Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Cato's Jerry Taylor, Corner Quisling!
A note to Cato Institute senior fellow Jerry Taylor: If you want to diss the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh cultists, best not do it on the National Review group blog. Writing on The Corner, Taylor makes a handful of perfectly sensible points about Limbaugh's "sub-Nixon popularity figures" and the sometimes "dubious logic and dodgy evidence being forwarded to buttress [talk radio hosts'] arguments." As Taylor notes, he's not against conservative talk radio but would simply rather have a smarter, "better conservative talk radio."
And that's when the fun started.
Katherine Jean Lopez, doyenne of the Corner and editor of National Review Online, says that what Taylor wrote was "reckless" and that it ill-serves the conservative movement to attack those who dumb it down, like Sean Hannity. Mark Steyn piles on, writing that Taylor is but an "obscure think-tanker" whose argument is "pathetic on its face, and an embarrassment to National Review," while defending the wisdom of radio host, NR contributor, and best-selling author Mark Levin. (It is, apparently, not embarrassing when Levin bellows that former National Review staffer David Frum is a "Canadian a-hole," a "jerk," and a "putz" who writes "pathetic books and pathetic articles.")
According to Lopez, "Rush and Sean are incredible assets for the conservative movement." For the sake of argument, if I grant Steyn and Lopez that Limbaugh and Hannity possess an extraordinary ability to convert non-believers to the conservative cause (and I am not convinced that they do), this still doesn't address Taylor's point that they frequently do so using dubious sources and dodgy arguments. Is it defensible that, on a recent episode of his Fox program, Hannity fawned on the blogger Pamela Geller, who argues that Barack Obama is the bastard child of Malcolm X? Or how about Hannity's ridiculous pre-election "documentary" Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism, which featured an interview with Andy Martin, originator of the "Obama-as-secret-Muslim" emails, whose stated political goal is the "exterminat[ion] of Jew power in America"?
Regardless, Steyn argues, it's "conservatism's only mass outlet"
and it is doing rather well. So what's there to complain
about?
I wrote about Limbaugh and the battle for ideological orthodoxy on
the right here.
|5.13.09 @ 5:12PM|#
They feel free to dis David Frum because they now have Mark
Steyn as their in-house "Canadian A*****e".
;P
wingnutx|5.13.09 @ 5:13PM|#
There are a few really good conservative radios hosts out there,
but none are really big players.
The ones that pull in the big numbers are all douchebags who are
good at firing up their base.
Barry Loberfeld|5.13.09 @ 5:19PM|#
For the Spite Right, nothing matters but "socking it to the Left." As long as the Limbaughs and Hannitys do that, they can do no wrong. No positive defense of liberty is required...
Rimfax|5.13.09 @ 5:25PM|#
All political groups do this. Many of the politically active libertarians that I've met believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to political persuasion. They cherry pick their facts and inject rhetoric into every argument. I almost completely agree with them and I want to smack them in the mouth.
|5.13.09 @ 5:26PM|#
I used to like Rush, two presidential adminstrations ago. But he's tiresome now, and his competitors are worse. Hannity is a jerk, Levin is an asshole, Savage a racist fuck, Prager a neo-con apologist, and Beck is crypto-conspiracist. They haven't helped the conservative movement, they're retarded it.
Orange Line Special|5.13.09 @ 5:26PM|#
The mass stupidity is definitely entertaining, but it's not
going to be effective if the goal is to oppose BHO.
For instance, Taylor links to an NYT article using the text
"conspiracy-minded nonsense". That NYT article says:
Various reports, including ones in The New York Times, have
found no evidence that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers were particularly
close, although they have had various points of contact.
Now, read up on the referenced New York Times
report from Scott Shane.
Why is Taylor taking the NYT's side instead of pointing out how
they did a whitewash?
We now return you to Masked Kochtopus Wrestling Night.
|5.13.09 @ 5:28PM|#
According to Lopez, "Rush and Sean are incredible assets for
the conservative movement."
In that they are very good preaching to the choir, and reaching
large numbers of people.
Hannity is worse than Limbaugh, at least to me. I listen to
Hannity, Limbaugh, and Levin sometimes in order to better
anticipate the talking points that are gonna get thrown at me.
Hannity, at least to me, makes Limbaugh look like an urbane
philosopher. Sometimes I really want to like Rush Limbaugh, but
he's such an unapologetic and enthusiastic cheerleader for things
Republican (or populist, when the elephants don't snap to attention
fast enough) that I just can't.
Hannity is just embarrassing. He's too earnest, too simple, too
black-and-white. There's nothing of substance there.
Levin is completely incoherent. I can't imagine anybody possessed
of a worthwhile intellect thinking Levin is anything but drivel.
His show is a couple (few?) hours of shouted non-sequiturs, appeals
to emotion which shouldn't fool any third-grader.
|5.13.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Say what you want about the Righty media, but without them I would be completely ignorant about which types of mustard are elitist and who's eating them.
cls|5.13.09 @ 5:32PM|#
No surprise. Conservatism and libertarianism are not allies but
opponents. Conservatives promote their ideology in three ways. One
is an appeal to superstition and religion. Second, is by pilfering
the best arguments of libertarians like Friedman, Mises and Hayek.
Third, they simply invent falsehoods.
When conservatives manage to get something right it is usually
because they borrowed the idea from a libertarian. Conservatives
are hopeless, nonthinkers, mired in bigotry, prejudice and religion
-- but I repeat myself.
|5.13.09 @ 5:39PM|#
I think conservatives are more complex than that, but I do think
they are easily manipulated by fear of the Democrats. Plenty of
that fear is justified, but many times they're missing the classic
mote-beam issue when comparing the two parties.
Plenty of the conservatives I've known have been of the freeish
market, sorta-limited government stripe as much as they've been
about moral or religious issues. The problem is, they get riled up
about the possibility of crazy socialism, crazy monkey sex, or
crazy foreign policy, and vote on those fears, rather than on what
their side is doing. Which allows the Hannitys of the world to play
on those fears and make ridiculous, over-the-top claims.
Since Obama was elected, I'll occasionally listen to the more
moderate right-wing hosts, just to enjoy some ranting and raving
about our ludicrous government. Too bad they didn't think to do the
same during the last administration.
Shannon Love|5.13.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Talk show host are professional polemist. The function of a
polemist is to raise emotion not facts.
