Rush Limbaugh Wants People to be Stupid

Why are there so few liberal radio talk shows today compared to those of the conservative variety? I think because liberals are much more likely to have formed their own well-thought-out opinions.

I have a hard time calling myself a conservative these days, despite the official definition of the term. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, and all he seems to want to conserve is people's stupidity. Probably because it makes him rich.

Conservatives are a monolithic bunch, don't you think? I once made the mistake of thinking liberals are the same way, but I'm starting to realize it's not true.

While I was on the way to get a Subway sandwich at lunch today, I heard a lady call into the Rush Limbaugh show claiming she knew the answer to why there were hardly any liberal radio talk shows. Rush praised her for coming up with the "right answer", which allegedly was that liberals controls all the newspapers, magazines, newscasts, etc. 'Oh, and don't forget Hollywood movies,' Rush intoned.

Here's the real reason that Rush--along with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and others of this ilk-- is so popular, but that liberal talk show hosts aren't. Liberals tend much more frequently to think for themselves. Most

Not all liberals think, to be sure, but most do. Contrarily, not all conservatives don't think, but most don't.

They let Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly do their thinking for them.

How pitiful.

conservatives have a hard time doing this, but rather feel a rush of euphoria when they discover that they have become conditioned to agree with some million-dollar talk-show host that makes a fast buck by doing their thinking for them.

While liberals have their own often carefully thought-out opinions, most conservatives are content to be served up a mind full of not much more than mush.

This idea became clear to me the other day as I read a DailyKos article. First, let me ask a couple of questions:

(1) How many died-in-the-wool conservatives would criticize George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republican Party. Answer: Not many.

(2) How many liberals criticize Democrats when they think they are wrong? Quite a few more. It was this article by mcjoan about FISA at DailyKos that helped clarify the conservative conundrum for me (H/T The SideTrack). In the article, mcjoan criticized the Democrats for capitulating to Republicans in the battle over FISA legislation (a point, by the way, with which I agree):
Have Dem leaders really moved in the discussions from whether to provide amnesty to how to provide it? Beyond that, why in the hell do the telcos have a seat at the negotiating table on this issue at all?
And it dawned on me. Liberals' principles are much more likely to be something other than of the whim-of-the-day wolf-pack-mentality variety.

This concept has been on my mind as I have begun to read The Mighty & The Almighty, a book by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, a book which in bygone years I would never have picked up, because I was content to let Rush Limbaugh do my thinking for me. Ms. Albright is a far more dynamic individual than the dimwitted Mr. Limbaugh would like anyone to know as he so many times has attempted to squelch understanding by referring to the Madame Secretary as Madeleine Halfbright.

In her book, I am impressed to find out, Ms. Albright talks about the importance of discussing religion in public, a view that she did not always subscribe to. As I do, Madeleine Albright believes that essentially all religion is valuable, and that everyone should be left to freely choose what religion will be theirs. She believes that an attempt to understand Islam will be of great benefit to achieving liberty and peace across the globe--another point that is right on target in my book. Most importantly, she says that while liberty and democracy are "mankind's best inventions" and superior to any other form of society and government, it is a precarious situation to go around the world compelling others to accept America's form of democracy.

Rush Limbaugh must be less than half bright.

Not all liberals think, to be sure, but most do. Contrarily, not all conservatives don't think, but most don't.

They let Rush, Sean, and Bill do their thinking for them.

How pitiful.




Comments

  1. I have been astonished and amazed at the wealth of knowledge that can be accessed when actually listening to "the other side".

    I watched Jimmy Carter on TV last week talk about the reasons he went to speak to Hamas, and was blown away by how much sense he made. Not only that, but he spoke easily and eloquently, very unlike the current president.

    I think I'm still a conservative, but I refer to myself as a recovering Republican. The problem was I started to think too much, and that appears to be a dangerous thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Republicans have their Rush, Liberals have their Kos/ThinkProgress/DemUnderground etc.

