, since I never listen to Rush Limbaugh's show.
|
|
Medved slams the other conservative talking heads because they are so critical of McCain and Huckabee, but Medved has been just as critical of Romney as they have of his pet candidates.
After Romney's Michigan win, Medved wrote that Romney is an "empty suit" and a "panderer-in-chief." Real good, Michael.
Then Medved has the gall to ask "Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates?" I obviously didn't catch how such designations make a candidate outstanding.
Note also that George Will said that Huckabee is delusional and asked if we want someone who is delusional running our nuclear weapons. Does that make Will a Kool-Aid drinking dittohead, or perhaps just an astute conservative mind?
So now the definition of conservatism is someone who agrees with Medved and disagrees with Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Coulter, Levin, Prager, Hewitt, and on and on? Sorry, Michael, that choice is a no-brainer. You've jumped ship, and now you're whining because the ship didn't follow you.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Michael. McCain and Huckabee have too many liberal ideals to be considered true conservatives. Why should we settle for them when we have choices that are much more conservative? Why settle for 3rd and 4th best? That's all the "Kool-Aid drinkers" are pointing out. A vote for McCain or Huckabee is a step backward from the conservative ideal. We can do better than that. And "being preferable to Hillary and Obama" isn't much of a platform. |
|
|
I used to really enjoy your commentary. I first listen to you when I lived in Kentucky. I now live in Arizona and have listened to you on occasion. Lately, I hear you for 1 minute and turn the dial, and you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to McCain. When it comes to Borders. His plan would have Border Governors to verify the border. He wants the Governor of Arizona to verify the borders are secure? Have you noticed the Gov of Arizona (Janet Napolitano) has endorsed Barack "Amnesty" Obama? This would best be described as the monkey running the zoo. I agree with an early blogger that stated you are consumed with the hope of saying, "I told you so". It would appear to me you have serious animosity for the other radio guys. Why? You are smart and intellectual. |
|
|
Try listening to Charles Goyette on KFNX. You may not agree with him, but he is thoughtful and has some jam up guests unlike some of these others who simply have a lazy susan of former politicians or the current crop of hacks. |
|
|
there is supposed to be a battle at this stage. We are picking the best candidate. We can agree that all the Republican candidates are good persons but that is beside the point. I am for Romney because I believe he would make the best President. Sorry, McCain arrogantly shunned not only conservatives but Americans when he conspired with Kennedy to legalize aliens. I will never vote for him. Huckabee is peddling populism to the point that he sounds like a Democrat to me. The talk radio hosts have as much right to express their opinions as anyone else. As listeners, we weigh their analysis in making our own decisions. To say that talk radio "lost" is stupid. I enjoy the dialogue. Perhaps Medved doesn't realize that Rush has had many callers on the radio disagreeing with him. His show is not cheerleading for any candidate. So, Medved is simply wrong factually and the analysis is patently invalid. |
|
|
Micheal, cut it out already it's getting quite embarrassing. You used to be respectable. Jeeze, give it a rest. |
|
that is bigger than Medved's? Apparently one must agree with Medved 100% or else one is not a "principled conservative". If you don't agree with him you stand to be described as "pathetic", have "failed miserably", are "utterly ineffective" and, finally, equated with Islamo-Nazi "jihadists".
If a "principled conservative" is one who opposes the leader of the Republican party (Pres. Bush) on important votes like tax cuts, sides more often with the likes of Sen. Russ Feingold (D. Wis.)and Sen. Kennedy (D. Mass.), and goes out of his way to regularly insult the conservative base on numerous issues, then count me as a hard core liberal.
No. The one voice that has gotten more shrill and negative, as this campaign has gone on is not the talk radio hosts Mr. Medved has described above. It is Mr. Medved himself, who has consistently made negative attacks against Gov. Romney and is completely two faced when dealing with his peers in talk radio.
I seriously expect this diatribe to not win Medved any fans among his colleagues. |
|
Sure, Michael. And Romney has nearly as many delegates and votes as Mac and Huck combined.
Spin, spin, spin because your opinion is on the fringe, as it was with immigration.