I do find it interesting that conservative polemist are singled out
for being stupid and misrepresenting facts when someone like
Michael Moore gets a seat of honor at the 2004 Democrat convention.
For that matter, the majority of academic leftist are little more
than polemist.
We've simply been conditioned to ignore leftwing nutjobs. People
can seriously stand up and accuse a Republican president for
launching a war for personal profit or for letting thousands drown
for racist reasons but simply point out that Obama comes from a
political subculture in Chicago were a unrepentant Maoist terrorist
is a respected member of the community and suddenly you're a
nutjob.
Conservative radio polemist become the public face of non-leftist
America because leftist dominate every other form of communication.
Leftism is the politics of the articulate intellectual so it should
come as no surprise that institutions where articulate
intellectuals work lean strongly to left. The vast majority of
non-leftists do not work in some form of communication so our views
are never heard. Only the freak economics of daytime talk radio
creates a niche in which non-leftists views can be heard. Combine
this with the fact that people listen to radio for entertainment
first and news second and you have the rise of the non-leftist
radio polemist.
It is frustrating but we don't really have a cultural mechanism to
offset the entrenched leftist in our institutions of
communications. Only the internet driven fall of the institutions
themselves will produce balance.
Ken Silber|5.13.09 @ 5:47PM|#
When was the last time an editor or writer for Reason wrote something at Hit & Run that others employed by the magazine openly disagreed with? If Hit & Run wouldn't have a pile-on like The Corner did, it's because there's less non-conformity among its (professional) contributors to begin with. Sure, Hit & Run has commentors and The Corner doesn't, but let's face it ... no one takes commentors seriously.
|5.13.09 @ 5:47PM|#
I think the left is stupider than the right in general, Shannon, if that makes you feel any better. Oddly enough, I think that's because of the left's greater tendency to employ faith over reason.
nj|5.13.09 @ 5:49PM|#
Why does Jerry Taylor even write for that site? Establishment conservatives are not our friends.
The Angry Optimist|5.13.09 @ 5:51PM|#
Ken Silder - how about Steve Chapman's last article about gay marriage?
|5.13.09 @ 5:54PM|#
Shannon Love, a voice of wisdom as usual.
But I'm still chuckling at the charge that some conservatives have
some connections with political loons. Thank heavens that
libertarians never have that problem, eh? (Anyone else remember the
Reason cover story of about 25 years ago advocating that Israel
protect itself by building a pipeline along its borders filled with
a radioactive liquid that would kill anyone who got near it?)
Ken Silber|5.13.09 @ 5:57PM|#
Angry Optimist,
Steve Chapman's pieces get a lot of negative feedback from the
commentors, but I haven't seen much if any from other Reason
editors/writers. If you have any good example of such, provide a
link; I'd be interested to see it.
|5.13.09 @ 6:03PM|#
There are a few really good conservative radios hosts out
there, but none are really big players.
Too true. Ron Smith @ WBAL in Baltimore is one of those hosts.
Smart and funny and will cover a wide range of topics. He's
*almost* a libertarian, but falls down on immigration and gay
marriage.
Brian Wilson was another when he was still on the air. He may still
be on somewher, but I haven't heard anything about him lately.
JS|5.13.09 @ 6:05PM|#
A good reminder that there is still penance to be done by the conservative movement.
JP|5.13.09 @ 6:06PM|#
I also recommend Michael Smerconish on WPHT 1210 am in Philly. (Now syndicated in a few other places.) He also *almost* a libertarian. The stumbling blocks for him are immigration and defense against terrorists. (Think of the children!)
Tacos mmm...|5.13.09 @ 6:06PM|#
I think you meant crazy monkey butt-sex.
Where's Sugarfree when you need him/her/it?
JP|5.13.09 @ 6:09PM|#
BTW ... did anyone see Richard Posner's blog post on Sunday about "the intellectual decline of conservatism"?
|5.13.09 @ 6:11PM|#
I wonder what Limbaugh and Hannity would have sounded like if
there had been talk radio in 1776?
What would they have thought of Washington taking advice from that
Frenchman Lafayette?
hmm|5.13.09 @ 6:11PM|#
You kick one monkey in the nuts and the rest howl along with
him.
I enjoy watching most of the left and right talk show news host
people thingies since Jerry Springer is only aired at three in the
morning I have to get my, "lol humanity is fucked" moments in
somewhere. The "conservatives" have circled the wagons and are
shooting at anything that moves.
Note that the use of conservative is a very loose one referring to
the group that has become the retarded right. They weren't rocket
scientists before, now I think they have the helmets and drool bibs
on order.
The Angry Optimist|5.13.09 @ 6:25PM|#
Ken Silber - I was thinking of the wrong article. Steve Chapman
wrote an anti-lowering-the-drinking article, and that garnered at
least this:
Response.
Of course, reason might choose to forgo intrablog dustups because
they end up being fodder for the Soap Opera Crowd.
Ken Silber|5.13.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Angry Optimist,
Thanks for reminding me of that. It is something, but not
much.
Another reason Reason might forego intrablog dustups is because its
writers largely think alike.
MNG|5.13.09 @ 6:38PM|#
This is great. The more power right wing talk radio has withint
the conservative party, then the longer my side will rule.
Conservative talk radio hurts conservatism by
1. Dumbing it down (an hour listening to Beck is an hour not
reading Kirk, Burke, Strauss, etc.)
2. Giving devoted listeners the illusion they are being
informed
3. Pushing ideological "purity" in the movement (which is the death
of any national party)
4. Helping my side define conservatism as the same as these
fools
Geotpf|5.13.09 @ 6:39PM|#
I'm not the only liberal that loves watching the complete implosion of the Republican Party into a bunch of retards flinging poo. There's a reason that administration is willing to bait people like Limbaugh and Cheney-no matter what you think of Obama's policies, if the opponents are a bunch of drooling, screaming simpletons, you can't help but shine in comparison.
|5.13.09 @ 6:47PM|#
Shannon, do you really expect left bashing being that the topic
is Hannity and Limbaugh? The nature of this article favors
right-wing bashing. If the article was about Michael Moore, I would
expect more left bashing than right.
On a different note, I think anyone who makes every moment in life
a political issue has achieved the ultimate in idiocy. I know a
couple of people that would not see a movie if they saw Michael
Moore say it was good.