    Commenters there are like Rush's callers.

    And I don't see a lot of thinking reflected in those comments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UK,

    That's an interesting perspective about Carter. I wasn't really impressed with what seemed like the one-sidedness of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, but then again my view might be a bit one-sided. I would be interested, though, if you can find some links to the video you were talking about. Otherwise, I might go surfing around YouTube a bit.

    Cameron,

    Very good point. The commenters on Kos are what make my blood boil. For the most part, though, the articles are insightful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I resent your suggestion that we let Sean, Bill, or Rush do our thinking for us. Some of us do after all let Glenn Beck do our thinking for us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Touche'!

    I have to be careful when I listen to Glenn Beck from time to time, because it's easy for me to accept everything he says at face value.

    I've liked him because he doesn't seem so arrogant and putdownish, but lately it hasn't been so much that way...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm just now reading Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason (which Frank blogged about almost a year ago). I would say Gore pulls his punches, and that's a big problem with Democrats. He seems desperate to get along with Republicans even at the expense of truth and justice, as if the Dems have something to gain by conceding that Iran has a nuclear weapons program when it clearly does not. What a wimp.

    The GOP, for their part, could be channeling Achilles (memorably played by Brad Pitt in one of those Hollywood movies Limbaugh claims not to like): "There are no pacts between lions and men."

    Yesterday, Arianna Huffington came down hard on calls for bipartisanship, pointing out that a lot of recent policy catastrophes had bipartisan support:

    "The road to victory in 2008 doesn't run through a mythical middle that has been dragged far to the right over the past 7-plus years; it runs through the actual mainstream -- the place the majority of Americans inhabit. The center that opposes the war, favors economic fairness, knows that climate change is real and a crisis, wants to take care of our veterans, and believes in the right to universal health care."

    I think recovering Republicans (me included) would go for a Democratic candidate who wanted to represent us and most Americans, and let the chips fall where they may.

    The right-wing propaganda machine has got a valid point-- anyone who's afraid of Rush Limbaugh hasn't got what it takes to destroy Al Qaeda. What was Obama doing on Fox Noise? Being a wimp.

    ReplyDelete
  7. On the Jimmy Carter interview, I couldn't find it on YouTube, but if you go to NBC.com and work your way through to watching past episodes of the tonight show, he was on last Wednesday. Not only did I think he was eloquent, he was also pretty funny, something missing from the White House in recent years.

    As to Glenn Beck... I used to like him, because he seemed objective, but I've lost that recently. I blogged on it a few weeks ago, along with details of my leg (So you can skip the first half of the blog!) It's here.
    I just think he's lost touch and gotten too caught up in all the politics. I liked him more when he was honest and funny, instead of towing the party line and mad at the world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting how the comments on the unknown blog of Frank Staheli are generally pretty thoughtful while the comments on DailyKos, like the callers on Rush, are mostly members of a large echo chamber. I'm not being sarcastic here, the comments here really do have a greater tendency to add to the discussion where the comments on large, well-known forums seem to lean toward the me-too crowd.

    So my question for Frank (or anyone else) - what do you call a "liberal" who outsources their thinking? and whats the term for a conservative who does his own thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting observation on the quality of comments... I've noticed too that the comments are made from all points on the political spectrum, and seldom are the various parties talking points presented - Although it does happen occasionally.

    I think the key could be the smaller demographic. This could be the same reason that Ron Paul prefers complicated issues be handled on a very local level. Fewer people can discuss a topic more openly and respectfully, while when contending with the masses, you have to be outrageous to be heard and often get caught up in a stampede to pick sides.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a great conversation to start, Frank.

    And I think what you are describing is something that both sides of any issue or election or policy run risk of falling victim to, but right now I think you are correct that it seems to be coming from the right more often than not.