Right2win |
|
This blog post shows Medved just proved his point. Most of the bloggers here listen to talk radio I believe and they all have their own candidates and are all upset with Medved and the other hosts for picking on them. The republicans who don't listen to talk radio (About 80% of them) don't care. They usually vote on identity politics or because they just like the guy.
This clearly came up in New Hampshire and again in Michigan. Talk radio stayed about the same, blasting McCain and bolstering Mitt over immigration in New Hampshire and McCain still won.
Romney went populist in Michigan and most of talk radio went quiet except for a vew jabs (Populism is foreign territory in this world) and Romney carried the day.
I think a small minority of people listen to talk radio and actually believe everything said then spew it out. They cannot believe that anyone is voting for Huckabee or McCain because Rush told them noone called in in support. They cannot believe that upwards of 70% of the Republican party is made up of evangelical bigots, RINOS, pro-illegals and assorted other exotice creatures. They must all be purged.
It aint called the echo chamber for nothing. And one more thing. Mitt might still become our Republican nominee, but it will not be because of his endorsement as the true conservative. It will be when he gets the huddled clueless non-talk radio masses to believe in him. And that won't come from Ann Coulter's endorsement.
|
|
going to win the primary, but I have a hard time accepting that McCains succcess will continue.
I think Mr. Medved your political analysis can be accurate much of the time. While you may disagree with most of your collegues I think this is one time when following the herd may be the wisest move.
|
|
Funny, isn't it? Not long ago the Democrats were saying that we need to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". We were so fearful that they were going to destroy our beloved Conservative Talk Radio. They didn't get the chance. It is in the process of killing itself with the intemperate distortions and partisanship of Limbaugh, Hewitt, Gallagher, etc. etc. etc. If you call in to disagree, you are branded a liberal!
As a long time Republican Conservative, I have tuned in the Conservative TV News and Conservative Radio from their inception. Now I'm tuning out. I just can't take them. I tune in to selective programs, like Michael Medved's, but I can't just leave it tuned to the channel or station anymore. (Our local station has even started running Dr. Laura! Horrors!)
Yes, as someone who would have jumped at the chance to change the Constitution for Ronald Reagan to have a 3rd term, I am tuning out for now. Maybe, for good. If they call people like me "liberal" because we disagree with them,they are wrong. Logically, I have to believe they are equally wrong about Huckabee and McCain, as well. |
|
les writes:
"You must be talking of a Savage I have not heard. He constantly insults everyone around him. He always sounds like a bitter, angry man."
Yeah that sounds like Michael Savage but I respect him more than the others right now. He may trash John Mccain but he trashes Romney too. He is an equal opportunity offender.
What I can't stand is those talkers who slam Mccain and Huckabee as being liberal and then heap praise on Romney. It's so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. These hosts know that Romney has the most liberal record and yet they still try to portray him as some great conservative.
|
|
You are going off half-cocked when you say Mike Huckabee endorsed flying the Confederate flag in SC. He said no such thing. You were either half listening or not listening at all, so eager were you to just jump in with another attack.
Listen carefully while I explain to you in plain English. He said that Southeners, in general, don't like outsiders trying to tell them how to run their lives and decide their internal issues. The citizens of South Carolina are more than capable of governing themselves. South Carolinians decided for themselves, a few years ago, in democratic fashion, that the flag would be taken down from over the the State House and no longer used as a symbol of Government. It is now displayed as part of South Carolina's past - a piece of history.
Simply put - until you remove the proverbial log from your eye, don't worry about the proverbial speck in your neighbor's eye. Until you get yourself perfect, you have enough to worry about. |
|
|
|
The real damage is not to Talk Radio, but to the Republican Party. Talk radio will survive and flourish, no matter what. It doesn't have to accomplish complete "mind control" over its listeners to stay relevant and popular. At the end of the day, it's ENTERTAINMENT on the ride to and from work.
