|Why liberals can't do talk radio||Jusme|
Oct 2, 2003 6:52 AM
|The recent Rush debacle got me to thinking about how successful he and other conservatives are in the world of talk radio and why liberals can't seem to do it.
I think the reason is simple. Conservatives are proud of their ideals and enjoy hearing them espoused for all the world to hear. They truly believe conservative ideals make sense.
The ideals and values of the far left are not something
their adherents are *proud* of and if you aren't proud of what you are, you certainly aren't going to tune in to hear a talking head bring it to light.
A local columnnist described it as the difference between a leopard and a hyena.
Oct 2, 2003 7:05 AM
|Liberal ideology is not nearly as popular. Sure, vast numbers of people appreciate the *results* of Liberal policy when it benefits them, but you won't be very popular getting on the radio and saying "what this country needs is bigger government, higher taxes, and having the government run your life because you are too stupid to do it yourself." Liberals succeed by class, economic, and race warfare, pitting one group against another, and promising to be the ones to help the disadvantaged group.
Conservatives tend more to govern by ideology that is more acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, that is, that less government is better, you as an individual have rights to self-determination and the responsibility that goes along with it, and tend to be grounded in moral codes versus pragmatic/ends-justifies-the-means situational ethics.
|There aren't any liberals who would sit in front of a radio||MR_GRUMPY|
Oct 2, 2003 7:12 AM
|all day.....Talk Radio......you've got to be kidding.|
|as opposed to bike forums on a computer? ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2003 7:17 AM
|much more fun...............................nm||MR_GRUMPY|
Oct 2, 2003 7:20 AM
|Because we don't snarl well. nm||OldEdScott|
Oct 2, 2003 7:32 AM
|How do you explain NPR then? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Oct 2, 2003 7:50 AM
|Taxpayer funding (nm)||CurtSD|
Oct 2, 2003 7:56 AM
|perhaps they don't enjoy beating others over the head||rufus|
Oct 2, 2003 7:59 AM
|with their ideology.|
|re: Why liberals can't do talk radio||Hot Carl|
Oct 2, 2003 8:07 AM
|Maybe liberal listeners already know what they believe. They don't need the constant, daily affirmations in the form of shout radio.|
|re: Why liberals can't do talk radio||CurtSD|
Oct 2, 2003 8:17 AM
|I think you actually have a point. I'd put it more like:
Liberals take their political beliefs on faith. Even though the policies they advocate have failed every time they've been tried, they have faith that we just haven't spent enough, or the right people weren't in charge, etc. When you take it on faith that your views are right in spite of the facts, then discussion is useless. Conservatives arive at their beliefs more through rational thought, so discussion is much more usefull to hash out what makes sense, and what works.
|ooh, faith-based policy!||rufus|
Oct 2, 2003 8:38 AM
|good one, when you consider the group that's in charge right now.|
Oct 2, 2003 8:55 AM
|I've heard assertions that modern Liberalism is more a religion than a political philosophy, and that it takes the place of religion in the lives of many Liberals. This might explain the hostility that many Liberals show toward traditional religion. I've read accounts of former Liberals who left the fold, and their treatment by their Liberal former collegues and friends is very reminiscent of how some religions 'shun' those who no longer conform.|
|Good points.||Hot Carl|
Oct 2, 2003 10:00 AM
|"When you take it on faith that your views are right in spite of the facts, then discussion is useless."
You're obviously referring to Bush and the non-existance of weapon's of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush and Powell asked the UN and the American people to have faith in their facts.
Bush supporters have faith that if we just spend more money, did a little deeper, and stall for time, Santa will bring a gift of a chemical warhead or something just lying around. Not very rational eh?
Oct 2, 2003 2:10 PM
|>You're obviously referring to Bush and the non-existance
>of weapon's of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush and Powell
>asked the UN and the American people to have faith in
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton. Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL. Dec. 8, 2002.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary
of State. Feb 18, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright. Nov. 10,
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National
Security Adviser. Feb,18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. Dec. 16, 1998.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports ind
|Curt, unfortunately this falls on ...||Live Steam|
Oct 2, 2003 2:33 PM
|deaf ears. This WMD issue has been politicized rather than intellectualized. The Democrats are desperate and know that most people don't remember past yesterday. They pump out the party line, whether they believe it or not. The quotes you posted were either politically expedient at the time or true. Pick one!|
|I see your point.||Hot Carl|
Oct 3, 2003 6:28 AM
|Even Democrats were dumb enough to take Bush at his word.|
|Your reading comprehension skills are poor||Live Steam|
Oct 3, 2003 7:12 AM
|Some of the statements were made when Bubba was president and some intimate that the person making the statement read intelligence reports and came to the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, on their own.|
|I'm a liberal, and I used to do talk radio||Cory|
Oct 2, 2003 8:12 AM
|I did it badly, though. One of the reasons was that my talent lies in other areas (still searching...). But a big factor was that there were things I wouldn't do or wouldn't say, and our local conservatives, at least, weren't limited by facts. They walked all over me because they'd say ANYTHING.
One example: I had a local Eagle Forum nutso on one time to talk about sex education. That has nothing to do with pornography, but she connected the two, then as we went to a break, said that "600,000 American children are taken to Sweden every year to make pornographic films."
I think slowly, but I DO think: 600,000 kids a year would be nearly 12,000 a week--call it four 747-loads EVERY DAY touching down in Stockholm to make kiddie porn. Wouldn't Swedish immigration notice that after awhile?
I called her on it when we came back, but the word was out. For years afterward, I got calls and letters from people who accused me of covering up the Swedish porn scandal.
So the answer: Liberals are lousy at talk radio because we have consciences and feel responsibility to the truth.
Oct 2, 2003 9:05 AM
|That last sentence really cracks me up. There are nuts at both extremes. Rush gets whacky calls claiming the same types of things, like Bush planned 9/11 so that he'd have a reason to go to war...
People, as individuals, have consciences or not. Neither ideology has any lock on that. Don't even go there, or we'll have to parade out the pages of "you know who" lies and moral lapses as proof that Liberals can be morally corrupt.
|heh heh, of course liberals can be morally corrupt...||rwbadley|
Oct 2, 2003 9:22 AM
|they just pretend to feel worse for it in the morning.|
|re: Why liberals can't do talk radio||Tri_Rich|
Oct 2, 2003 9:22 AM
|"Conservatives" have a narrower band of ideas; and stereotypically like to think in black and white making it easy to attack "the other guys"
"Liberals" encompass amuch more varied set of ideas on any subject; they stereotypically see the world in much more shades of grey making much harder to attack the "other guy"
Talk radio is really about reenforcing the ideas the listener had before they tuned in.
|Demographics of disenfranchised middle-class white males||filtersweep|
Oct 2, 2003 10:44 AM
|Most media billionaires tend to be a bit conservative...so-called "liberal media" ??
Why are the "liberal" ideals of freedom or equality something you feel people aren't proud of? One might consider conservative values to be rather selfish if taking an overly simplistic approach to the issue (as you have done).
The ISSUE as I see it is that the prime radio demographic that is sucked in by conservative banter is middle-class white males. Something that appeals to advertisers.
Those who directly benefit by the entitlement programs that conservatives tend to attribute to liberals are not exactly a target audience.
I'd argue that the academics tend to be more liberal... shall I suggest that it means conservatives tend to be less intelligence?
Also, your local columnist? A leopard vs. a hyena? A hyena's eating habits more closely resemble those of a conservative's- dittoheads in a feeding frenzy ganging up to eat something already dead. The leopard is more the endangered species... there's nothing endangered about a neo-con ;)
Oct 2, 2003 12:19 PM
|Took the words right out of my keyboard.
Especially the endangered species reference. Though I thought of the Leopard alternately as - nearing extinction.(new rule: until populations stabilize, people are forbidden from referencing animals as metaphors- tigers, elephants, lions etc. It's disrespectful. They're dying for metaphors sake)
Beyond that, as you mention, overly-simplistic approachs to the issues imo devolve to this mutual left/right hatred. W/o purpose.
White males may have legitimate complaints but I don't see why those who choose to throw in their lot with the ideologue likes of RL. That's just one big circle jerk.
|Has anyone here ever listened to Jim Hightower's program?||bicyclerepairman|
Oct 2, 2003 11:47 AM
|Former Texas Secretary of Agriculture; I think he's a national treasure....Joe Bob says, 'check it out'.|
|re: Why liberals can't do talk radio||Jusme|
Oct 3, 2003 5:29 AM
|I recall he was making the statement that no matter what liberals think, talk radio isn't fueled by man's desire for meat, but rather man's desire to provide his own meat.
The audience will always identify with the leopard (conservative) over the hyena (liberal).