Kolohe|5.13.09 @ 6:49PM|#
The Angry Optimist | May 13, 2009, 5:51pm | #
Ken Silder - how about Steve Chapman's last article about gay marriage?
And the one supporting the 21 year old drinking age.
Orange Line Special|5.13.09 @ 6:50PM|#
Oh, yeah, I'm still a usefulidiot for the corporatists I claim to be against. Did I also mention that I'm still a virgin?
EJM|5.13.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Brian Wilson was another when he was still on the
air.
He's currently the
PD of Toledo's WSPD (and, I think, still does some fill-in work
elsewhere).
Also, Larry Elder (formerly of L.A.'s KABC and, for a while,
syndicated) did position himself as a libertarian--and, IIRC,
actually was for the most part, when it came to
immigration.
|5.13.09 @ 6:54PM|#
Aw, come on, no sexist comments about Lopez's appearance
yet?
It's easy to be as rabidly pro-life as Lopez when you have no
chance of ever achieving conception.
MNG|5.13.09 @ 6:55PM|#
I think there is disagreement amongst the Reaspon writers. Of
course one should not expect it to be tremondous as they are
libertarians writing for a libertarian magazine and the target of
many of their articles are pretty obviously not libertarian
policies and such.
But look, for instance, at the differences between Jesse Walker
(more of a "we should not back either side" stance and Moynihan
(who more actively defended the IDF) during the Israeli-Palestine
scuffle in January, or the disagreement over whether to allow
Americans to buy prescription drugs from overseas (Bailey was
against and iirc Sullum was for it).
Elemenope|5.13.09 @ 6:55PM|#
Ken Silber - I was thinking of the wrong article. Steve
Chapman wrote an anti-lowering-the-drinking article, and that
garnered at least this:
Goddamn, that was a fun thread. They should keep Chapman around
just to write stupid articles, to keep the juices flowing.
|5.13.09 @ 6:56PM|#
MNG and Geotpf-
1. See Shanon Love's post at 5:45.
2. Dumbing down? How about falling for the false left/right
paradigm?
3. Dumbing down? How about Rachael Maddow? Or George
Stephanopolous? Or Chris Matthews? Or Al Franken? Not exactly
intellectual heavyweights.
4. Why are there so many more "consevative" talkmasters than
democrat talkmasters? It has been this way for quite some time.
|5.13.09 @ 6:57PM|#
And the one supporting the 21 year old drinking
age.
My personal favorite Chapman is the one where he argues in favor of
monetary inflation.
|5.13.09 @ 7:00PM|#
Indeed, the outrage was almost as much as that among some commenters here when Reason denounced the occasional racist letter from Ron Paul's associates, no? I suppose that incident showed that the libertarian movement was cracking up.
|5.13.09 @ 7:02PM|#
Surely if National Review writers and bloggers always agreed with each other, that would also be some sort of troubling sign. They publish a lot of comments and articles by libertarians, and also by conservatives who run the gamut from libertarian-friendly to extremely not libertarian. That there exists disagreement is hardly shocking.
MNG|5.13.09 @ 7:04PM|#
Libertymike
I think Democratic politicians feel much more comfortable
criticizing Moore than conservative politicians do Limbaugh.
There's not much comparison there.
As for dumbing down, look, if you don't think a conservative would
be better served intellectually to read Russell Kirk than to listen
to Beck or Limbaugh, I don't know what else I can say in the
matter. And yes of course the left has some truly dumb people
representing them, but for one thing, they don't come off as angry
and dickheaded as much.
Why are there so many more conservative talk radio hosts and why do
they do better? Well, it has to do with a very conscious effort on
the right to create alternative institutions when they thought
their message was not getting out in the mainstream media. Rich
sugar-daddies often helped nurse these institutions and voices
until they could stand on their own and make money, and to be
honest the mainstream media made it all possible by ignoring many
conservative voices for a very long time (this segment of the
nation was looking for an outlet).
The left is just recently starting to engage in this partisan
alternative information institutional building. Oh joy, soon the
airwaves will be either terrible right wing partisan station x or
awful left wing partisan station y. Joy.
I'll be watching DVDs of Deadwood and Twin Peaks.
Mark Levin|5.13.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Shutup, you shutup, you anti-American assh*les. You should
shutup and let the real American's deal with the problems, shutup
you lazy jerks. You think you're intelligent, you can't be nearly
as intelligent as me you jerks. You know I'm a constitutional
lawyer, you putz's. You say you love America, you hate America.
That's the truth, you all hate America. Everyone knows that only
people who love war, torture, sodomy laws, more executive power,
and taxcuts, love America. Any person who doesn't agree with that
is pissing on the graves of the founding fathers. You JERKS!
Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble.
shecky|5.13.09 @ 7:18PM|#
All this shows that the Republican party is still headed down
and far from reaching bottom.
The comparison with Michael Moore falls flat. MM never reached the
status that Limbaugh has. It's exactly the sort of thing that is so
distressing. Republican politicians cannot look cross eyed at
Limbaugh without incurring the wrath of the rank and file and
having to suck his dick within 36 hours.
I'm at a loss to think of any reasonable conservative media
personalities. Hugh Hewitt used to seem semi sane, even had a daily
spot on a local PBS show... until 9/11 took his mind. And Larry
Elder? That guy was always marginal, and got loonier as time went
on, with a WorldNetDaily gig and all. Last I heard from him, about
a year and a half ago, he was still trying to argue that WMDs were
hidden in Iraq, somewhere.
Alberta Libertarian|5.13.09 @ 7:21PM|#
The problem is that most of the respectable conservatives are
gone or marginalized.
William F. Buckley is dead, George Will, David Brooks, and Russ
Douthat are relegated to being called [whatever the hell this
means] "champagne conservatives."
Unfortunately demagogues are always more popular than those who are
thoughtful to the "base." Huey Long and Charles Coughlin being
historical examples on the left.
|5.13.09 @ 7:23PM|#
Right-wingers moved from the house of God, to the house of Fox News. A 24 hour news channel replaced God as their agent of influence. The disarray of the republican party is God's revenge. ;-)
Kolohe|5.13.09 @ 7:36PM|#
Why are there so many more conservative talk radio hosts and why do they do better? Well, it has to do with a very conscious effort on the right to create alternative institutions when they thought their message was not getting out in the mainstream media. Rich sugar-daddies often helped nurse these institutions and voices until they could stand on their own and make money, and to be honest the mainstream media made it all possible by ignoring many conservative voices for a very long time (this segment of the nation was looking for an outlet).