    The CATO institute did a great podcast a few months back discussing "The Neo-Con Mythology" and the "New Republicans" hijacking what was once the party of conservatives, leaving true conservatives with no place to turn. On the flip side, Democrats, capitulating to the President on issues like the FISA "fix," telco immunity, and a responsible plan for withdrawal have not effectively drawn conservatives in as the opportunity to do so now exists.

    My father is voting for Obama in the fall, after nearly 40 years of voting for Republicans in both local and national elections. He explains to me often that he can't listen to Rush, Beck, or Hannity, nor watch Fox News these days without feeling sad that the party he has been so fond of is now represented by this President and his minions. It's very frustrating for him.

    I think too often we hear of the evils of partisanship, and fall prey to messages of "crossing the isle" or "working together," when in fact this country would respond full force to a candidate that was up for the fight.

    I've thrown my support behind Obama for many reasons, the main one being the way he has run his campaign and the grassroots organizing and voter engagement it has fostered, but I have no illusions (after he and Hillary both were all but absent during the Senate FISA battles to protect us from warrantless wiretapping and telco immunity) that he will be ready to fight. I hope that he does, but I haven't been convinced.

    The online organizations who have worked hard to point the Democratic Party in the direction they feel is best have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, and driven millions of voters to the polls for many Democratic candidates, yet they have never shied away from criticizing Jim Matheson's Blue Dog Coalition (referred to loving in these circles as "Bush Dogs) for their lack of loyalty to Democratic values. The comments on each post do get out of hand, and there are mindless zealots there too, without a doubt. But those who get the widest audience (front page posters, vocal activists, and inside consultants with blogs) are not only working for a Democratic President, House/Senate Majority, and down ticket election of Democrats, but they are also keeping the party in check with their criticism, when warranted.

    Unfortunately there are still many who see this "lack of loyalty" as a liability, and have therefore not embraced the online community as much as they could be, but those people will begin to lose elections without such support, as the voters become more informed and educated on who supports the values they fell are important, and stands up on the issues they take personally.

    That is how the Rush's and Beck's and Hannity's have hurt the Republican Party. They are commanding a loyalty to message and principle, without question. It's very much like religion, but unfortunately, blind faith without results only goes so far in politics.

    Their time is done. The GOP will regain it's footing when it drops the demogoguery for principle, and speaks to voters needs, not simply ideological consistency with evangelicals, entrenched billionaires, and corporations with an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Richard,

    I agree with Huffington's sentiments in general (the mythical middle has been dragged to the right), but not when it comes to some specifics (global warming, universal health care).

    UK,

    I was just about to give up on Beck (and cancel my insider membership), when he started to change and talk about things (and quote people, like Cleon Skousen) that are very important to me. It appears that more recently, however, someone has yanked his chain and pulled him back in line with more overarching establishment principles. Unfortunately, my 6-month renewal was deducted from my account about a week ago. ;-)

    David,

    I notice a similar "blog rage" on a lot of big-time websites (mine's pretty close to big-time, though, right? ;-) ) where people think they are anonymous enough that they can vent without responsibility. In this regard, people can be quite vile.

    Jason,

    I agree with nearly all of what you said, and particularly with

    The GOP will regain it's footing when it drops the demogoguery for principle, and speaks to voters needs, not simply ideological consistency with evangelicals, entrenched billionaires, and corporations with an agenda.

    I appreciate that Obama has freshened up the political climate a bit, but I won't vote for him because I disagree with his socialist policies.

    As many may well know, I still think Ron Paul is the best presidential candidate, and I will write him in if some other (Constitution?) party doesn't lure him to run as a 3rd-party candidate (in which case I'll vote for him outright).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Frank

    Sorry to totally disagree with you. Without Rush Limbaugh there would be no conservative movement today, not with any kind of relevance anyway. With the RINOs firmly in charge of the GOP he is our best most effective voice. He does not want people to be stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ken,

    It may be that Rush does not want people to be stupid - although he makes more money if they are (meaning if they allow him to do their thinking for them). On the other hand, RINOs gain their firm control of the party because of the results of people allowing others to think for them. They blindly vote for the R without distinguishing between a RINO and someone who understands and believes the principles that should drive the Republican party. So Rush is contributing to that problem so long as conservatives are outsourcing their political thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  14. P.S. Frank - yes, your blog is on the cusp of joining the big-time. Too bad that will force it to go downhill. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't get it. We don't like bipartisanship, we don't like the "close minded Republicans", and we think that simply voting for the R is wrong and leads to abuse of the party.