But you're right, Michael, when you say the behavior of these talk show hosts could seriously damage any chance the Republicans might have of winning in November. (A chance which is already diminished.) If McCain DOES get the nomination - a very strong possibility at this point - he will be so bruised and bloodied by his own fellow conservatives, his candidacy will be weakened from the get-go. It should be interesting to hear what tune Rush & Co. will be singing then. Even if they CHANGE that tune, the damage will have been done.
Thanks for another great post, Michael.
Margaret Evans
Beaufort, SC
http://www.lcweekly.com |
|
Nancy, with all due respect, do you REALLY think that he was doing anything other than to try to attract last-minute votes from those who consider themselves to be traditional Southern conservatives (from Fred, predominantly)?
Yes, I watched the full-length speech (and listened to his pattern of coments via Hannity). These quotes were embarrassing.
Particularly noting the upcoming MLK-Day atmosphere, it bespeaks a loose-cannon.
He has become desperate, paying far too much atention to his news-clippings.
It's a shame that Sam Brownback didn't carry his Evangelical banner, for it would have flown far higher (instead, recalling the gutter-phraseology invoked by the Huckster, with its pole where-the-sun-don't-shine).
He's sinking in Florida, and this is a harbinger for Super-Duper Tuesday. And he WILL NOT have a sufficient number of delegates to swing ANYTHING at the convention (fortunately).
Mitt's the Man! |
|
|
The new 527 for Huckabee. |
|
|
As you listed Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck. McCain and Huckabee deserve no support because they’re not “real conservatives.” if you disagree with a couple of conservatives we get it. If you disagree with all the conservatives shouldn't you get it. Do you really believe all these conservatives didn't think this through. No, what's happening is a classic example of the one individual looking for an opportunity to stand out from the pack. To say "I am different, look at me." Well you are different. Your acting indifferent and your incorrect and it's going to stall. True conservatives will speak up. Your excellent at making your points but I'm glad we don't have to see eye to eye. |
|
The buzz among free thinking conservatives is that the degree and consistency of message among the talk radio assault on non-establishment candidates is too focused and intense to be anything other than a hysterical effort to support the NeoLib candidates -- any of whom will do for them.
I've seen too many lies coming from the Golden EIB microphone of late to believe ANYTHING Rush and his wannabees have to say.
Laura Ingraham is going nuts on the radio as I speak because MedVed has gotten it and her other peers in RNC Propaganda Radio have not. I don't support McCain -- I can't get past his disdain for Christian leaders who he sees as "agents of intolerance", and who authored the amnesty bill and the repeal the first amendment bill. However, if it came down to it, I would vote for McCain just to show how dead talk radio is as an influence.
Thanks, Michael for supporting free thought in the conservative movement. |
|
|
I don't like Michael Medved. Like all neo-conservatives, he is no true conservative. Yet he is correct about Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is a paper tiger who has had no effect on the election. |
|
if Michael is right or not on the talk radio issue...dont really care. But one thing Michael has to be given credit for. He at least talks about the positives of each candidate equally. With an open mind, I have heard him talk about Romney's business experience or Huckabee's religious beliefs, etc. And when something is sleazy, he has called it again on an equal footing.
The others he has mentioned are openly hostile towards a candidate, in this case McCain or Huckabee (hugh and levin take the cake here).
|
|
|
Will Mr. Medved's theory hold true when primaries and caucuses are held in states not allowing crossover votes? Perhaps, but it is more likely that "Huck and Mac" will be set adrift down the political river of no return. |
|
McCain has yet to win a single primary with a majority Republican support. I don't see him winning any closed primaries.
But, since Medved thinks talk radio lost, maybe it’s time to stop listening to his show. |
|
|
I don't know what we Republicans gain by calling McCain and Huckabee liberals. What will talk radio say about McCain or Huckabee or both if they end up on the Republican ticket -- they are liberal but not as liberal as Obama or Clinton? I'm sure that will inspire the base to get out and vote. This primary election has been very enlightening in regards to Rush, Sean, et al. I think they are fiscal conservatives first, then social, and are to such an extent that they are willing to malign a very decent man like Mike Huckabee. For the past few weeks I've listened to Rush "warn" that voters will stay home if McCain or Huckabee get the nomination. Well, what does he expect the social conservatives to do if Guiliani gets the nominee. Talk radios' logic escapes me lately . . . or maybe I've just stopped drinking the kool aid. |
|
|
yes, we call that vacillating, and he will continue to vacillate until the republican party makes up his mind |
|
Talk Radio is alive and well. What we are experiencing is the awakening of a giant. Conservatives have by nature been too conservative. Silly polls and endorsements have domineered their decisions for years. Convincing them that they are not capable of making their own decisions. Conservatives had become a battered voter with low self-esteem and a lack of confidence in their voting expertise.