This is kind of a non-responsive argument when discussing talk
radio specifically. I'll give you magazines and think tanks, which
almost invariably are not for profit and have benefactors. (and
both right and left have these) But radio was financially
self-sufficient from day one. Truth is, I am not sure why there's
been no regression to the mean after the early start of the genre
by Limbaugh. Probably something to do with the demographics that
have lifestyle that are able to listen to it, but that only goes so
far.
|5.13.09 @ 7:37PM|#
Aw, come on, no sexist comments about Lopez's appearance
yet?
Holy fucking shit KJL is ugly. I think I'm actually damaged from
Googling her picture. She's so ugly, when she was a kid her parents
tied a pork chop around her neck just to get the dog to play with
her.
Paul|5.13.09 @ 7:43PM|#
"Rush and Sean are incredible assets for the conservative movement." For the sake of argument, if I grant Steyn and Lopez that Limbaugh and Hannity possess an extraordinary ability to convert non-believers to the conservative cause (and I am not convinced that they do),
The key here is that they used to. Well, ok, Limbaugh used to, I
can't speak for Steyn and Lopez, and Hannity was a relative
newcomer (new phenomenon) when Bush II came into office. I think
what NR hasn't grokked is that they're still living in the "good
old days".
MNG|5.13.09 @ 7:43PM|#
"But radio was financially self-sufficient from day one."
Do you have proof of that? I've read of media moguls that owned
strings of radio stations that were willing to allow right wing
spots and programs that were not the best money makers for them. Of
course after being nurtured for a while they then find an audience
and seem "self supporting."
MNG|5.13.09 @ 7:48PM|#
Well, what are they going to say Paul? They've spent quite a bit
of time telling their readers that 1. people like Sarah Palin are
actually really smart, those implying otherwise are part of the
LiberalEliteEstablishment and 2. anyone who advocates moderating
stances is a NoGoodTraitorousRINO. So, having created this monster,
and having convinced enough of their followers that this is Gospel
the poor conservative movement now is incapable of sensible
moderation, repackaging, or any self-criticism that would lead to
change and re-birth because anyone who did that would be branded a
RINOMember of the LiberalEliteEstablishment and summarily drummed
out of the movement.
What they've done is created a monster that can't change. No matter
how unpopular or discredited they do the same thing, over and over
and turn to the same type of people.
It's great I tells ya.
Morris\'s brother|5.13.09 @ 7:49PM|#
"...the left's greater tendency to employ faith over
reason."
This is really hilarious coming on a site that embraces never
experienced unfettered free markets as the best of all possible
worlds. You fuckwit libertarians make Moromons seem like
rationalists.
|5.13.09 @ 7:49PM|#
Jerry Taylor lost this one from the start as he is obviously some "intellectual elitist." The intellectual ceiling for the modern conservative movement is either Joe the Plumber or Miss California. They don't want none a them book learnin folks.
MNG|5.13.09 @ 7:50PM|#
It's not so much KJL's immediate impotence-inducing looks, but
the combination of that with her low level of intelligence and mad
partisan fanaticism that makes her the truly loathesome thing she
is. She almost makes Barbara Mikulski hot in comparison.
Almost. [shudders]
Paul|5.13.09 @ 7:55PM|#
MNG
I think Democratic politicians feel much more comfortable
criticizing Moore than conservative politicians do Limbaugh.
There's not much comparison there
I'm trying to be as bipartisan here as I can... really I am, but I
still contend that Moore and Limbaugh (while both are obvious
partisan players in their own schoolyard), they're not really
comparable. One is a hardcore partisan (insert hack if you feel
it's necessary, I won't quibble), the other is a hack who
specializes in disinformation.
You'd get little argument from me that partisan hacks underreport
or ignore information that conflicts with their point of view.
Sometimes they can't help it. It's in their genes. But Moore has
arguably gone further-- especially in the realm of his
"documentaries". I won't speak for other conservative partisans
such as Hannity, as the OP indicates some documentary done by
Hannity which may reach Moore-esque levels of dishonesty.
Also, Moore, in my opinion gets far more main-stream kudos than
Limbaugh does, because for some reason, everyone knows
what Limbaugh is, but yet there seems to be some confusion about
what Moore is.
Now all of this is with the disclaimer that I haven't listened to
Limbaugh in what, eight years now? That's an ice age by modern
media standards.
I don't know what else I can say in the matter. And yes of
course the left has some truly dumb people representing them, but
for one thing, they don't come off as angry and dickheaded as
much.
I would argue there aren't as many who are as angry or
dickheaded. But sadly, Jeanine Garafalo has just simply become
unbalanced. To the point where I just feel sorry for her.
|5.13.09 @ 7:56PM|#
MNG-
As for your last point, what was Air America? Would it be unfair to
call it both an artistic and commercial flopperoo?
Why is it that Limbaugh has been so spectacularly successful?
Because he's a drooling poo throwing simpleton? Because he appeals
to drooling poo throwing simpletons? Obviously, you will concede
that Rush, himself, is not a drooling poo throwing simpleton. In
fact, IMO, Rush is far more intelligent than say, Rachael Maddow or
Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews or Al Franken. He is a far
superior entertainer to any of the aformentioned; he is far more
clever and imaginative and he is just a zillion times better
communicator. Face it. He does not have the problems Obama has in
communicating-Rush does not need a teleprompter nor does he employ
the obscene amount of filler language Obama does. He uses language
far more skillfully, creatively and playfully than Obama or MSNBC
United.
What you miss is that Rush is an ideas guy who presents his ideas
in a very creative, entertaining way. Do you remeber what you wrote
several days ago on the Alan Keyes thread about recognizing talent
in those with whom you disagree or want tried for war crimes? There
are many things about Rush that I do not like-but, IMO, its lunacy
to suggest that this guy has got something between the ears and a
lot of it.
To argue that his listeners are "dumbed down" and that his audience
are nothing but ignorant, uneducated, bible thumping red necks is
frivolous. First, there is no empirical evidence to support the
claim. If its out there, bring it on. Yeah, the 25 million or so
who listen to him each week must predominantly fall into the poo
throwing simpleton category while the couple of million who watch
Maddow or MSNBC United each week are all rational, well educated,
"nuanced" intellecual heavywieghts?
THAT DOG WON'T HUNT.
Do I think conservatives would be better served by reading Kirk
than reading Limbaugh? I think conservatives would be better served
by reading Rothbard.
Alberta Libertarian|5.13.09 @ 7:56PM|#
I don't think people are unsure of where Michael Moore stands on
the political spectrum.
Maybe we should just read more often and ignore these idiots.
DSDan|5.13.09 @ 8:04PM|#
"on the National Review group blog"
I wouldn't really consider The Corner a blog, considering they
don't allow comments on posts.
How quaint...
Fascitis Necrotizante|5.13.09 @ 8:06PM|#
An interesting thing I've noticed about TV talking heads and radio talk show hosts is that if you don't pay any attention to them, you don't have to pay any attention to them.
Mister DNA|5.13.09 @ 8:07PM|#
I wouldn't really consider The Corner a blog, considering they don't allow comments on posts.
How quaint...
If they allowed comments, it would be the number one comedy blog on
the 'net.
DSDan|5.13.09 @ 8:16PM|#
If they allowed comments, it would be the number one comedy blog on the 'net.
Good point, I also fear it would become indistinguishable from the
"Free Republic" blog
Kolohe|5.13.09 @ 8:19PM|#
I've read of media moguls that owned strings of radio
stations
Limbaugh was first nationally syndicated by the ABC radio network,
picking him up after seeing his rating sucess in Sacremento. Per
wikipedia they also syndicated at the time Tom Snyder. The 'talk
radio' format had been around for a while (Larry King was one of
the big players before he jumped to TV) but Limbaugh borke through
to make the format what everyone is familar with today. And got his
job because the suits wanted to make money, not a point.
Sure, others may have had an incubation period (like most 'venture
capital' does) but then that does not answer the question on why
the right wing format was able to emerge from that chrysallis and
no left wing (for-profit) format hasn't. And even in the
not-for-profit radio world, hasn't Pacifica folded?
Just to be clear I think talk radio is the new 'wasteland' a la
Minow, but there's undeniably some dynamic at work where the
starboard side is able to bring in the bucks where the port side
can't.
Tim Cavanaugh|5.13.09 @ 8:32PM|#
Just this morning, I listened to Rush during a long drive. It was pretty interesting: He was positing a theory that the White House is setting up Nancy Pelosi on the knew-about-waterboarding story, in order to help out Seny Hoyer (said by Rush to be a bazoom buddy of Rahm Emmanuel) to unseat Pelosi. I have no idea whether it was a load of horse pucky or not, and you've got to concede a lot to let him build the argument (i.e., that the Pelosi story still has legs because the White House is encouraging its media flunkies to pursue it -- which is believable, but not court-of-law believable), but it made pretty interesting listening. I don't listen to Rush generally, but based on today's listen I'd say he's doing some good work.
MNG|5.13.09 @ 8:38PM|#
Paul
I think Limbaugh is a lightweight, not far from a poo throwing
simpleton. He's not a very smart man. I certainly think Al Franken
is smarter than him, the humor in the guy's books have been at a
level that Rush could not deal in. I've listened and read both of
them quite a bit. Rush's idea of funny is to hang up on a caller
and play a toilet flushing in the background. Franken's idea of
humor was the delightful "free market Jesus" comic strip in Lying
Liars. Also, Rush is not a very good entertainer. When I used to
listen to him a huge chunk of his show was just reading the fucking
paper and rambling about shit in it. But he appeals to
conservatives who feel they have been shut out and hate hearing
alternative views. There is a real anger in his crowd, a real
"finally a guy who thinks like we do!" attitude that he's tapped
into, that's certainly true.
But you won't find me defending Maddow and stuff, I don't find that
network worth watching either (though Olberman was funny on
ESPN).
|5.13.09 @ 8:41PM|#
LOL, LImbaugh is a pompous windbag. Surely noone with a single
ounce of common sense would take anything he says seriously.
RT
www.privacy-resources.us.tc
MNG|5.13.09 @ 8:43PM|#
And you can call Michael Moore a lot of things, but "partisan?"
The dude worked for Ralph Nader for President a while back. He's a
leftist hack, not a Democratic hack.
"Sure, others may have had an incubation period (like most 'venture
capital' does) but then that does not answer the question on why
the right wing format was able to emerge from that chrysallis and
no left wing (for-profit) format hasn't."
Well, give it some time. I mean, you're starting to see the
left-wing equivalent in Colbert and Steward. The right had a heads
up for a few decades on this. The left had captured all the
non-explicitly partisan venues such as the mainstream papers and tv
news as well as most major foundations and think tanks. They
haven't learned to go after the explicitly partisan venues yet, but
they are learning.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a terrible thing on both sides.
Why listen to Chris Matthews (who is certainly not the leftist
equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity in his partisanship!)
when you could read John Stuart Mill or Bentham?
zoltan|5.13.09 @ 9:16PM|#
People who listen to Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken are like people who read Twilight. They might be smart people, but they look incredibly stupid when they're doing that. Maybe they just want some intellectual junk food though.
Colin|5.13.09 @ 9:28PM|#
I like the Corner, but they have a real blind spot when it comes to Rush. I always wonder what Buckley really thought about him.
|5.13.09 @ 10:08PM|#
Let me get this straight.
Jerry Taylor: Maybe it would be a good idea if these guys didn't
spout nonsense.
Conservatives: STFU, traitor!
Kolohe|5.13.09 @ 10:18PM|#
They haven't learned to go after the explicitly partisan
venues yet,
Dude, Mother Jones predates Limbaugh by a few years. And the Nation
predates him by a century.
Colbert and Stewart (and Maher for that matter) may provide a
counterpoint to the 'VRWC' but they are by defintion not a
counterpart as they are on TV.
Now MSNBC looks like they've decided to be the mirror image to
foxnews and it appears to be forming up into a stable duopoly for
that venue.
And anyway, as alluded to earlier, the whole 'non-partisan' venue
is an anomoly of the post WW2 era. From colonial times through the
mid 20th century, nearly every newspaper was very partisan and
proud of it.
Reading this again:
The left had captured all the non-explicitly partisan venues
such as the mainstream papers and tv news as well as most major
foundations and think tanks.
I'm kinda surprised you've actually bought the standard
conservative line.
Morris\'s brother/Edward/Lefit|5.13.09 @ 10:45PM|#
By the way, I'm a cookie-cutter leftist troll who kan't spell.
|5.13.09 @ 11:42PM|#
--== Cougarster.com ==--
Best Cougar dating site:for Cougars, dating a young man can be
exciting and feel younger. And also you may find yourself more
compatible with young men.
For young men, dating an older woman has numerous advantages. You
can sometimes learn valuable advice from her on how to conduct
himself in a difficult situation. She is your best listener and
supporter.
Join us and contact tens of thousands of cougars and cougar
admirers!
alan|5.13.09 @ 11:44PM|#
It is, apparently, not embarrassing when Levin bellows that
former National Review staffer David Frum is a "Canadian a-hole," a
"jerk," and a "putz" who writes "pathetic books and pathetic
articles.
Sounds 'bout right. Nah. For all I know, Frum maybe doing a second
shift in a soup kitchen right now. Nor would I say that his writing
is pathetic, it is wrong headed, but pathetic as a description
doesn't provide any accuracy.
His writing is wrong headed because the kind of pro big government,
'compassionate', and neo-Keynesian reform he advocates the
Republicans adopt describes the previous Republican disaster,
George W Bush all too well.
Hannity fawned on the blogger Pamela Geller, who argues that
Barack Obama is the bastard child of Malcolm X?
Stirring up old fears of Malcolm X, and Farrakhan are the bread and
butter of the Hannitys, but to me, the sort of courtier of the
corporatist establishment that is Obama is much more scary than
aging and dead black Muslims.
However, instead, as he is, Obama is the second disaster in a row
for American executive leadership. That is worth a few nights of
fitful sleep, not some fantasy that Black Muslims are going to move
in your neighborhood and marry your daughters, and seduce your
wives.
Alberta Libertarian|5.14.09 @ 12:00AM|#
Wasn't Malcolm X opposed to the welfare state? I never really thought of him as a bleeding heart liberal.
Mister DNA|5.14.09 @ 12:28AM|#
Wasn't Malcolm X opposed to the welfare state? I never really thought of him as a bleeding heart liberal.
You are correct, but you're forgetting about the Scary Brown People
aspect of the present-day Republican party. Most Muslim immigrants
in the US are hard-working conservatives, the same goes for
Hispanic immigrants, although a lot of Hispanics are pro-union.
Unfortunately, there are too many clowns in the GOP's big tent to
make room for any non-white conservatives.
|5.14.09 @ 12:30AM|#
Looks like H&R's got a slight case of spammers. Someone
clean that up, will you?
-jcr
|5.14.09 @ 12:46AM|#
I do find it interesting that conservative polemist are
singled out for being stupid and misrepresenting facts when someone
like Michael Moore gets a seat of honor at the 2004 Democrat
convention. For that matter, the majority of academic leftist are
little more than polemist.
When I read things like these I start to wonder if I'm
crazy. Maybe Rush Limbaugh is the serious social commentator and
Michael Moore is the lunatic demagogic gasbag. I mean one of us has
to be completely disconnected from reality.
That Michael Moore has won a Palme d'Or and an Oscar for
documentaries might indeed be prima facie evidence that the entire
entertainment industry is part of a vast propagandistic cabal
(including the Democratic party, all news sources except FOX, all
of academia except the occasional Bob Jones U, science, books other
than the Bible, etc...) with a nefarious agenda. And that
Limbaugh's saliva flinging ranting is just misunderstood
conservative esoterica. At the very least they're two sides of the
same coin, right? Anyone expressing an opinion is a demagogue,
after all. It's not like we know the definition of demagoguery and
one fits it and the other doesn't.
Sean W. Malone|5.14.09 @ 2:05AM|#
"That Michael Moore has won a Palme d'Or and an Oscar for
documentaries might indeed be prima facie evidence that the entire
entertainment industry is part of a vast propagandistic
cabal"
Umm... Speaking as someone who works IN the
entertainment industry and lives in Hollywood...
Yep.
Or would you like to see the daily shitstorm of political emails I
used to get at the last entertainment production co. I worked for?
I think I still have most of them on a hard drive somewhere. And
honestly Jester, I think it goes a little beyond just group-think,
though that's a huge part of it. I know many people who would
*never* even dream of voicing their real feelings on philosophical
or political issues in public around here for fear of losing their
jobs and never getting hired again.
Alberta Libertarian|5.14.09 @ 2:06AM|#
//Anyone expressing an opinion is a demagogue, after all. It's
not like we know the definition of demagoguery and one fits it and
the other doesn't.//
Not really an opinion if your entire argument is based on
demonizing a certain segment of the population. Both Moore and
Limbaugh are demagogues for the simple fact that they have a black
and white view of the world that sees anyone who is against them as
evil.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Demagogue
//1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power
and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices
of the people.//
Seems to fit the bill of both Moore and Limbaugh.
jester|5.14.09 @ 2:33AM|#
fair 'nuff, Malone
Some McCarthyism (in the broad sense) mixed with go-with-the-flow
is still not a cabal. Junior high school, yes.
Funny how we never outgrow certain things. But thanks for the
input. Some of us can only imagine the inner-workings of
Hollywierd. Logic gets us most of the way, but it's always nice to
have a confident.
Sean W. Malone|5.14.09 @ 2:46AM|#
Honestly - what's funny is, I rarely ever wrote back or
responded to any of the many emails I got at the last gig... but
just one time, I did... I can't quite remember what it was about
now, I'd have to go look it up. I was just fed up with all the
bullshit, and decided I'd write an informed response.
The sad part though, was that I got two reactions mainly. The first
was utter confusion... partly because I'd said something contrary
to the main party line, but also because it was an
economics-related issue and they simply couldn't understand most of
it. The second, was shock because they'd honestly never heard a
dissenting argument before.
It's kind of amazing to me how sheltered most of the people I know
out here are from anything remotely resembling intellectual debate.
For them, the issues are all settled in their minds, almost always
with fallacious arguments, bad logic and even worse information. I
haven't been impressed. At least when I lived in New York, people
tended to at least read. Seems no one does that here.
jester|5.14.09 @ 3:16AM|#
Most people go through life unchallenged because they avoid
challenge. It is likely a hard-wired trait.
I like to think that we as humans have done so well because a tiny
% have pushed truly great ideas. Normally, in a cliche
'survival-of-the-fittest' world they would have perished.
But in a species capable of communication (vs. might makes right),
their ideas persist. And in a Gresham's Law world, the good ideas
drive out the bad ones.
So although things don't seem to be going the right way, they will
have to. It is inevitable that they will. So today, I am an
optimist.
Sean W. Malone|5.14.09 @ 3:39AM|#
I like to say - things are always getting better, but we have to look in 50-100 year chunks, and sort of pick and choose what aspects of life we're looking at. This hasn't been the greatest decade of all time however.
Sean W. Malone|5.14.09 @ 3:41AM|#
...also, we often have to pick which parts of the world. Right now, I pick China :P
|5.14.09 @ 4:25AM|#
You know, if the Libertarian party weren't run by a bunch of half-baked idiots, it would be possible, maybe even easy, for them to position the LP as the new opposition thereby sending the GOP to go hang out with the Whigs.
Sean W. Malone|5.14.09 @ 4:49AM|#
Is there any reason those of us who are not half-baked couldn't start our own club?
Bruce majors|5.14.09 @ 5:44AM|#
I began listening to Rush and Sean during the Mark Foley
scandal.
I had assumed, naively, that so-called "liberals" were correcting
in what I now know are smears in calling these two racists,
homophobes etc. But I was curious to see what they were saying
about Mark Foley, given that such "liberal" commentators as
Stephanie Miller, and virtually the entirety of Air America and
MSNBC, were in full homophobic mob mentality, trying to stir up any
ugly bigotry to smear the GOP, including jokes based on the canard
that gay = pedophile. (Did "Reason," btw, ever cover the left's
homophobia fest?)
I wanted to see how homophobic the right was being if the left was
in full Nazi mode. I assumed they would either be just as bad or
perhaps would be silent since it was one of their own.
Instead I found something different. I found Rush virtually never
speaking about religion or social issues. And while his views of
foreign policy are not libertarian, his discussion of government
spending uses tropes from Rothbardian class analysis.
Sean is somewaht derivative of Rush, and does invoke religion and
social issues SLIGHTLY more often. His shows was at the time the
only place I could hear regular interviews with Pat Caddel, Harold
Ford, Dick Morris and other people far more informative than the
boobs on MSNBC et al, and it is still almost the only place I hear
pollsters Rassmussen and Zogby.
The reason these men are hated by the elite is because 90% of their
show (outside of listeners calling in) is DAILY COVERAGE OF THE
MACHINATIONS OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, THE MAJOR PARTIES, THE WHITE
HOUSE, AND THE CONGRESS. And they provide coverage of events on
average 2 days BEFORE stories are briefly mentioned and buried on
NBC/CBS/ABC etc.
IF YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO RUSH then you actually do not know what is
unfolding in Washington DC (unless you read the Drudge report,
Breitbart, or one of the very few other sources that cover news
before the mainstream media and this force them to cover it days
later).
I am openly gay and I find Rush, Coulter, Sean etc much more
heimische and far less insulting to the intelligence than Garofalo,
Olberman, Sykes, Maddow, Coric, Lauer, Carville and the rest of the
swamp vermin who infest broadcasting.
hmm|5.14.09 @ 6:05AM|#
There's no way in hell I am ever going to defend the right, but
I find the excitement of the liberal side of the isle about this
and the laughing funnier than the right imploding. The Democratic
Party is synonymous with shoot gunshot wound to the foot. It's like
watching a retard win a game of dodge ball against a blind retard
and do a 20 minute victory dance. After 20 minutes you're left with
a hurting retard and a tired retard. Still nothing but
retards.
I think Jerry Springer should do political commentary shows.
MJ|5.14.09 @ 6:43AM|#
"...still doesn't address Taylor's point that they frequently do
so using dubious sources and dodgy arguments."
Ron Bailey
MJ|5.14.09 @ 7:01AM|#
Jerry Taylor was not making a case against anything specific Limbaugh or Hannity said, just stating that they use bad arguments often while saying he does not listen to them very often. Lamenting that those two are the most visible faces in conservatism without saying what he would prefer and how Taylor would get there. The only way that I could see is to drum Limbaugh and Hannity out of the conservative movement or for them to lose their audiences. AS Taylor stated that he did not want to do the former and he has no way to influence the latter, he just seems to be engaged in useless sniping at political allies.
|5.14.09 @ 9:22AM|#
Isn't there anyone else in the NYC / Long Island area who gets
to listen to Steve Malzberg on 710/WOR?
He is to Hannity as Hannity is to Limbaugh. A truly horrible
listen.
Publius|5.14.09 @ 9:42AM|#
"It's like watching a retard win a game of dodge ball
against a blind retard and do a 20 minute victory dance. After 20
minutes you're left with a hurting retard and a tired retard. Still
nothing but retards."
hmm wins the thread.
|5.14.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Rush's idea of funny is to hang up on a caller and play a
toilet flushing in the background.
I have never heard this happen, or heard of this happening. Rush's
show transcripts are all available online, so let me know if I'm
wrong.
He's utterly ignorable IMO, but obviously loves the exposure the
left keeps giving him.
MNG|5.14.09 @ 10:12AM|#
"FrBunny | May 14, 2009, 9:45am | #
Rush's idea of funny is to hang up on a caller and play a toilet
flushing in the background.
I have never heard this happen, or heard of this happening. Rush's
show transcripts are all available online, so let me know if I'm
wrong."
You know what I love about this topic, is that you people honestly
think critics of Rush must not have listened to his show. Sorry to
prove you wrong, but I listened quite a bit long ago (they played
it where I worked and at the gym). I used to remember the
flushings, but there is always some cunt who KNOWING that he
doesn't know what he's talking about (maybe he's young and hasn't
listened to the show since its start, or whatever), challenges
you.
And then I get to eat your lunch. Thanks FrBunny, tell your mom
props for packing the snack pack, it's delicious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
"Caller abortion
In the early days of the show, an unwanted caller was taken off the
air to the sound effects of screams, a vacuum cleaner and a toilet
flushing. One caller suggested as an alternative to put the
unwanted calls "up for adoption". Finally, Limbaugh explained the
true purpose of the "caller abortions" and that instead of people
being outraged by these "pretend" abortions, they should direct it
instead towards real abortions. From the book See, I Told You
So."
|5.14.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Jerry Taylor: "While I will admit to not listening to their
shows, the snippets that I have caught over the years have
irritated. One can agree with a majority of their vision regarding
what constitutes good public policy and who is worthy of my vote
while being annoyed by the manner in which their arguments are
being made and chagrined by the dubious logic and dodgy evidence
being forwarded to buttress their arguments."
Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about but it sounds
good so I'll run with it.
Michael C. Moynihan: "For the sake of argument, if I grant Steyn
and Lopez that Limbaugh and Hannity possess an extraordinary
ability to convert non-believers to the conservative cause (and I
am not convinced that they do)"
I was converted to the libertarian cause by the Glenn Beck and Rush
Limbaugh programs. So it's at least 1!
Michael C. Moynihan: "It is, apparently, not embarrassing when
Levin bellows that former National Review staffer David Frum is a
"Canadian a-hole," a "jerk," and a "putz" who writes "pathetic
books and pathetic articles.""
But isn't David Frum a Canadian asshole, a jerk, a putz, and
someone who writes pathetic books and articles? I don't see what's
embarrassing.
|5.14.09 @ 11:41AM|#
MNG, I note that the toilet flushing sound effect was used "in the early days of the show" per your wiki. Sounds like he hasn't done it in years. Just let it go, man.
Geotpf|5.14.09 @ 12:34PM|#
"mediageek | May 14, 2009, 4:25am | #
You know, if the Libertarian party weren't run by a bunch of
half-baked idiots, it would be possible, maybe even easy, for them
to position the LP as the new opposition thereby sending the GOP to
go hang out with the Whigs."
I absolutely agree. But the Libertarian Party is, in fact, run by a
bunch of half-baked idiots, so no dice.
The Republican Party is in complete chaos. While there most
certainly is an opening for a sane LP to step up to the plate, that
will never happen, because the LP can't buy themselves a
clue.
This means the Democratic Party will dominate, possibly for a very,
very, VERY long time. Predictions for 2010 have the Dems picking up
as many as 5 additional Senate seats, for a total of 65. They might
even get a veto-proof majority in the Senate in 2010, not that they
need it. The House is harder to predict, but things there will
remain status quo at a minimum.
NooYawkDahlz|5.14.09 @ 12:36PM|#
MNG, I note that the toilet flushing sound effect was used
"in the early days of the show" per your wiki. Sounds like he
hasn't done it in years. Just let it go, man.
Isn't it obvious, by now? I mean, every time Rush gets a mention on
the forum, MNG dials it up to 11.
Man Crush.
NooYawkDahlz |5.14.09 @ 12:44PM|#
He wont return my calls.
He is a big jerk.
Who does he think he is.
He doesn't exactly look like the prince of the ball, either.
|5.14.09 @ 4:54PM|#
MNG,
What in my comment set off your tangent about accusations of never
having listened to the show? As RC pointed out, this hasn't
happened in a years, which explains why I never heard it.
Could have been a pretty simple exchange. Instead, for the
umpteenth time, you go into "You got SERVED!!1!" mode.
Whoever touched you in bad places wasn't me.
MJ|5.14.09 @ 9:41PM|#
"I know conservatives have a great deal of trouble with humor,
because reverence is a big deal with conservatives."-MNG
"Rush's idea of funny is to hang up on a caller and play a toilet
flushing in the background."-MNG
Well, now we know what MNG reveres.
|5.15.09 @ 2:48PM|#
My hypothesis is very simple. Right-wing talk radio does well, financially, because it appeals to an audience of easily terrified people. People who are afraid of "the other." Listening to, for example, Limbaugh, satisfies them because they can share their world view in the cocoon of Limbaugh and his audience without the additional fear of having to realize that most people are not afraid of the things they are afraid of. If "everyone else who matters" (Rush listeners and Rush himself) are also afraid, then at least they know that they are virtually surrounded by other scaredy cats.
|5.15.09 @ 3:26PM|#
"I wanted to see how homophobic the right was being if the left
was in full Nazi mode. I assumed they would either be just as bad
or perhaps would be silent since it was one of their own.
Instead I found something different. I found Rush virtually never
speaking about religion or social issues."
So, I assume you've never heard Rush play his "Banking Queen" theme
song for Barney Frank?
Mike
|5.15.09 @ 3:34PM|#
"I wanted to see how homophobic the right was being if the left
was in full Nazi mode. I assumed they would either be just as bad
or perhaps would be silent since it was one of their own.
Instead I found something different. I found Rush virtually never
speaking about religion or social issues."
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Foley was a
republican could it? Nah...
|5.15.09 @ 3:36PM|#
"Rush's idea of funny is to hang up on a caller and play a
toilet flushing in the background."
His idea of funny is also to call the teenage daughter of the
President of the United States a dog.
He's not funny, he's just a dick.
|5.15.09 @ 3:52PM|#
"a bunch of retards flinging poo"
What an apt description of today's conservatism. Like many of you,
I enjoy watching the trainwreck
|5.15.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Since 1997, the NRO has been edited by someone who considered
Sarah Palin's NRC speech to be nothing short of a masturbatory
revelation:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=
Need I say more?
|5.15.09 @ 4:09PM|#
That Michael Moore has won a Palme d'Or and an Oscar for
documentaries might indeed be prima facie evidence that the entire
entertainment industry is part of a vast propagandistic cabal
(including the Democratic party, all news sources except FOX, all
of academia except the occasional Bob Jones U, science, books other
than the Bible, etc...) with a nefarious agenda.
Al Gore won an oscar too. What does that tell
you.
|5.15.09 @ 9:55PM|#
One thing that is never discussed is how (and why) did William F. Buckley ever allow his magazine to become anti-intellectual cesspool that it is become. Did he actually hire Lopez and company? Did he lose control of the magazine -- or just lose interest?
|5.16.09 @ 8:50AM|#
The NRO is college Republicanism with a platform. A modest platform that is a shadow of it's former self but a platform that pays its writers modest incomes and gives them speaking gigs on cable tv and at college Republican meetings around the country. The only "thinker" who writes there is Jim Manzi. The rest are either careerist hacks like Goldberg whose family has made a cottage industry of attacking democrats of any sort or out and out goofballs like McCarthy. Intellectually it's in complete denial about the state of conservatism and the extent to which the ground is shifting politically. If anyone steps outside this frame as Taylor did and also Manzi on the torture issue they basically freak out. At the end of the day this publication only exists because a few very rich Republicans feel it fulfils some sort of function as a means of attacking the left. It hasn't been very important for at least ten years and it's gradually drifting into oblivion.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245