    Yet I don't see any liberal endorsements of conservative candidates.

    How is it that someone who supports one political party is close minded and ideological, while someone who supports another party is open minded and thoughtful?

    ReplyDelete
  16. First, a point of order. The article you quote from DailyKos isn't by "Kos" himself (i.e. Markos Moulitsas). You should change your lead-in to reflect that it is DailyKos front-pager mcjoan whose article you are linking to.

    I agree with others about the comment threads on DailyKos. Very rarely is there any discussion worth reading anymore. It's mostly a lot of cheerleading, but not much to get your blood boiling as far as I'm concerned.

    I don't read enough "conservative" blogs to comment on whether most conservatives are thoughtless minions or not, but Ken sure as "heck" is. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ken,

    I was thinking how to rebut your statement, and then David came to my rescue.

    What he said!

    ;-)

    Cameron,

    David's response is again on the mark. It's not simply voting for the "R". It's that we have a tendency to vote for the "R"s who do our thinking for us.

    (1) Greg Allen, who hosts "The Right Balance" is a much more gracious host and willing to look at both sides of the issue than Rush ever thought of being.

    (2) George Bush is not a conservative (he is an establishment man first and foremost), and any self-respecting republican could/should have smelled him--and his father--at least a mile away.

    The specific reason in my article that I don't like Rush is that he called Madeleine Albright "Madeleine Halfbright". I used to buy into that crap. It's not healthy. I'm sure Al Franken says that kind of stuff about conservatives from time to time, but not as many liberals listen to Al Franken--and again I think this is because liberals spend more time forming their own opinions than conservatives do (as a general rule, though--I'm not impugning anyone in this particular conversation...)

    Now...my latest post on the firing of an HR person at Toledo University has got me rethinking my whole shift of paradigm here...Maybe both sides have got the same problem more than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don,

    mcjoan is now attributed.

    Hot Air is a conservative blog that is pretty full of hot air in the comments, and often in the articles. Little Green Footballs is kind of the same way.

    It would be interesting to compare/contrast comments on those sites to Daily Kos, HuffPost, Wonkette, etc. But they're all probably pretty high on the vile meter.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Frank,
    Not to nitpick, but you should change "In the article, Kos criticized the Democrats ..." to "mcjoan criticized" as well.

    I've been to LGF a couple of times; I still feel dirty. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. There was a time where liberals were open minded and even had some original thoughts of their own, but that has not been the case for decades. Liberals are the ones that demand absolute fidelity to their dogma. Frank you are also a global warming skeptic and you have seen what happens when you buck their preconceived notions. Look at what is happening on college campi. It is liberals that shout down anyone that dares to challenge their views in any way. You have read Bernard Goldbergs Liberal Fascism. Remember it is the left that is bringing the world to fascist slavery, not Rush Limbaugh and not conservatives.

    I have listened to liberal radio shows and I know why they have not been successful. They are boring and the hosts all all bitter and negative. Most people don't find it entertaining or informative to hear how their country is the root of all evil. Most of them where put on the air to simply counter conservative hosts instead of creating a niche for themselves. They have no original ideas. Just old tired ones from the 60s. There is nothing cutting edge about them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. About the Daily Kos. I often read articles and comments and they are the most hatefull, mean spirited people you can ever imagine. When a conservative dies they take pleasure in it. They are seething in hatred. It reminds me of my younger days when I was brazen enough to attend liberal protest marches and debate them. I was doing it for fun, but when I would challenge them you could see the burning rage in their eyes. These are not happy people. In fact studies have shown that conservatives are far happier than liberals. They are miserable because their world view brings them to misery and like they say misery loves company.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ken,

    I am effectively touche'd by your global warming counterpoint. You are right.