With the emotional rise of Democratics over Hillary's tears, and the collapse of the NH polls predicting a win by Obama, Conservatives have awakened to the fact that they, too, can make a decision in their lives without relying on Horoscope/Polls or Endorsements by so called better informed special people.
The conservative movement is in its toddler stage. Thinking and researching is new. Mistakes will be made. Victories in Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan by Romney have shored up their confidence.
But the true nature of Huckabee cannot be hidden for long. The excuse of 'the court made me do it' as the reason why he instigated a sales tax on groceries in Arkansas will not fly long. People will find out the truth of the Fair Tax that he supports. That it is unconstitutional in that it is based on the false assumption that the federal government can force the states to collect the tax.
No Talk Radio is not dead. And the conservative movement is not dead. And Huckabee is not a conservative even though he has so far fooled a few. Republicans will not elect a liberal leaning candidate. The conservative split of Ross Perot brought 8 years of Clinton. They will not be so foolish as to let Huckabee split them and allow McCain/Feingold/Kennedy a chance no matter how likeable either McCain or Huckabee happen to be.
If I am wrong, then a Democrat will be back in the White House... |
|
Oddly, many of these same voices support Governor Romney, who has changed his views on a number of points, and openly admits it. He sounds one way in New Hampshire and then another in Michigan, at least as I heard him this last week or so. (I still can't see why he told autoworkers that he could get their jobs back. If you believe that you are living in a world that has passed you by.) Romney sounded to the left of Ted Kennedy in the early 1990s in a Massachusetts race for the Senate. If you watch this debate with Senator Kennedy on You Tube you will see what I mean. But McCain has held the same pro-life position for twenty-six years in Congress. McCain is conservative fiscally and has never, never taken pork for Arizona projects. He is also a conservative socially, without pandering to the evangelicals. And he is far and away the most conservative candidate on how he would defend the nation and face the world in the years ahead.
http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2008/01 /why-does-conser.html |
|
I stopped listening to Medved almost three years ago now. His constant shilling for open borders, his unwillingness to call Establishment Republicans on thier bad behavior and his unceasing whining about conservatives calling out the RINOs just got to be too much.
The only thing that matters to Medved is the (R) after a politicians name. If Ted Kennedy changed his party affiliation to Republican yet remained a socialist, big-government liberal, Medved would support him. Why? Well, he's got that (R) after is name don't he? This is no surprise, as Medved is himself a big-government Republican.
The only time I ever remember him actually speaking out with any kind of 'conviction' against 'big-government' is when it is perpetrated by Democrats; when Republicans are the perpetrators, Medved, at best, offers mealy-mouthed, half-hearted disagreement, and, at worst, full-throated support.
In this respect, Medved has much in common with GWB, who managed to find his veto pen only when the Democrats captured congress. For such men, big-government is just fine if it serves their own party. Disgusting. |
|
I am disappointed that Michael had to use such derogatory adjectives to criticize conservative talk radio, as though having a different opinion than the rest of media is something wrong in this pluralistic society. On the major TV networks, Fred Thompson was rarely even mentioned - out of sight, out of mind. Unfortunately, the same manipulative silence is being used concerning the actual issues we Americans are facing. The emphasis has been what our impressions and feelings towards media produced personalities are, rather than focusing on actual facts of the candidates' past governing performance and ideologies.
The big loser in the SC primary, in my opinion, is our nation. We are rushing down the liberal road to socialism with very little choice left (for us in states still waiting to vote) for a different voice to be heard. |
|
Propaganda Minister in waiting for MexAmeriCanada. (remember, that highway you see being constructed is NOT the NAFTA Superhighway, and the customs office in KS City isn't really there)
He is for anyone unwilling to enforce our immigration laws. He will shill for whoever welcomes our uninvited guestworkers and will change the laws to forgive them their trespassing. He has been on the payroll of the cheap labor express for some time. |
|
Democrats everywhere have convinced themselves that Republicans cannot think for themselves, and therefore, need Rush, Sean, et. al. to speak and think for us. Hopefully, that lie has been put to rest in their minds forever. I am, however, not holding my breath.
As an avid listener of talk radio, my opinions are, for the most part in accordance with those of the conservative pundits. When our opinions do differ, however, those pundits have absolutely no influence over me. I am a hardcore Huckabee supporter and Rush and Sean have not swayed my resolve one iota.
|
|
|
Michael, Do you really think there is a concerted (working in concert) "jihad" against "Mac and Huck" broadcasting "identical messages"? I'm sorry to say that thinking makes you the "biggest loser" in this dialogue. Could it be that all these conservative commentators are saying the same things about these two candidates because they all see the same problem with them. Could it be these commentators have the same conservative qualifications for their next president? I use to think you were the smartest and fairest host on radio. Evidently you think so too. |
|
The Stupid Party
The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, or until they are supplanted by the La Raza Party, why doesn't the RNC know that? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty trio (McCain, Huckabee, Rudy) is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP
|
|
By a columnist:
"Rush is on a tear again today against the media and conservatives quick to surrender principle on the road to victory.
My words, not his: Don't throw out the dogma with the South Carolina results.(Take that, Brokaw.)
UPDATE: Some more Rush (I missed the first hour): What the media considers "straight talk" is anything they agree with.
" |
|
you are shooting yourself on both feet.
"Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck." There has to be a reason why these conservative hosts feel that way. The fact that exit or entrance or phone polls say that true conservatives vote for Mac or Huck cannot be taken as accurate.
And if talk radio is dead than R.I.P. Michael. |
|
Medved has really jumped-the-shark on this one.
Rush likes Fred - I will not dispute this - but Hugh has shown REAL EFFORT in keeping himself from even mentioning Fred's name on the air!
Laura Ingraham? Call in to Laura's show and mention Fred or his record - the ONLY response you will hear from her is "Uh."
Hannity has caught Hugh's bug (not allowing Fred's name to be spoken).
In fact, the only time they seem to find it within themselves to acknowledge Fred's existence is when he's RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM
When it comes to Fred, Talk Radio (/sarcasm-on> the 'last bastion of conservatism' - /sarcasm-off) has been dancing to the MSMs tune.
Look, Fred is the ONLY candidate with a consistently-conservative record, he's the ONLY ONE who will PUT IN PRINT his plans for dealing with the important issues (aparently, his fiscal plan was good enough for Rudy to rip-off), and he's the ONLY ONE who DOESN'T come off as a say-anything-to-get-elected, slick-as-hair-gel POLITICIAN.
The question is answered: The Media control the elections - allowing us to hear only from their 'annointed' candidates.
Oh, and by the way, MM :
"(Fred Thompson’s departure from the race is reportedly imminent, after he “consults” with his hospital bound mother)"
Was that supposed to be funny?
(hint: Olbermann thought it was funny too - THERE'S a litmus test for you)
The man's mother is ancient and in the hospital with complications from pneumonia - 12% of the vote was in when he thanked everyone and said he was going to check on her in the hospital.
News Flash:
That's called solid, healthy priorities.
An alien concept, I realize - after all, what could POSSIBLY be more important than the pursuit of power, right?
Truly Michael, sometimes I disagree with you - other times, you just make me sick.
- MuscleDaddy |
|
|
|
As others point out, Medved cherry picks SC and seems to ignore results in Nevada (and other places) to attempt a weak argument seen above. I'm not certain if Medved has a hidden agenda to push Huckabee, but I do know that I am from Seattle, and am a democrat turned conservative.
When I want to listen to GOOD talk radio, I try to find Rush, Hannity, Beck or Mark Levin because they make thoughtful arguments based on a full interpretation of all the facts.
I don't like to listen to Medved, and I see that a lot of other seasoned conservatives also don't care much for what he tries to say. |
|
This guy brought me to talk radio. Over the years he has morphed into a "compassionate, compassionate" conservative in the mold of Michael Gerson and Karl Rove, and more recently, Huckabee and McCain. He'll talk a good game on taxes, but how do you explain his support of McCain? He claims McCain's vote against the Bush tax cuts was based on a failure to cut spending, but he never mentions the Democrat class warfare rhetoric used by McCain. He also claims the Gang of 14 saved the filibuster the Republicans are using now against the Democrat Congress. That's not true and he knows it's not true. The "nuclear" option blocked by the Gang only eliminated the filibuster of judicial nominees, not legislation. On immigration, he supported McCain/Kennedy, claiming the Z visa is not tanamount to amnesty. He knows better.
Medved has lost his objectivity, historically his greatest asset. He has become a pit bull defender of Huckabee and McCain and it's sad to behold. Now he takes on ALL of his colleagues, claiming they are defaming his guys, while he constantly whines about Romney's contrast ads against Huckabee and Romney. Bizarre.
I have fired Medved as my mid-day guy for all these reasons and many others (repetition, increasing narcissism, constant religious themes, etc.). |
|
well said medved
only a mental midget would think mexican hating tongue speaking, and bible thumping are conservative. oh sure, they are rightest ..... like mussolini maybe. but the american conservative movement is libertarian, not authoritarian like todays red meat phonies.
here is to praying we never again have a evangelical president listening to "god" speak, answering in tongues. here is to the end of racist anti brown, anti latin morons. good riddance. our party is supposed to be about human liberty and dignity. not forcing english and religion down everyones throat.
|
|
Michael
You have captured my thoughts exactly. I'm not enamored of McCain, but he is the most electable candidate for us and it is time to stop the fratricide and get behind our eventual nominee. What use to be Hugh's cardinal rule - go for the Republican with the best chance of winning (e.g., Schwarzenegger) - has been cast aside here by the crazed cabal of "Mittens" followers. |
|
Rasmussen Florida: *ROMNEY 25 - McCain 20 - Giuliani 19 - Huckabee 13.
Rasmussen National: McCain 25 - *ROMNEY 19 - Huckabee 15 - Giuliani 10 - Thompson 10.
*Romney's first Florida lead and highest ever National ranking. Can you say Momentum.
Governor Romney's plan for economic renewal catches fire in Florida and across America!
Vote Jan. 29: Willard Mitt Romney for "positive conservative change."
|
|
Rasmussen Florida: *ROMNEY 25 - McCain 20 - Giuliani 19 - Huckabee 13.
Rasmussen National: McCain 25 - *ROMNEY 19 - Huckabee 15 - Giuliani 10 - Thompson 10.
*Romney's first ever Florida lead and highest ever National ranking.
Governor Romney's plan for economic renewal catches fire in Florida and across America!
Vote Jan. 29: Willard Mitt Romney for "positive conservative change."
|
|
I am flat out sick of the media type love fest touting McCain's candidacy and chastising Republicans for their opposition and for being to exclusionary to win.
First I don't buy that McCain is our best shot to win. The MSM media that has given him his popularity with liberals will turn on him like a rabid dog if he wins the nomination.
Republicans may hold their nose and vote for him over Hillary but the GOTV effort, excitement exc. won't be there.
Secondly, Why does everyone treat him like the frontrunner. He sqeezed 33% out of a state with an open primary favoring him in a state he has worked for a year!!!! He beat Romney in New Hamphire where he may as well be the de facto president
Note that the state has less delegates than Nevada or Michigan.
Finally, even the most wavering conservative cannot trust McCain on the key issues:
I think everyone would agree that the most devastating impact of a Hillary or Obama victory is the 3-5 judges they may apoint to SCOTUS.
Do you really think Gang of Seven McCain will put forth a conservative nominee opposed by his democratic friends. No way. Any honest Mccain supporter knows that he will not use the federalist society vetting process and will only appoint consensus nominees.
Does anyone believe he will work to reduce any tax. He won't fight for the estate tax repeal or even the extension of the Bush cuts.
Does anyone believe that he will actually take on his senate buddies on spending. Yeah he may hit the discretionary stuff but he is oblivious to the entitlement crisis.
And then there is the global warming hoax that he has bought the destroy the economy solution to.
Does Mr. Medved get it. Yeah he may have a high conservative rating but on the votes critical to our country's future he is often fighting hard for the wrong side.
Win or lose he would be a disaster for the conservative movement. |
|
I would love to see the blathering on talk radio go away, but I don't think this is going to do it. I suspect it will just get more annoying.
Steve |
|
Mr. Medved:
I think you showed your true colors when you asserted that Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney are "OUR" four candidates.
Who is "our?" There are several other candidates.
Apparently, you are a Republican first, an American second. You ought to be ashamed of being so unpatriotic. |
|
I do not understand your motivation for building a show on "Talk Radio Getting It Wrong". You claimed that talk radio has little to no affect on the primaries, but you feel compelled to point out that your views on McCain and the rest of talk radio differ. Why bother? In fact, most shows I've listened to even though critical of McCain (and has been throughout the years, not just on this primary) -- have not endorsed their favorite.
To be honest - I don't really have a favorite for the Republican Primary; over time, I slowly eliminate names off the list, who I don't want. McCain happens to be one of those.
I'm looking for a optimistic and strong candidate who has a passion to reduce the size of the federal government and protect the nation -- the economic war with China, war on terrorism, and the inablity to control our borders. I'm looking for an advocate for state & local gov rights.
I agree that McCain doesn't lean favorably towards inclinations of the Democratic party, but by no means does he support the conservative agenda of the Republican party. He beats to his own drum on the issues. Lately "No Vote" seems to be his common trend for 2007 -- esp. in areas (welfare, military, national security, etc.) that could be used against him if he voted one way or another.
Reference: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270
Reference on Network Charts showing McCains maverick tendencies (interesting reading none the less):
http://analyticalvisions.blogspot.com/2006/04/senate-voting -patterns.html
http://analyticalvisions.blogspot.com/2006/04/senate-voting -patterns-part-2.html
|
|
He is a terrible politician. I would rather vote for Gulliani 10 times over then vote for McCain once.
I am considering sitting out this election – I was one of the few conservatives that went out and voted republican in ’06 because I couldn’t stomach the demoncraps winning.
I called McCain endlessly to drop his “Government Heavy” immigration bill that no sane conservative could believe would actually work. I would rather have Reagan amnesty and a "great wall of china" on the friggin border then gov’t getting a humongous red tape bureaucracy “quasi-validating” all the illegals like Medved and McCain wanted.
Tired of hearing his eco-friendly crap about global warming and not going nuclear.
Mental-illness liberal-neocon Medved just doesn’t know that McCain probably has Alzheimer's & his liberalism is a result of this sad mental illness.
McCain also despises the “greedy” drug companies so maybe he is avoiding buying the Alzheimer's medication he needs right now.
This career politician needs to go to the old folks home and retire. How the hell can he function as president at friggin 80 years old??????????????????????? |
|
|
No surprise. Rush Limbaugh is the cheerleader for the rightwing in this country, and, clearly second, for Republicans. Both are headed for a massive and well-deserved defeat in the 2008 election. Good riddance, |
|
I can't remember such a coordinated, sustained attack on a Republican! Hugh Hewitt's posted his Santorum interview roughly 154 times. Mark Levin's voice got even higher and more nasal, and Rush and NRO pounded away. Huckabee has been accorded less time since the 24/7 no-holds-barred stop-McCain effort kicked in, but he was the one they went after first, after Iowa.
63% against Limbaugh, Hewitt, Levin, NRO, Ingram.
63%! |
|
Medved's opinion is Orwellian--"McCain and Huckabee are decent and principled conservatives" Neither are decent and principled and most importantly, neither are conservative!
Medved is an open borders proponent and a supporter of the NAU |
|
|
Is it neither are or neither is? |
|
conservative radio is flat lining. rush failed in his massive (and bloated) effort to keep the house and the senate.
the pear shaped water carrier blew it big time. now the talk radio king is failing to defeat mccain. of course the neocon radio wingbags fear mrs. clinton more than anything because payback is hell. can you say "fairness doctrine"? the end is near for conservative talk radio? better polish up that resume rush.
|
|
|
Their records are their records. It is fact, not made up. The only thing Levin and others are doing is bringing it out for people to see. Their records are NOT conservative. These people aren't doing any research whatsoever, they're listening to the left wing whacko media to make their decisions. If it comes down to McCain vs Clinton, I'm writing in Mickey Mouse. |
|
I think there is also a considerable talk radio backlash. I know many conservatives who would never have thought about McCain and Huckabee seriously before talk radio started attacking. They listened directly and liked what they saw.
Because of that I think that talk radio hosts have been much more respectful recently, especially of Huck, but the damage has been done.
It is easier to be negative than positive, and even easier to be whiplashed by the backlash.
I am just listening to Hugh talk to a pollster, Mike Gallagher, about taking Huckabee being taken in by a Romney. The pollster said that talk radio hosts and Romney have demonized Huck so much that they will not take him in. Hugh also talked about McCain being demonized because he said in Florida that there should be no federal catastrophic insurance for disasters (A potential portk barrel of epic proportions.)
Gallagher responded that most republicans would probably look at this as straight talk on conservative principals and not pandering.
Hugh Hewitt's response. Thank you, click.......
And so goes the power of talk radio.
|
|
Bookaholic typifes the lies told about Huckabee:
(in) "Arkansas he paroled/commuted 1,033 convicted criminals, including 12 murderers now walking the streets."
The 12 murderers had their sentences commuted but they were not released. They were reduced from the death penalty to life in prison.
Wuzzledorf wrote of Huckabee: "The excuse of 'the court made me do it' as the reason why he "
Of course, will he apply that logic to Romney who ordered "marriage" licenses ordered for homosexuals because the court made him do it? |
|
Wow Michael, all I hear from you these days is “I’m right, your wrong, NE NER NE NER!” Why are you so obsessed with people speaking their minds about what they believe and making comments about candidates that are more in line with their philosophy?
I listen to Rush and you almost all the time and I have never seen you this obsessed with what other talk show hosts think or say! I would think you would be happy to express your unique opinion especially if it was a lone voice of reason, but instead you seen to be whining about why McCain and the Huckabee aren’t getting some kind of a pass on their records.
You know the facts tell us a lot about the candidate and give us an idea of what they will do in the future. I’m sure that Rush or Sean or Glenn all have their personal favorites they feel most closely meets their definition of conservatism and for the love, why can’t they express this? You obviously have yours which is fine so why are you whining and saying “talk radio” lost?
I’m amazed at where you have landed here Michael. I believe this will be your Kosovo part 2. Not just because you will be proven wrong about who will get the nomination, but because you took it too personally when people disagreed with your opinion and you attacked them. Whether it was your callers, your fellow talk show hosts, or the conservative listeners you have been so blessed to have, I think this will hurt you very much in the future.
The sad thing is you probably won’t understand that people don’t enjoy hearing others whine and complain about why for some reason they aren’t agreeing with them all the time and it’s always someone else’s fault. This is something I would think to hear on Air America and not so much from you.
I am looking forward to the primaries being over and hopefully you will come back to your sense and stop whining so much.
|
|
I also heard on Hugh that McCain and Romney are both courting Huck. Frankly I really thought this was a good idea at one time, but I don't know anymore.
Huck has done alot to stir up religious and racial issues in South Carolina especially. Bringing up the long settled flag issue and rerunning the Christian ads, as well as frequent Christian Constitution discussions.
It will be hard to put those things back in the barn on a vice president run. I can tell you in the border red/blue states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconson they really react negatively to proseletizing and racial innuendo.
Huck supporters, I am still open to this. Please tell me how Huck can overcome his "Evangelical President" face to be trustworthy to all Americans.
|
|
|
| | |