Sunday, October 04, 2009
|
|
Praise for Hewitt, Medved & Bennett
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
12:43 PM
|
Steven F. Hayward has written a very smart piece in today's Washington Post, titled, "Is Conservatism Brain Dead?"
I also wanted to point out this graph:
... it is perfectly possible to conduct talk radio at a high level of seriousness, and several talkers do well at matching the quality of their shows to their intellectual pedigree. Consider Hugh Hewitt (Michigan Law School), Michael Medved (Yale Law School), William Bennett (Harvard Law and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas) -- all three of these brainiacs have popular shows on the Salem Radio Network.
Read the whole thing.
|
|
HH - is seldom hosting his own show. He compromises basic principles like excusing tax cheats so they can run the Treasury etc.
Medved thinks McCain is conservative.
Bennett is nice but boooooorrrrrriiiiinnnnggggg. How many times can we hear from Hazel in Tacoma talk about her breakfast club?
These guys are smart and decent but they help the Left as often as they help the Right. They are friends with many of those who are ruining the country so they are not objective. |
|
"Where Hayward finds hope, in other words, is with Jonah Goldberg, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Beck. Seriously.
"If this isn't proof of the right's intellectual collapse, nothing is." |
|
|
Speaking of intellectual collapses, and show up up on que. |
|
|
Speaking of intellectual collapses, and you show up on que. |
|
|
good one. you have a nice Sunday.. |
|
|
Everyday is great in Montana. |
|
|
|
Bennett, Hewitt and Medved help insure neoconservatism as the ideological base of the GOP, whether the GOP is the minority or not. They would rather lose an election, in my opinion, than win one if it meant the ideas of the Old Right becoming dominant again.
Another thing they do well is to help propagate the phony left/right paradigm that insures the general public is always ruled by elitists, regardless of party. |
|
i know what you're saying about the elites keeping us busy but I believe there really is a huge difference between the modern Left (fascist/marxists) and the modern Right (socialists and cons combined). Americans should agree on what is "American" first and then we can discuss other issues. Selling out to China is not American, for example.
I've always been mystified when Dem/libs claim that cradle to grave programs are American. Where'd that come from? |
|
|
|
Quite true about China with regard to "free" trade is a classic case of the elites of both parties supporting despite the fact it makes us a net importer of goods instead of a manufacturer.
"I've always been mystified when Dem/libs claim that cradle to grave programs are American. Where'd that come from?"
Beats hell out of me. I believe it comes from a distorted interpretation of the line in the preamble of the Constitution. That is, "promote the general welfare".
====
Origanalist,
People like Robert Taft of the 1950s and Pat Buchanan. |
|
|
Who would be named as three, like "minds" (relatively speaking), on the Left? |
|
|
I thought it was the sound of a gelding breaking wind. |
|
Hewitt, Medved and Smerconish.
Have y'all noticed that Hayward sets the premise for what is "serious" then finds talk jockeys who are moderate and calls them conservative and intelligent. Voila.
Meanwhile, fighting amnesty, military ineptness, human oppression, abortion, voter/taxpayer fraud and socialized medicine is frivolous because we don't really see another side to these issues. So what we should do, I guess, is pretend to consider the wrong side, waste some time, and then try to get our way. Maybe the Intellectuals will approve of us then. |
|
|
Larry Moe and Curlry come to mind, Nyuck. |
|
|
Liberal intellect, like all those Harvard surrender monkey-wrenches? Like the Quislings over the last 6 decades in the State Dept., and in the MSM?? Wow. Such intellect! The people who are bankrupting the nation with socialist pacifist agendas? You mean those intellects? At least the conservs on Talk Radio are finally an alternative to the messes I have had to listen to , read and watch since the 1940s' and actually make sense and oh yeah, actually love America and its liberty and heritage! Unlike all those patriotic liberal dupes who really talk a good game but end up like puddles of you know what when America is challenged by real enemies domestically and internationally; which enemies want to kill even those poor leftist saps. Like the Communists and today's Islamofascists. But, of course, it is Reagan and Bush's fault not them. |
|
|
Now you're being too serious... |
|
In addition to what Ryan said about Old Right conservatives, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
I know, it's "only" a Wiki article, but as a fairly well-read Old Rightist myself, I can tell you it's a very good article.
And yes, like the left, the neocons are out of ideas. The Strauss-Jaffa-Kristol legacy is spent (and oh what damage it did to the conservative movement). It will likely seek to survive by moving further to the left than it already has and by worming its way into the affections of Democrat administations in hopes of perpetuating its wars of "democratic revolution."
Want real conservative ideas? Try the old guys: Burke, Jefferson, Calhoun, Burnham, Eliot, Kirk, Bradford, Weaver. Because there's no one of their stature among the neocons. And their ideas are not irrelevant. |
|
|
Hey It's cold outside ,that is the best excuse I have. |
|
is a real hummdinger. Some juicy quotes:
"Weisberg's pitch is simple but persuasive: Republicans have given up on being the 'party of ideas,' have no plausible alternatives to major policy challenges, and don't take policy matters seriously at all. Conservatives, Weisberg said, have 'devolved' so far, 'ostensibly intelligent people [are] cheering on Sarah Palin.' With the rise of neoconservatives, the right's focus shifted to political power, and away from interest in policy. . . .
Which is not to say Hayward is despondent. He believes Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' is an intellectual text, and he believes Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, and William Bennett are 'brainiacs' with 'popular' talk shows. Hayward is also impressed with Glenn Beck's reading habits and choice of authors and guests. Beck, Hayward argued, has demonstrated an 'interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony.'
Where Hayward finds hope, in other words, is with Jonah Goldberg, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Beck. Seriously.
If this isn't proof of the right's intellectual collapse, nothing is." |
|
is a medium designed for dingbats, liberalism does not succeed there. And given that the corporate media is wired for conservatives, there are not a lot of liberal voices on television as well.
I would say Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, and EJ Dionne are three liberals who get airtime and are far more interesting and intellectually compelling than the buffoons like Hewitt and Beck. Medved is a pretty interesting guy. And Bennett reminds me of Orson Welles--a talented youth and a corpulent joke in his middle age.
but intellectual renaissance is a literary phenomena. conservatives had one in the 60s and 70s. but now, the intellectual life of conservatism is the dribble on Fox, Drudge, and the talkies--and it shows.
|
|
|
Good Idea Go With That,Ha Ha Ha. |
|
until now...Platitudinous Lib'rul ISN'T a contrarian cynic who gets a kick outta goading us'suns with the baseless jibberish(Media is Rightwing,etc. ad nauseum..)..OMGAWD..! Never did it strike me--EVER, EVER--that he seriously believes that swill! Parallel Loopy Lefty Universe.
O*M*G..! He..believes...that...stuff...?
Snicker. |
|
[[Given that talk radio
is a medium designed for dingbats, liberalism does not succeed there. And given that the corporate media is wired for conservatives, there are not a lot of liberal voices on television as well.
I would say Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, and EJ Dionne are three liberals who get airtime and are far more interesting and intellectually compelling than the buffoons like Hewitt and Beck.]]
Yeah. Deep stuff there, Pathetic. Especially that Maddow creature.
I join BSC is his great big belly laugh.
Neoconservatives are dumb, but liberals are dumber.
|
|
"Neoconservatives are dumb, but liberals are dumber."
I have to take issue with you on this one point. I believe that neoconscum could match the stupidest liberal here any day. Just look at what he wrote above as a case in point.
|
|
|
you could always get Soros to get Air America going again. My wasn't that adventure successful. You control your air waves, and we'll control ours. Of course in the end when the big three get tired of dumping millions into programs that don't work, and they get bailed out, they will concede. stupidity eventually runs out of money. |
|
|
NeoConScum is, well, "special." |
|
Neoconscum runs so far ahead of you doofus' that he just leaves you chasing your own tails.
Comical to watch though. |
|
"Neoconscum runs so far ahead of you doofus' that he just leaves you chasing your own tails."
Ah.
|
|
MaineConservative is also "special".
In this case for that one post he has exceeded neoconscum. |
|
Liberals don't succeed in regards to political and social talk because their ideas are rejected on the large scale. They are talented people but their material is weak. Plus they are bitter and miserable people. Who wants to listen/watch that for long? It'd be like watching Schindler's List more than once. There is no point to it.
Also, libs have to compete for ratings and they aren't good at fair head to head competition. Like those little fish that suck on whales, they have to have assistance, welfare, and bailouts to survive. |
|
"Given that talk radio
is a medium designed for dingbats, liberalism does not succeed there."
Actually, the "medium" has been quite successful for decades insofar as NPR is concerned (government subsidies fit perfectly into that business model). Predominantly Liberals participating. And surely skewed towards the Left in CONTENT.
Anayway-----Pedantic Liberal is correct.
Liberals need television. It provides that additional dimension of "sight", you know, for perfectly coiffed hair, manicured nails, pearly whites, tailored suit. William Hurt's character in, "Broadcast News", portrays sufficiently the Liberal need for this superficial layer in delivering content. After all, that's why radio never had an audience (insert chuckle) before television existed. It could NEVER adequately hold the interest of a Liberal---it was entirely a conservative, "toot-toot" (yeah.....right).
Yeah, the truly sophisticated Liberal needs all of the senses satiated---which can only be done through t.v........OH.....and Michael Moore Documentaries......oh yes, and really compelling movies such as, "Death of a President". The latter is so successful as it appeals to the darker side of the Liberal mind----helps them to play out their angry fantasies. In this case----the assassination of president Bush.
Yep, t.v. news; designed for Liberal "dingbats". That's why, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC has flourished for so long. It has been designed just for them---with content skewed to their mindset, liking, elitism, and ideologies.
|
|
..."trash" in the aisle of a grocery store---that is precisely what their banter resembles.
Well, "bagladies" is a bit harsh.
Let's just say, "domestics".
Two domestics slaying the local neighbors (in their catty-chatter) and any others they don't like.
This site has adequately devolved. |
|
That sleaszy Grayson congressman. Is he from your neck of th ewoods?
What a glaring example of Liberal erudition he is. "We're experiencing a 'HOLOCAUST' in the healthcare industry".
A "HOLOCAUST", mind you. This guy would not know a holocaust if he stumbled across one. Ignorance is as ignorance does.
And that other hugely highbrow rhetoric of his, "Republicans are footdraggers and knuckledraggers..."
Whoooooo Hoooooo, now there's a hoot-n-holler'n line if ever there was one. Fresh too. Real catchy. And never been heard before----real original.
Anyway----just another example of lowbrow clowns on the Left. |
|
It got downright stupid when idiots like you showed up.
"Liberals need television. It provides that additional dimension of "sight", you know, for perfectly coiffed hair, manicured nails, pearly whites, tailored suit."
Yes, there is truth here and fools like you need your talk radio for your daily fix of BS. You are the opposite side of the same coin as those liberals you are always bitching about. |
|
"Hey, NeoConScum..."
He's not awake. They put them to bed early at that mental hospital they have him locked up in.
You should do the same thing after your stupid post to him over the holocaust. I didn't realize the ADL owns the copyright. |
|
Yeah, Rachel Maddow is a real intellectual Colossus. I'd like to see her conduct a 1, 2 or 3 hour interview with Harry Jaffa, Thomas P.M Barnett, Michael Yon, Douglas Feith and keep the audience from dozing off.
Heck, she couldn't even keep up with Richard Armey on one of the Sunday news shows recently. It seems that, since Armey actually lived and worked in the Congress, he knew what he was talking about while Maddow only had her talking points. Swing ... and a miss. |
|
|
"Wealth and Poverty" is one of the better economic books. Follow it up with his sequel, "Spirit of Enterprise". |
|
I categorize them thusly:
Beck focuses primarily on philosophy; he seeks to define what "conservatism" means.
Limbaugh focuses on policy, or how "conservatism" should influence legislation and other government policy.
Hannity speaks primarily of politics, of who did what to whom in the government sphere.
Of the three, Beck is the most interesting to me, because I find the philosophy of liberty to be most engaging. |
|
there is nothing wrong with the right. we still believe the same thing. less government and control our own lives and family.
stop trying to over analyze everybody that is our voice on the public airwaves and unite with our common goal of getting rid of these horrible democrats.
evidently, the republicans in the house and senate have their hands tied, being in the minority. we have to help them with our voting out these horrible democrats in 2010. we have to unite in our quest because the alternative is bye bye USA! |
|
|
who--to my horror & amusement--DOES represent Orlando. It's going to be a pleasure writing $$-checks to help make him a 1-term wonder. :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
scribbles,
"You should do the same thing after your stupid post to him over the holocaust. I didn't realize the ADL owns the copyright." (talk about stupid comments)
Yeah----I would expect you'd have no problem in redefining words.
In this case, "holocaust".
Whatever and however it fits your purpose for the time being. Liberals have perfected this act.
Fact is, diluting the meaning of words such as these contributes to the misunderstanding of the actual events they were coined for. I know, concepts such as these flies right over little pinheads like yours.
But then----it's pinheads like you who refer to "racism" in myriad cases where it too, does not apply.
The way in which this guy used, holocaust, was entirely wrong.
I'll bet your even one to regularly use the word, "recalibrate", when talking to other bagladies, after Obama made the word up.
Indeed----holocaust is still a word which identifies a very specific, heinous human behavior. Not one nearly apropos in cavalier rhetoric by politicians.
You keep cRyan, though. It's what you do best. |
|
Liberals need television, etc . . .
I believe you are on to something.
There have been many studies concerning children who watch too much TV tend to lose their imagination.
One of the best studies concerned children of an earlier era who had only radio. The study used an old radio program titled: "Straight Arrow." One of the lead ins to the program was something like: "Straight Arrow, mounted on his fiery, red horse . . . "
The study claimed that kids who listened to radio visualized a a fiery, red horse while those who watched the program on TV seen only a common, sorrel horse. The argument of this study and others like it was that TV was destroying the imagination of children.
So, probably similar to liberals who are so lock stepped in their minds that they can't visualize anything heard on radio.
Plus the liberals like to see spit flying out of the mouths of the talking heads, like Chris Matthews, Laurance(sp) O'Donnald and others of that ilk to tend to spray folks with whom they disagree. |
|
Mine was said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
(went right over the head of cRyan---what a dolt)
Pedantic Liberal's foolish take on "radio" required as much.
However, one needs look no further than William Hurt's character to affirm the vacuous, superficial veneer of these television talking heads we've witnessed for decades.
You may recall many years ago when Dan Rather's hair became a topic of discussion. It seems the guy was doing the "Grecian-formula" thing. This was back in the 80's when there was still a hint of high expectations from these nightly news messengers. He caught some grief over this---as it projected him as, less-than-serious, in his "vaulted" postion. |
|
|
ie Lib radio where we have to depend upon the kindness of strangers to survive... |
|
"Given that talk radio is a medium designed for dingbats, liberalism does not succeed there."
"Actually, the "medium" has been quite successful for decades insofar as NPR is concerned."
Um, NPR isn't "talk radio." |
|
Look----does stupidity come easily for you, or is it that you have to work at it?
NPR presently has, and has long had "talk" format to it---whether or not you want to remain coy and obtuse.
Just a few examples for the really dense among us:
"Talk of the Nation"
"CAR TALK" (over two decades old)
"On Point"
"Talk of the Nation Science"
"The Diane Rehm Show"
"Fresh Air Weekend" (used to be, "Fresh Air")
"Speaking of Faith"
TALK RADIO----pinhead... |
|
|
|
Yeah---that shut the little twirp's trap, after realizing that, once again, he spoke up before thinking through his response.
What a dolt. |
|
"Vlad---decides that "no comment" is best"
That's correct. "No comment" would be EVEN BETTER for you. If you think Diane Riehm is "talk radio," you clearly don't know what you're talking about. |
|
vlad says,
"Um, NPR isn't "talk radio."
Me: NPR certainly does produce talk radio content.
End of discussion, you clown. |
|
I listen to Diane Riehm and On Point pretty regularly. I think they're two of the best shows for providing a range of opinion.
Clarity shirker, you know perfectly well what I'm talking about. "Talk radio" doesn't mean "any show where people talk on the radio." When you say "talk radio," you are talking about a particular type of radio programming, and Diane Riehm doesn't fall into that category. This IS the end of the discussion for me, but I'll bet it isn't for you! |
|
|
change the definition of what "is" is... |
|
"NPR certainly does produce talk radio content."
The format of "talk radio" shows is generally a single host doing most of the talking, with listener call-ins and occasionally an interview of a single guest. The NPR shows I'm familiar with -- Diane Riehm, Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air -- have the single host and the listener calls-in, but are mostly or entirely interviews of a single guest or discussions among multiple guests, moderated by the host. It's not an especially strong distinction.
I loved talk radio when I was a kid, specifically Jean Shepard on WOR and Studs Terkel on WFMT. |
|
We'll all sleep better tonight knowing how much you enjoyed Jean Sheperd and Studs Terkel.
Now----if you are also attempting to "define" what talk radio is-----don't make me laugh, BOZO.
I love your word usage,
"The format of "talk radio" shows is generally...". Well, yeah-----"generally"----when it fits into your myopic little virtual world paradaim.
And, this one,
"The NPR shows I'm familiar with -- Diane Riehm, Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air -- have the single host and the listener calls-in, but are mostly or entirely interviews of a single guest or discussions among multiple guests..."
Yeah----in other words, "TALK RADIO"----BOZO
FLUNCKY----you're missing, "Car Talk", comprised of two hosts and multiple callers discussing their automobile "issues"----in other words----"TALK RADIO"----CLOWN...
Geeeeeeesh, it sure is entertaining watching you Liberal hacks attempt to cover up for Pathetic Liberal and his asanine comment about talk radio.
You're squirmin' and wormin' in that predictable nebbish fashion.
Hey Flunck, please, go play in traffic... |
|
"Now----if you are also attempting to "define" what talk radio is"
What part of "it's not an especially strong distinction" didn't you understand? |
|
"you're missing, "Car Talk", comprised of two hosts and multiple callers discussing their automobile "issues"
http://xkcd.com/582/
Don't neglect to mouse-over the cartoon to see the secondary punchline. |
|
What you and Flatulent-Vlad meant to say was,
"Well, what we mean is NPR's not CONSERVATIVE "TALK RADIO".
Now---*there you'd have a point.
(*but that would've been too simple and requiring more thought than you have synapses for) |
|
"what you meant to say was...
"Well, what we mean is NPR's not CONSERVATIVE "TALK RADIO".
No, I didn't say anything about political leanings, just format. |
|
...your butt-buddy, Flatulent-Vlad disputes NPR engaging in any "talk radio"---period.
And---you are actually taking the time to chime in on what should be a non-issue with "generally" and "mostly", and "entirely"---only then to claim there's, "not an especially strong distinction." Around in circles you go...
NPR is what it is; a Liberal-skewed station (using our tax dollars) producing "talk radio" content.
My point?
Along with Flatulent-Vlad and Pedantic Liberal being wrong, once again (so tiresome), it further illustrates how gratuitous your arguments are... |
|
"it further illustrates how gratuitous your arguments are"
My single comment seemed to be sufficiently apropos for you to devote three responses to it, at some length. And it's not yet clear that you understood what I said. |
|
"And it's not yet clear that you understood what I said."
Bob, rest assurd that he didn't. See the last sentence his post at 11:27 PM as a case in point.
|
|
You could not write material like this---really. The feckless little dweeb, with nary a hint of productive dialogue, sweeps in with nonsense.
There is no 11:27 PM post---dimwit. Not unless you refer to another day from the one we're in. But then---yours is a virtual world----where time is bent to your whims.
Keep cRyan, you clown... |
|
"There is no 11:27 PM post---dimwit. Not unless you refer to another day from the one we're in"
It could scarcely have been a post today, since it's not yet 11:27 PM. This wasn't all that hard to figure out. |
|
"There is no 11:27 PM post---dimwit. Not unless you refer to another day from the one we're in."
That should be obvious to normal people. That would exclude yourself.
|
|
"This wasn't all that hard to figure out."
Only if you are "clarity"seeker.
|
|
Seriously.
I generally just glance through the posts herein.
You've got nothing to add, except utter foolishness. |
|
"I generally just glance through the posts herein."
I can see why from your post to me. You have nothing intelligent to add.
You should have continued your former course of action, instead of showing yourself to be an idiot. |
|
|
|