    I haven't listened to the liberal talk radio shows hardly ever, so I probably should spend more time doing that to see if I agree with you. Assuming I understand the specifics of liberal radio hosts calling America the root of all evil, I think there is some merit to their claims about such diverse things as Vietnam, holding up the Shah in Iran, the way we treated the American Indians, the Japanese Americans, and slaves. I think I agree with you, though, that their continued use of this as a victimology bat to club the US over the head is a bit old.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ken,
    It's so hard to take you seriously. "Campi"? "Bernard Goldbergs Liberal Fascism"? Liberals are this, liberals are that, they're not happy, they're full of rage, they take pleasure in death, blah, blah, blah. Would you care to back up any of your mindless talking points with evidence?

    Yes, John McCain simply epitomizes "cutting edge," doesn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think there is a small percentage of both sides that spew hatred and hold tightly to whatever dogma they believe to be right.

    Rush, Beck and Hannity lead this charge for the Republican and the Libs have their own leaders doing it.

    I would know I used to be a faithful Hannity, Beck and even Rush follower. It was to the point where I could even stomach being around someone who voted democrat.

    Then I saw the light and realized that the vast majority of people are good and well intentioned.

    If you're trapped in the feeling that the other side is out to get you and destroy America, you're a victim of it, and while maybe stupid is a harsh word, you're the demographic at which Rush directs his show.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Don

    Read my latest post and you will see I am no cheerleader for John McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Here is hard proof that conservatives are happier than liberals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/
    livescience/20080507/sc_livescience/
    conservativeshappierthanliberals

    And of course this study cannot be questioned because according to liberals science can never be questioned and is not up for debate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. LOL!

    Conservatives are happier because they "rationalize social and economic inequalities."

    Perfect! That's the funniest thing I've read all night. Thanks Ken!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Don

    Of course the liberal MSM has to spin it to make it sound bad for conservatives, but the reason why conservatives are happier because we base our lives on time proven principles instead of the fads of the day.

    We also find happiness in family and closeness rather than dwell on the horrors of the world. It is also true that conservatives give more money to
    charity
    while liberals tend to think its better to be heavily taxed then have the government take care of us all. Conservatives are generous with their own money while liberals are generous with other peoples money.

    We know that Family, Churches, and worthwhile organizations are the true safety net for society. Not government handouts where both the tax payer and welfare recipient are left wanting.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh, it's the "liberal media's" fault now. Thanks Rush, er I mean Ken.

    BTW, here's some direct quotes from the people who did the research:

    "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

    Sounds like you're the one doing the spinning Ken. You're just one big talking point factory. You keep'em coming buddy; you're cracking me up!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ok, I’m coming a little late to this party, and I probably shouldn’t bother, but I feel I need to add some dissent to this lengthy thread of ‘amens.’

    UK- since when has Glenn Beck towed the party line? I can’t remember the last time he’s called himself a Republican, praised Bush, or touted McCain. He’s defended certain policies of each, but marginal defense is hardly praise, and it’s hardly “towing the party line.”

    Jason the- re long-time conservatives voting for Obama: I’ve read this type of thing a lot lately, but something about it just doesn’t wash. Pray tell, why would a conservative (a real conservative, not an Establishment Republican) vote for Obama? Other than the abstract rhetoric about “change” and “hope” and “yes we can,” what real policy points would true conservatives find attractive?

    Frank, David, etc.- How exactly do you translate Rush Limbaugh’s commercial success “doing people’s thinking for them?” I know it’s an easy claim to make, and you’ll see a few ditto-heads come out of the woodwork when you make it, but I see neither the connection nor the evidence. I’m conservative, a recovered Democrat, if you will, Poli Sci graduate from a pretty left-leaning university. I’ll catch Rush from time to time but he certainly doesn’t do my thinking for me. Neither does Glenn Beck, yet he get’s my $6.95 per month (and Frank’s too). Go ahead, argue that conservatives outsource their thinking to Rush and Sean, but could I trouble you for a little proof?

    My take on why liberal talk shows don’t do well? A couple reasons. Somebody said earlier that most of them didn’t earn their markets. They were simply placed there when Air America and XM’s America Left were created. The other reason is that, having listened to a lot of Air America, the shows and hosts just aren’t that entertaining. I blogged on this topic yesterday. Glenn Beck- love him or hate him- is hilarious.

    Seriously, listen to him for about a week and you’ll start getting his irreverent, non-partisan, self-deprecating humor. You just don’t see that with lefty shows. They can’t laugh at themselves. He readily admits that he's prone to misstating facts (die-hard GB fans like to call his mistakes "Glennfacts").

    I listen to Beck because he makes me laugh, not because I'm some head full of mush.

    ReplyDelete
  32. D Sirmize,

    I mean that Rush does people's thinking for them because he had me hooked for a time. I consider myself a recovering Rushaholic. Let me ask you: have you ever read anything by Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or anyone from that "side of the aisle"?

    In a nutshell, Rush wants people to be stupid, because he doesn't encourage anyone to be open minded.

    BTW, I agree with you. I laugh myself to tears listening to Glenn Beck sometimes, but then a few times it's kind of vulgar stuff, so I change the channel, and then other times he takes swipes a people like Rush does, which I don't appreciate either.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I may have mispoken a little on Glenn with the "Towing the Party Line" comment. I do appreciate his humor, it's just everytime I tune in, he off on a rant about Obama, Paul or Ventura. I got tired of hearing him talking about how the libs demonize everyone who doesn't agree with him, and then he refers to Obama as the anti-christ.

    As for the question as to why a conservative would vote for Obama... He doesn't appear to be bought and paid for like all the other candidates. At the end of the day I think he has the countries best interest in mind, he just differs from me on how he would like to make that happen.

    If I had to vote for either him or McCain, it would likely be him. He's consistent and I think he seems more honest than most other politicians (Which is relative of course!!). Ultimately I may join Frank in writing in Ron Paul.

    Jesse Ventura suggested we have a box we could check for "None of the above" which is pretty much how I think what most of the nation feels like checking.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Frank, I haven't read any recent books by liberals, though back in my pre-refining fire days I read a lot of liberal literature, mainly on international political theory and the UN, authors that your average politico has likely never heard of.

    I prefer theory over diatribe. I haven't read any of the books written by right-wing talkers or former Clintonites. I have a hard time convincing myself that anything any of them say will touch me in any significant way.

    I have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and have followed Al Gore for years. And I still think he's a hack.

    I read liberal blogs constantly and am a regular commenter on many of them.

    I still don't see any validity to the claim that Rush is any more against open-mindedness than any pundit out there from either side of the aisle.

    ReplyDelete
  35. DS and UK,

    Yesterday's little "skit" diatribe against Obama is a perfect example of what I don't like about Beck's humor. Of course, we probably get the same thing from the other perspective on Saturday Night Live.

    I just don't like either one. I've never been a trash talker (except for some reason when it comes to global warming) and I don't generally appreciate trash talking.

    ReplyDelete
  36. UK- I appreciate your self correction on Beck towing the party line. You’ll probably need to do another one, though.

    Beck never referred to Obama as the anti-christ. The attribution comes from his CNN show a couple months ago when he jokingly asked a guest whether he thinks Obama is the anti-christ (there had been some religious way-right chatter to that effect in the days preceding the show). The guest- I forget who- responded with a chuckling “no.”

    Beck had ridiculed the Obama as anti-Christ claims earlier on his radio show. It was a view he never held or stated.

    That CNN clip was taken by the George Soros billion dollar spin machine and the notion that “Glenn Beck referred to Obama as the anti-Christ” stuck in a lot of liberal circles. Simply said, your statement was misinformed and completely incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I believe the Anti-Christ comment was also included in Beck daily email which I get, mostly because it's free.

    I don't mind admitting that I'm wrong, although I can't be sure in this case, since I deleted it sometime ago. It may have been an attempt at humor and was badly place next to an piece about how the left constantly demonize republicans.

    Simply said, I don't have any evidence to back that up. It appears to have been picked up by many of the conservatives with whom I associate, so it appears to have been seriously misunderstood by a whole range of people.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I followed the Beck "anti christ" saga and wrote about it here.

    It's actually a great example of liberal open mindedness and independent thought.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Don,

    Here's more from Yahoo's story:

    To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Great post, Cameron. Liberal independent thinking indeed!

    UK- Your conservative associates thinking Beck believes Obama is the anti-christ? Really?

    See, I followed the saga pretty closely too because I'm big into media studies and especially the New Media. It was pretty clear, from the radio shows, the CNN show, and the newsletter that Beck clearly thought the idea of Obama being the anti-Christ was sheer stupidity.

    I'm not sure how anybody who didn't watch or hear one of those shows didn't come away with a clear understanding of that.

    If your conservative associates somehow got the impression that Beck holds that view, they didn't get it from actually listening, watching, or reading Beck.

    I too deleted the newsletter from that day. But don't worry, I'll dig it up somewhere and we'll get to the bottom of this.

    The way you casually tossed this claim out there without any evidence whatsoever is interesting to say the least, especially during a conversation about independent thought and people outsourcing their thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  41. OK, I was wrong... My most humble apologies for not including specific sources in all my comments as well.

    I heard the idea from multiple sources, all of which appear to have been misinformed - Perhaps this is due to the way Glenn has handled the situation. I would discuss this further, but without a specific reference to how he may have used it to draw attention to himself, I shall not proceed down that path. I myself believed it after reading a blurb in his newsletter, although I must admit I didn't read the entire piece, and perhaps I misread the heading. Not having access to it now, I can't be certain.

    To his credit, I do think he gave an excellent definition of what it means to be a conservative yesterday (See newsletter dated 5/13/2008).

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Close mindedness" is a very subjective term. Most the time it is used to describe people who don't think the way you do and can't be persuaded to change to your world view.

    I was a conservative long before Rush was ever on the radio. I consider him a person who gives a national voice to things I already believe in. I don't always agree with him but more times than not he's right on the money. Same for Shawn Hannity and Glenn Beck. To be honest if there was a Liberal talk show host that was as entertaining and could laugh at themselves and make the show fun, you better believe I would be listening and even though I would disagree I would love every minute of it.

    Before Rush came along I used to love listening to Jim Debakis and Joe Redburn on KTALK radio. They were liberal as the day is long but they were also entertaining. Jim Debakis was the first talk radio host I ever listened to and I would call in often. He would really get my blood boiling but it was a blast to listen to. Joe Redburn actually got me an internship working at KTALK radio. I was a producer for Martin Davies who also was very funny and certainly not conservative. The only conservative at the time was Mills Crenshaw. I loved working at that station, it was one of the greatest experiences of my life. It's just too bad my paying job got in the way.

    ReplyDelete
  44. UK- As long as you're admitting that you were wrong about the Glenn Beck Antichrist thing (which I appreciate), you may want to also correct your April 21 blog entry titled " Glenn Beck and my Leg."

    And I'm not sure what you're implying with your statement above about "how he may have used it to draw attention to himself..."

    Moral of the story: it's best only use true, confirmable, and sourceable when trying to prove a point.

    I have no problem agreeing with or discussing an opposing point of view, but you've got to back it up.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs