138 thoughts on “Talk Radio”

1. Have to admit I gave up on most talk radio outside of Talk of the Nation and the occasional Diane Rehm. It’s all about podcasting now. Plus I simply find blogs get to the point better.

   The podcasts I listen to regularly?

   Battlestar Galactic. Basically the DVD commentaries for each episode uploaded a day or so after each new episode. Very interesting and informative. I usually hate commentaries as they are usually a waste and pointless. But these are quite good for an excellent show.

   Lost Podcast. Not a commentary. The first 10 minutes are an interview with one of the actors. Then there is about 15 – 20 minutes by the two main writers/producers. They give a lot of clues that you may have missed watching the show. Explain some of their choices. They also usually answer a few reader letters. Actually a very, very good addition to the show.

   This Week in Tech. OK, if you read the blogs there typically isn’t a lot new. But its a funny irreverent take on the tech news of the week that I always enjoy listening to.

   New Scientist Podcast. Once again if you read the website, not a lot new, but nice for listening to in the car or at the gym.

   Nature Podcast. Pretty similar to the New Scientist one, only more focused on recent papers in Nature.

   Mormon Stories. I have to admit that the last series on “stages of faith” didn’t do it for me. But typically these are pretty interesting.

   This Mormon Life. A little more general in theme, but still fun.

   Diane Rehm News Roundup. Basically a conservative, a liberal and a moderate discussing the week’s news. Usually pretty good analysis. Nice especially if you were busy and didn’t catch much news that week.

   NPR Religion. Basically a podcast of all the recent religious themed news segments from NPR.

   NPR Technology. The same, but for technology.

2. Clark, I respect your opinion, so I’m willing to give Diane Riehm another try in the weeks ahead. I’ll let you know if my opinion changes.

3. I, myself, tend not to like talk radio as a source of information. By virtue of the medium, they have to keep it somewhat heated to keep it compelling to listeners, and that just does not appeal to me at all.

   I am somewhat amused at what this format has done for my father, though. There was a time when I regarded his opinion about politics, etc, as well-informed and well-rounded. These days, I can’t ask about an issue without a torrent of soundbites that, as sound bites are wont to be, are rife with inflammatory language and propagandist rhetoric, while sadly lacking in fact and understanding.

   Some have said that it was talk radio that won the last election for Bush (ie. The ‘left’ has chalked the victory up to ‘the right’ having had better shock jocks to get people fired up and out to the polls), and while my father is a much more ‘loyal’ Republican voter for his broadcast devotion, I find that he is actually less-informed about it all, which is too bad.

   Numbers of voters is good, but, if you ask me, educated voters are better. We the people are the ultimate check in the system of checks and balances, and for us to abandon our judgement to the prepackaged opinions and views of people whose actual commitment is to the ratings of their programs is an irresponsible shirking of our civic duty, and it worries me that just that is happening with such prevalence all across the country…

4. Naiah, with all due respect, have you actually ever listened at length to any of the shows that I mention above? Can you cite some examples where talk radio hosts use inflammatory language and propagandist rhetoric rather than fact and understanding? In my discussion above, I cite several talk radio hosts whom I don’t enjoy because they are all about rhetoric and not about substance. I don’t listen to them. But there are more real facts in a half-hour of Michael Medved, for example, than in an entire daily edition of my local newspaper, the Miami Herald.

   I would respectfully request that people posting on this subject stick to specific examples and avoid generalizations. Thank you.

5. Geoff, I think you should be aware though that I just don’t mind listening to people I disagree with. I think Rehm is biased. But I find that it is one of the few sources where one can find thoughtful conservatives, even if there is a liberal bias on the show. (Both in tenor of questions and choice of guests) To those who dislike her I merely ask where else can one listen to thoughtful conservatives? Certainly not on most talk radio shows where the focus is sensationalism and superficiality. It’d be nice is William F. Buckley’s Firing Line was still on PBS. But it isn’t and there haven’t been conservatives moving up to the plate. Instead we get the kind of superficial populism that Limbaugh embodies.

   There are thoughtful conservatives out there. Both debating positions *within* conservativism and critiquing other positions. But you sure wouldn’t know it from most conservative media.

6. Clark, how often do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize a talk radio host based on his reputation, and Rush Limbaugh is vilified or loved nation-wide, but I am amazed at how many people who vilify him have actually never even listened or listened once two years ago, etc. Can you cite some examples of “superficial populism?” I have heard some, but, quite frankly, the majority of his show is very informative, his sources are great, his analysis is spot-on and his predictions usually come true. That’s what I want in a talk show host.

   Again, I would respectfully ask that commenters on this thread cite specific examples.

7. I’ve listend to Rush off and on since the early 1990’s (as a teenager!). He doesn’t shape my opinions as much anymore, but I think he is probably the best at what he does. When I catch him, I still usually enjoy the show.

   Sean Hannity: a little over-the-top for me. Everything is black and white–if you don’t agree with him you are not patriotic, religious, or whatever.

   Michael Savage: I enjoy the Metallica intro, but that’s about it. He is as raw as his intro music.

   Dr. Laura: I don’t like listening to moralizing for entertainment.

   Overall I’m burned out on talk radio. More and more it seems like shallow incessant arguing. It’s easy to forget that the purpose of talk radio is to entertain, not necessarily to inform. Oh, and you have to listen to the same @#$% commercials over-and-over!

8. Sorry, I missed the further exhortation for specifics.

   Sean Hannity: those who criticize the wisdom or management of the war effort are often portrayed as hurting the troops. I can understand that public opinion could hurt troop morale and that some of the anti-war rhetoric may be harmful, but Hannity shows no ability to understand that a person can disagree with the war or its management (not that I necessarily do or don’t) and still support the troops.

9. Brother Geoff, I smiled when I scrolled down your list and discovered how long it is. You really do spend a lot of time stuck in traffic. Sorry.

   Senate hearings on CSPAN Radio sometimes fill my drive. Its nice to hear the politicians and bureaucrats express themselves at lengths beyond the little snippets that get repeated endlessly.

   I first heard Limbaugh in 1990 or 1991 when I had taken the starter off my pick-up and a neighbor gave me a ride to the parts store for a replacement. I thought Limbaugh was a comedy show specializing in political humor from a conservative point of view and thought it was OK as such. I think Limbaugh’s significance was hugely overblown back around 1995 when mainstream media were casting about for bogeymen to credit Gingrich’s successes. I haven’t listened much, but when I pick up a little, the ego turns me off. A lot of talk radio has that problem.

10. I listened to Rush religiously during the early 90s. I was a confirmed Dittohead. Read both his books. Watched his TV show. And I credit him for turning me from a mainstream Republican into a confirmed Libertarian.

    Why? After listening to him for years I finally (!) began to notice that, from his POV, the Democrats were always lying, scheming, cheating, whiners while Republicans were always truthful, honest, forthright defenders of freedom. Now this played well when the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress (1992–94), but after the Republican Congressional takeover in 1994, I discovered that, once in power, the Republicans were just as lying, scheming, cheating, any whiny as the the Democrats had been. And just as corrupt, too. And Rush continued to champion them. I left the Republican party in 1996 in disgust. And every fear I had about absolute power corrupting absolutely has come true, and in spades.

    You can put Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Laura Ingraham in the same box. All of them are simply partisans who support “their guys,” right or wrong. Medved especially infuriates me — he consistently mischaracterizes his opponents’ arguments and is the certified King of the Straw Man Fallacy.

    Sadly, I even had to split from two of my favorites — Dennis Prager and Larry Elder — because of their fanatical support for the war in Iraq and unwillingness to see the legitimacy of opposing it. (Elder was very instrumental in introducing me to libertarianism.)

    So my drive time now is mainly NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered. At least they provide in-depth reporting (more than 15 seconds on a story, as news radio is famous for) and strive for balance, even if their choice of story subjects and interviewees is typically slanted to the left.

    Sometimes I listen to L.A. local hosts John and Ken. I agree with them about half the time (usually when they’re going off about government corruption and incompetence).

    My favorite time of the day, though, is after the kids go and bed and the wife and I sit down for a TiVo’ed copy of that day’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

11. What? No votes for Click and Clack? I guess “Car Talk” doesn’t quite fit the profile of “talk radio” programs, but it’s fun. (also check out “Science Friday” and “This American Life”).

    P.S. A specific example of Rush Limbaugh being mean spirited and obnoxious is when he referred to teen-age Chelsea Clinton as the “White House Dog”. I used to tune in every once in awhile to his show when he first became popular, but I stopped listening to him after he said that. He may have changed, but I have no use for someone who publicly ridicules 14 year old girls. Poor Chelsea certainly had enough to contend with in her life without rude remarks from Rush Limbaugh about her looks. Shame on him.

12. “Car Talk” rules. I also enjoy “A Prairie Home Companion” and “Right Between the Ears”.

13. I’ve listened to Rush maybe twice in my life. I’ve listened to Hannity a few more times than that. Every time I listened to Hannity, he struck me as simply a bully who continually shouts down his callers. He doesn’t engage them, or really even address their questions, just drowns them out with his own sound bites. That kind of dialogue is just mean spirited and I don’t like it. So I don’t listen.

    But no, I’ve not really experienced either, so I can’t say much about them.

    Used to hear Dr. Laura a lot (favorite of my mom). But I don’t like her show anymore either. I think I realize why people like her show:

    They just like seeing people get smacked down, plain and simple. It’s just the mean-spiritedness in us that enjoys hearing someone with next to no self-confidence come tip toeing onto the shows with all their precious little inadequacies and getting royally smashed to a pulp by someone smarter, more articulate, and more forceful than they are.

    People tune into Dr. Laura for the same reason they watch Jerry Springer. We like watching the morally reprehensible types “get what’s coming to them.” It makes us feel morally superior because “at least my life isn’t as messed up as that!”

    It’s a false sense of superiority though. You can always find specimems lower than you, but that doesn’t make you or I particularly admirable moral peope. But watching the lowly get smacked around gives us the illusion of rightness in our own lives. It’s a power-trip for many people. It distracts them from their own troubled children, crummy divorces, and lackluster ethics at work.

    So I ignore Dr. Laura now as well.

    But I’ll tell you the number one reason why NPR is the only thing I listen to now:

    No Commercials.

    I won’t listen to anything that is broken up every five minutes by inane ads. So I basically have no time or patience for any of the shows you listed that aren’t on public radio.

    The end.

14. P.S. A specific example of Rush Limbaugh being mean spirited and obnoxious is when he referred to teen-age Chelsea Clinton as the “White House Dog”.

    That is the example I was going to cite.
    My favorite interview with Limbaugh was with David Letterman. Here is a little from the transcript, take note of how Rush feels about himself.

    LIMBAUGH: And about five million sold. I’m just — I’m overwhelmed by it. I mean, I never thought that anything like this would ever happen to me, and I’m thrilled and excited, and I thank everybody, everybody in the audience, including the liberals out there.

    LETTERMAN: Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and just think to yourself, “I am just full of hot gas?” Do you know what I mean? And of course —

    (Audience cheers and applauds)

    LIMBAUGH: Dave, let me tell you something.

    LETTERMAN: No, I mean that, of course — but you know what I’m saying. Do you ever think, “I’m just fooling people”?

    LIMBAUGH: Isn’t it a great country where two people who look as weird as you and I do can become huge stars?

    LETTERMAN: Well, yeah. Because I’m always waiting —

    LIMBAUGH: I don’t think of myself — Dave, let me tell you something. I am a servant of humanity. I am in the relentless pursuit of the truth. I actually sit back and think that I’m just so fortunate to have this opportunity to tell people what’s really going on.

15. Seth (#13): I think you grossly mischaracterize Laura Schlessinger and her listeners. When I get a chance to listen to her, I’m grateful that she stands up for morality and doing the right thing, and doesn’t give callers a pass when they’re engaging in behaviors that are destructive to their kids or themselves. She’s like the mother so many people should have had growing up, but never did.

    Yes, she’s harsh. She makes me wince frequently. But, honestly, it not like her callers expect something else. If you call Dr. Laura, you’re going to get it straight up from her. I can’t imagine anyone expecting otherwise.

    And the big difference between her and Jerry Springer (!) — she’s actually trying to make people better spouses and parents, while Springer is playing the “ick” factor for ratings.

16. I enjoy listening to Rhandi Rhodes on Air America. She is one of the few liberal talk-show hosts who is entertaining and engaging. Mind you, I disagree with 99.9% of what she says, but I do like listening to her.

    Rush Limbaugh- He is a brilliant host, but too quick to whitewash Republican sins. I listen to him on my way to the gym at lunch.

    Sean Hannity- Good in small doses. On the rare occasion that I leave work before 4pm, I listen to him on my way home.

    Dr. Laura- I’m with Mike Parker on her. She is great! Not on in my market anymore, but I love the way she stands up for what is right.

17. I am lazy about the whole thing so I pretty much just listen to NPR and nothing else as far as talk radio (or anything else, really, while driving). I recognize the bias, which is at times overbearing, but still tune in for news and analysis. However, with Geoff, I turn it off instantly when Rehm comes on. It is just too aggravating, in bias, subject matter, and style. I disagree with Clark about Rehm, sorry Clark. Rehm has a very defined agenda and drives it in every sentence. She is one of the few hosts where even her very tone of voice drips with disgust; what is aggravating is that she still seems to think she is only being objective.

    I also turn off Doug Fabrizio pretty quickly, usually.

18. My listening to talk radio is pretty much a clone of John Fowles. I love Saturdays. I used to be a Connection adict, but they don’t broadcast it in Seattle.

    I agree we Camille Paglia that Rush used to be great but he is now drivel. Being witty and entertaining forgave the lack of civility. Now it is simply not civil and who wants to listen to that?

19. Geoff,
    If you really want me to, I could quote my dad for you. It ain’t pretty, though. 😉

    After all, it was his words to which I was referring. I have tried several times to give talk radio a try, but it just doesn’t jive in my car. I usually have kids with me, and, well, you can imagine how well it goes over with them.

    The topic simply sparked an observation I made. Forgive me for not being in tune with the discussion as you had envisioned it. No offense intended.

20. First of all, anyone that says Rush is the most factual of talk show hosts automatically loses credibility with me.

    The only Air America I listen to is Alo Feanken. He is well-informed and has some great regular guests. He also has a liberal slant, one of his weekly segments is examining one of Rush’s statements and then using sources to show why it is a blatent lie. The rest of the time I listen to podcasts, including most of those listed in #1, I don’t know how people can listen to talk radio, there are so many commercials. Most of NPR and Air America is availible as podcasts if you’re interested.

    I listen to Rush and Sean Hannity when I’m riding with my father-in-law, both of them are extremists that seem to support the current administration no matter what. Rush is a liar. Ready for my reasons?

    He says Democrats will side with Osama Bin Laden over George Bush every time.

    He baselessly claims domestic spying by the administration doesn’t target Americans.

    He falsely claims FISA courts denied the FBI a warrant to search the laptop computer of Zacarias Moussaoui(this is one he’s repeated over and over).

    He’s quoted new articles as linking certain Democrats (Senator Levin ?sp being the most recent) as being linked to the Abramoff scandel, even when the newspaper articles he quotes don’t say anything about it.

    He has claimed over and over that global warming is a myth and we cannot do anything to hurt the ecosystem.

    He claims John Kerry and the Democrats are making a concerted effort to get Christmas out of the public eye.

    I have about 100 more, shall I list every one of them? Same for Hannity if you’d like.

21. Oooh, I wish you could edit, I wanted to add my favorite Rush memory ever. About a month after Katrina hit he was going on and on about how great the Bush administration was doing in the area. Getting electricity going, helping survivors, helping the rebuilding process move forward. Even my father-in-law, a strong Republican, was looking at the radio like he was crazy. Then to top it off he accepted a call from a guy in New Orleans who started by saying how normally he agrees with Rush, but how everything Rush had said in the previous 10 minutes was an absolute lie and New Orleans was no better than it had been weeks earlier.

    Rush was actually speechless, something I’d never heard before. It was so funny.

22. Geoff, what a great discussion and a pretty comprehensive list of some of the best on the radio. You did leave off Larry Elder who is terrific (his support of the war only shows he isn’t a puppet of the libertarian movment and can think for himself).

    Unfortunately if you vocally oppose the war, no matter how right you maybe, it does hurt our chances for success. If you disagree you clearly don’t understand the interaction between popular belief and national strength. Certainly there are very important questions that President Bush and the CIA should answer for, but to suggest that airing these issues during the war will not affect the outcome is naive. When our nation is united we can accomplish almost anything, divided we are without argument weaker.

    I’m not saying you can’t disagree, but if enough people disagree we will fail. You may want to tell everyone that the evidence was exagerated and that you personally didn’t care about freeing the Iraqi people or eliminating a modern day Hitler from power, you only cared about the possible WMDs. And I support your desire and right to disagree. Remember Vietnam? Who knows what the outcome would have been if the American people were fully against the spread of communism. Maybe millions of our Vietnamese allies would not have died when we left.

    One last interesting note, I’ve always thought Michael Medved was the most even-handed talk radio personality (except for his occasional choice of easy liberal targets). He has a knack for finding fringe left-wingers and crushing them. But when he talks with callers he seems fair and accurate.

    Medved, Hannity, and Elder seem the least likely to value their agenda over the facts.

23. Phil Hendrie.

24. I basically only listen to NPR because other talk-radio options in my area give me a headache. The Diane Rheme show, unlike most others you have mentioned (although I have not heard all of them), actually has guests, and the content of the show is the guests words, rather than the hosts. Most talk show hosts seem to think that 3 hours of their ideas is “information” or “entertainment.” I can’t even listen to people I love for 3 hours, how can I listen to them?

    In Diane’s first hour, she tends to focus on a current issue and makes a noble effort to invite people with diverging perspectives to discuss it. Her second hour is generally devoted to a person (author, scientists, etc.) to discuss their work. That is something worth listening to! I actually think that I would agree with Diane’s politics, but I still wouldn’t want to hear 2 hours a day of it.

    By the way, her voice is affected by a disease (don’t know the name) for which she receives regular treatment. It doesn’t bother me, but it sure doesn’t seem like something of which to make fun.

25. Geoff,

    Great post. You’re on the money about Rush being king. Those who don’t get him haven’t listen to the show long enough to grasp he’s primarily an entertainer. The bravado, rudeness and over simplify complex issues that drive his critics crazy is a big part of the entertainment.

    I think you don’t get Savage and maybe you need to be a native New Yorker to understand his flat-out candor. Now, I’m not a regular listener, and his rants can bore me. But like him because he’s an equal opportunity critic, not afraid to dump on Bush and Rumsfeld for so poorly prosecuting the war they originally lead to country in. Some days, I don’t think Bush even realizes he’s President, or Rumsfeld would have been replaced long ago. The guy just seems asleep at the switch. Back to Savage, he’s also not afraid to discuss his faith, and he has an impressive knowledge of both old and new testaments, unexpected from a non-practicing Jew w/ no involvement in organized religion.

26. jj, I hate to say this but some of those statements are tecnically true. For example the domestic spying (or do you mean eavesdropping on international calls) does not “target Americans.” They target alleged agents of forein powers.

    Most of those statements are considered puffery, like the global warming statement. He is just rephrasing the truth that the world can do much more than we can to change global temperatures (1 volcano can out pollute man). Saying that Dems will favor Osama over Bush was probably a mistake, I’m sure he meant Obama. They sound similar. 🙂

27. Like ESO said about Diane Rehm, I listen to Phil Hendrie mainly for the guests.

28. Dr. Laura is one of the most mean spirited people I’ve ever listened to. Is it o.k. to be mean, demeaning, condescending, hypocritical and short-tempered, if it’s for a good purpose? I don’t know. She is the queen of black and white thinking.

29. Puffery, lies, it’s all the same eh Heli?

    From the New York Times “Bush “secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.”

    How is that not Americans? And if they knew they were agents of foreign powers, why not get a warrent?

    Oh, and I’ll second Phil Hendrie. He isn’t on in SLC anymore, but when he was it was great.

30. Like ESO said about Diane Rehm, I listen to Phil Hendrie mainly for the guests.

    Aren’t all the guests fake? I always thought that was the inside joke.

31. jjohnsen and sue,

    Lighten-up man. Rush is an entertainer and making fun of arguments is part of the entertainment. He’s on the money about it being kind of a stretch to blame global warming on the modern industrial age, when the world was warmer in the middle ages than it is now. Remember the Viking settlements w/ pasturelands and cows in Greenland? Try doing that today. While our modern lifestyle could indeed be warming the planet, there are many other poorly understood factors in the mix.

    Dr Laura trashing callers and using them as cannon fodder is her shtick. Once again, being a Native New Yorker, I get her right away.

32. I would also heartily recommend Phil Hendire – the best talk radio/theater/comedy/satire on radio. All the guests of the show his own theatrical creations, but that’s just the beginning. I got hooked when he was playing in Salt Lake, and when he left, I now pay to download his shows. I don’t miss a day. He’s the only radio worth paying for IMHO. When I get a chance I really like to listen to Dr. Laura just for the entertainment value, and it gives me lots of great ideas for short stories. Of course others shows outside the talk radio realm that are excellent are Car Talk, Prarie Home Companion, Whadya Know?, The Kitchen Table, mostly the Weekend public radio shows. I don’t get to listen to them as often as I would like, but defintely worth one’s time.

33. Steve, if it was just entertainment and shtick, that would be fine. But Dr. Laura doesn’t consider herself an entertainer. She thinks of herself as a spiritual leader. And the thing is, her listeners don’t view it as entertainment either. They worship her. They listen to her for three hours a day, five days a week, buy her books, go to her conferences. I know mormon women who are just absolutely devoted to her. It’s like a cult. It’s creepy.

34. jjohnsen –

    you seem to attack others for blindly accepting Rush, yet you seem to blindly accept Franken and his critiques of Rush.

    Also – the so-called “doemstic” wire tap targets calls made to know Al-Qaeda members and other terrorists when they make calls into the US. It seems to not be targeting US citizens primarily.

    But since you accept Air America as true, you likely believe all their anti-Bush propoganda. Which is why, despite major screw-ups by Republicans, Democrats will keep losing elections. When all you have to offer is Bush hate, there’s not much to get swing voters like myself.

    I’ve listened to both Rush and Franken – and each is about as accurate as the other. Which one you believe usually depends on your a priori political affiliations.

35. Wow Ivan, did I hit some kind of nerve? Post #0 describes Rush as

    the most accurate and factual talk radio host out there

    while I describe Franken as

    He is well-informed and has some great regular guests. He also has a liberal slant

    . See the difference? I also provided examples as requested in post #0, with the offer to make more. I didn’t realize we were only supposed to post in this thread if we accepted the party line 100%.

36. Quoted for truth Ivan

    Also – the so-called “doemstic” wire tap targets calls made to know Al-Qaeda members and other terrorists when they make calls into the US. It seems to not be targeting US citizens primarily.

37. sue,

    Thanks, I didn’t realize that. While I’m not a regular Dr. Laura listener, I just figured people were amused by the caller trashing. I mean, why else would you listen? More than once, I’ve kind of said to myself “I sure hope the screeners never let some suicidal person talk to this gal”.

    I’m perplex about this LDS following you bring up, because I remember once some mom called Dr. Laura about catching her daughter masturbating and seeking advice about what to do. Dr. Laura abruptly ended the call chastising the mom for intruding on and being concerned about a normal and private behavior. While, I happen to think Dr. Laura was right (although she should have been more polite and patient w/ the concerned mom), that’s not the way to get a broad LDS following.

38. jjohnsn –

    no. You hit no nerves, but Bush seems to be constantly on yours.

    😉

39. Also, I’m not sure what your quoting of my post was about.

    Most polls have shown Bush’s surveillance to be widely approved of. True, a recent NYTimes poll has shown differently, but it was badly worded and oversampled Democrats.

    But it seems that no one will convince Democrats Bush might be doing the right thing. Nope, in the hard left fantasy land, pretty much everything Bush does is evil, evil, evil.

    And swing voters like myself will vote Republicans because we need something more than hate. At least Bush is doing something.

40. I really have a very different take on Diane Rehm than you guys. I find liberal bias in many shows on NPR (such as Fresh Air), but Diane gives plenty of time to thoughtful conservative voices, and she herself is only moderately liberal at most. She is very thoughtful and respectful and just as quick to criticize liberal faults as those of conservatives. Her voice is the way it is because she has a health problem. She actually has to undergo some kind of throat therapy all the time just to keep herself able to talk. I consider her the queen of gentility in a field that is dominated by sensationalism and vilification.

41. jj.

    The point I ineffectively was trying to make is that President Bush did not “target” Americans. The incidental listening in on an American’s international calls was merely collateral damage.

    As I’m sure you know, FISA allows for the President, for limited periods of time, to listen in on conversations without a warrant under special circumstances.

    Oh and puffery is not the same as lies. If I say Democrats prefer Osama to Bush I’m really saying Democrats hate the President. Rush isn’t really trying to convince you Democrats would have voted for Osama if he were their presidential candidate, thought I’m sure some would.

    A good example of lies is when numerous Dems say the President “lied” about WMDs being in Iraq. As if he knew there weren’t any and he lied to get us to go to war. President Bush was wrong, he didn’t lie and the evidence he was given was not accurate, but he didn’t come up with that evidence. The truth is that Bush had a good faith belief that Saddam had WMDs (we can debate the evidence, but Bush believed it) and in any case was unwilling risk our security after 9-11.

42. Dr. Laura has a huge Utah following. They just overlook the things they don’t like. In fact, one of the few stops for her one woman show is SLC in February. Kingsbury Hall is almost sold out on one night, with strong sales the following day – a SUNDAY. She even does book signings at Deseret Book. She’s like an honorary general authority here in Utah County. I’ll bet more mormon Utah County women read “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” last year than finished the Book of Mormon.

43. Oh and on Dr. Laura, she is very full of herself, but she does have the courage to tell people what she thinks without holding back. In many ways she is a true friend to these people who often need to hear some of what she is saying.

    She is often wrong and has very strong opinions, but I’ve never found that a reason not to listen to someone. As for moralizing, thats what all opinion, talk, or commentary is. The question is who’s morals are on display? Franken’s morals are different than Limbaugh’s.

    One last question. Why doesn’t the right have someone as funny and clever as Jon Stewart? Dennis Miller is funny, but not nearly as funny and his humor is to intellectual for most viewers. Stewart is hilarious and though he is often wrong, light the crossfire bit, he opens minds to think about what the other side is thinking.

44. Oh Sue, thats terrible, do you really think? I hope the Book of Mormon was key reading especially when the prophet made such a wonderful plea. Not that I’d mind women reading Dr. Laura’s book (though I don’t know its content).

45. Heli – I’d bet money on it. At least in my ward.

    The problem with talk radio is that people become FOLLOWERS not just listeners.

46. John Stewart is great. A bit too blind to the foibles of the left, but overall a funny guy who pokes holes in pretty much everyone’s BS (how’s that for a mixed metaphor?).

    The Colbert Report isn’t quite as good (it’s still finding its footing), but also worthy watching.

47. Another NPR show I like is NEW AND NOTES which focusses primarily on Afircan-Americans and their concerns. They do a great roundtable in every show which highlights a great diversity of opinions. If your NPR doesn’t play it, I suggest you listen on-line. Very interesting.

48. Geoff, (#6), my business partner listens to Limbaugh religiously. So I’ve unfortunately heard most of his shows over the last 10 years. In terms of political views I’m undoubtedly fairly close to Limbaugh. However I find his reasoning typically quite shallow and am frequently disturbed at the number of strawmen he creates. He’s better than people like Hannity. But then that’s not saying much. I should note, however, that when Tony Snow used to sub for him I usually enjoyed him. I understand Tony Snow had a talk show, but I don’t believe it lasted and was never carried here in Utah from what I could see.

    Elizabeth (#11). I used to always sleep in and listen to Car Talk on Saturday mornings. However my wife doesn’t like the radio on when we’re in bed and a toddler who liked to get up at 7 sort of killed the days of sleeping in. I confess I’ve only heard it once or twice the last few years. I do like American Routes which follows Car Talk locally. It is often on when I’m out running errands. For those who don’t know about it, it’s lots of interviews with old Blues, R&B and similar stars along with root music. (i.e. old school music from the 20’s through 50’s and then modern stuff influenced by it) I love that show.

    Seth (#12), I can’t stand Dr. Laura and dislike her enough that when my business partner turned her on I’d typically ask him to find something else. (Which usually meant Sean Hannity, which tells you how much I dislike Dr. Laura) It’s less Dr. Laura than just the callers. How can anyone enjoy listening to those people every day? None of them have the remotest bit of common sense and tend to bring me to a basically pessimistic view of the world. (Of course Dr. Phil isn’t much better IMO)

    Brian (#13), I’ve only heard Rhandi Rhodes twice. She convinced me that the liberal answer to talk radio can actually produce something more offensive than Michale Savage and more annoying than Sean Hannity. (Sorry, rough words) She really is into the conspiracy sort of thinking. I found it rather sad. Even G. Gordon Liddy back in the day (who I have to confess I actually enjoyed listening too, even if he was illogical and a quack at times) was more grounded IMO than Rhodes. Maybe those times were the exceptions. But both left me wondering how much of what she said she honestly believed and how much was an act to try and out Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh.

    Jonathan (#18 – hey, got your name right, right?). I actually think Limbaugh still can be witty. I think 911 and then the meltdown of the Bush Presidency kept him from being as good as he was in the 90’s. I suspect his recent divorce and then issues with drugs haven’t helped. But you’re right. He’s nowhere near the entertainer he was in the 90’s when I did admittedly find him a bit more bearable. Still, I have to confess his “Club Gitmo” is quite inventive. At least as good as what SNL would have come up with in either of their heydays.

    JJohnson (#20), I actually disagree with your view that Limbaugh and Hannity merely toe the Bush line. They’ve actually been extremely critical of him through most of his Presidency. While I’m not a fan of either, they definitely have their own minds. In the months prior to 9/11 when people forget Bush wasn’t doing that well Limbaugh was attacking him nearly every day. (And from my perspective deservedly so) In recent months he’s been attacked by both over immigration issues, over free trade issues, over his embarrassing Supreme Court appointment, over the prescription drug program, over his education reforms, over Russia, and most importantly over Pork spending and the budget.

    Ivan (#47), John Stewart is amazingly funny and talented. But the last year and a half he became rather bitter and shrill, although I noticed he’s toned down the last month or so. But there for a while I had to stop listening. He stopped merely poking fun and became quite mean. I’ll give Stewart credit though, when he embarrasses himself he’s willing to be corrected and often has guests on to correct him. So after the first Iraqi election he was actually pretty accepting that he may have been wrong (although I thought he went way overboard into optimism – perhaps why after things got violent again he became so bitter) There was a segment where he claimed NBC exposed one of the judges on the Sadaam case and spent about 10 minutes lambasting NBC. It wasn’t true and he had the NBC anchor on in an interview and let the anchor slam Stewart. Few political talking heads would be willing to do that.

49. I listened to Dr. Laura back in the early 90s when her show was a local LA show. It was a lot different then. I enjoyed listening to it, and while she occasionally jumped to conclusions, as a listener you were pretty sure she was right. Around 1998 she seemed to become a lot more irritable, and the jumps to conclusions became a lot less logical. I can stand about 15 minutes now before changing the channel.

    I like listening to audiobooks in the car, though I might start listening to Michael Medved now that you make the recommendation.

50. Heli #42,
    Bush apparently lied if one is to believe the Downing Street Memo in which the head of British Intelligence was reporting to Blair on his recent trip to Washington and the fact that Bush was fixing the intelligence to fit the policy.

    All, I have hardly listened to Limbaugh, but was sickened once when listening and heard him say it would be a good idea to drop a nuclear bomb on Syria. I stopped the car and threw my radio out of the window. That’s the kind of stuff pre-emptive strikes are made on in during the reign of Bush II. Of course that doctrine is reserved for the US only.

    In fact, I cannot listen seriously to any radio talk show host that advocates for either of the two major parties since they are all party to politics of the type secret combinations are made of.

51. “Dr” Laura is amusing and I enjoy listening to her. Car Talk is funny and always a winner. But I truly love Dr. Dean Edell. I think he’s national, isn’t he?

52. Mike, #10, I would encourage you to try Michael Medved again. He is really the most morally spot-on talk show host out there. On Friday, it was his 21st wedding anniversary and he spent a lot of the show talking about how happy he is with his marriage. Really, I think he is great.

    As for being a libertarian, I have a soft spot for libertarians because they have the right instincts on economic policy and trade policy. One of my best friends in Miami is a regulary contributor to Reason magazine and supports the Iraq war and opposes abortion (he is a pretty well-known libertarian). He is also in favor of legalizing drugs, and I’ve had problems in my family with drug addiction, so we part company on that issue, but we agree more than we disagree. Except of course on the subject of religion, where he is an avowed atheist.

53. Little known fact on Phil Hendrie. One of his first gigs before he went national was in Miami. I’m pretty sure that’s where he got his start back in the late-80s, early 90s. He was absolutely hilarious, once you got the joke. He had a woman calling once who was screaming at him non-stop for five minutes and she was threatening to come down to the station and beat up his guest, and he really feared for her health, so he told her the caller was invented and showed her how he was doing both voices. Now he relies too much on raunchy humor so I don’t listen to him as much.

54. jjohnsen and Mike Parker, this is certain to give you indigestion:

    Today’s New York Times carries the results of a poll on the kerfuffle over surveillance of terrorists. According to the Times, the poll finds that “public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved.” Translated into English, this means that the public is on the opposite side of the issue from the Times.

    Complete results are here, in PDF, but the crucial question in No. 60, which appears on page 30:

    In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?

    Answer: 68% are willing, just 29% not willing–and by the way, the number who are willing is up, from 63% in 2003 and 56% in 2005. It’s possible that by revealing the surveillance program, the Times succeeded in both damaging national security and diminishing public support for “civil liberties.”

    Even more astonishing is the answer to No. 59:

    From Opinionjournal:

    Today’s New York Times carries the results of a poll on the kerfuffle over surveillance of terrorists. According to the Times, the poll finds that “public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved.” Translated into English, this means that the public is on the opposite side of the issue from the Times.

    Complete results are here, in PDF, but the crucial question in No. 60, which appears on page 30:

    In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?

    Answer: 68% are willing, just 29% not willing–and by the way, the number who are willing is up, from 63% in 2003 and 56% in 2005. It’s possible that by revealing the surveillance program, the Times succeeded in both damaging national security and diminishing public support for “civil liberties.”

    Even more astonishing is the answer to No. 59:

    In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mail of ordinary Americans on a regular basis?

    Here 70% are unwilling, but 28% are willing. Think about that: More than one American out of four are willing to have the government listen in on “ordinary Americans on a regular basis”–a position that shows an extreme lack of concern for civil liberties.

    This number would surely increase in the event of another major terrorist attack–indeed, it was as high as 45% after Sept. 11. Even if civil libertarians are perfectly content to see thousands of Americans die in an attack, they have reason to be concerned about the consequences.

    The link to the Opinionjournal article and the poll is here.

55. So, no Pacifica Radio fans or detractors?

56. Pacifica Radio people sound like characters Phil Hendrie made up.

57. I have to agree with that; it sounds like a parody of leftist radio.

58. I enjoy listening to Glenn Beck. He replaced Dr. Laura a week or so after 9-11 on our local AM talk radio station. I had been a fan of Dr. Laura. I think some of her books have merit. However I was glad to see her go. I just do not like her manner; she is just too shrill, mean etc… Glenn Beck is more of a comedian who comments on politics and social issues. The first few times I heard him I did not like his style, but after trying him out another day he had me laughing out loud. He grew on me and he is the only one that I listen to a portion of his show daily. Occasionally he mentions the Church and he does it with style.
    Rush is still the king. He is polite (usually) and funny.
    Hannity is a nice guy, but he yells too much. He gives me a headache.
    The guy on the list that I absolutely can’t stand is that horrid Michael Savage. Double ick on that one. The few times I have heard him I feel that I need to repent for polluting my soul with such evil and hateful nonsense.

59. I skipped a lot in the interest of time, I have to work (I’m thinking of quitting because my job is interfering with everything, blogging, reading, napping, etc.–although talking is working out well, for me, not the customers), but I want to put my two cents in on this topic.

    I didn’t even know Dr. Laura was on the radio until I heard her one day and realized she was the woman who wrote that book I loved (How Could You Do That?. . .I read well, but not carefully). She is a million times better writer than she is a counselor. I hate the way she treats people. Although I think what idiot would call Dr. Laura, tell her they listen every day, then ask if they should sleep with their daughter’s boyfriend? I think Dr. Laura is a classic example of 99 truths and one lie. And the lie is that morality is more important than kindness. In my opinion. The older I get the more I am convinced that kindness is the ultimate true morality.

    But her books resonate with wisdom and kindness. It’s like she has MPD.

    Rush Limbaugh I can take in small doses, Sean Hannity, same.

    You know who I would like to hear more from? Dick Morris. He seems quite honest and knowledgeable without being uh…annoying, but more so whatever that word is.

60. Geoff B-

    The interesting thing about that poll is that it oversampled Democrats and had badly worded questions. Also, none of the questions in that poll accurately describe the current “eavesdropping” program. It is a biased, slanted poll designed to get negative results. The fact the results were mixed tells us next to nothing.

    see
    http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3040&mode=nested&order=1&thold=0
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012953.php

    More accurate polling has shown Bush’s program of targeting calls made by terrorist who are outside the USA to be not just approved of, but rather wildly popular.

61. Clark –

    John Stewart got somewhat annoying during and just after the Election, I’ll admit. But he seems to have calmed down a bit. He’s a tad too liberal still, but he’s much more self-aware than most other media types.

62. C’mon people! Sixty comments into this thread and nobody has mentioned sports talk radio?

    Dr. Laura is the Jerry Springer of radio. I find it impossible to believe that she doesn’t screen her callers, and puts only the saddest cases on the air. She makes a public spectacle of people who are to be pitied.

    Air America is slowly dying, and a slow death is what it deserves. There is lots of good lefty radio around, mostly local, but AA can’t attract the listeners it needs to stay on the air. You can’t expect people to listen when you suck. If schadenfreude is a sin, I’m going to be excommunicated, because I take great pleasure in watching people who scoff at the market getting absolutely hammered by it. It is impossible to exagerrate the extent to which AA is just excruciatingly boring.

63. I like listening to Howard Stern. Too bad he’s now on Sirius radio where you have to pay to listen to him.

64. re # 42: I seriously doubt it. No reason to take such a poor view of Utah women. I am sure they prioritize the Book of Mormon over Dr. Laura’s book.

    And don’t forget, selling out Kingsbury Hall on a Sunday in SLC does not say anything at all about LDS women. SLC is more than 50% non-Mormon.

65. I used to listen to michael reagan, and I really enjoyed his show, very thoughtful, and interesting to listen to.

    I also would listen to Alan Colmes radio show when I got the chance. He was very interesting, and I thought he was a great host.

66. Re #15

    My comment didn’t have much to do with Dr. Laura or her callers.

    It had to do with her listeners.

    I don’t care what Dr. Laura’s motivation in doing her show is (noble or not).

    People listen to her for exactly the same reason they watch Survivor, Jerry Springer, Blind Date and countless others.

    Playing armchair moralist and passing judgment on the lives of other poor losers makes us feel powerful.

    Any pathetic loser with a horrible job, bratty kids, a bad marriage, and poor work ethics can tune into these shows and think:

    ‘Hey! I’m not so bad after all!’

    American media entertainment these days is almost exclusively about distracting ordinary Americans from the fact that, to some extent or other, they are all essentially failing at life.

67. pretty harsh Seth. You have been inhabited by the spirit of Ayn Rand (see The Fountainhead).

68. Geoff B (#52): If I’m in the car during his time slot, I frequently tune in to Michael Medved, so it’s not like I’m ignoring him. He makes my blood boil — not because of his views, but because he over and over distorts his opponents’ arguments and the shoots them down. I find myself yelling at the radio, “But that’s not the point!” Not good for my high blood pressure.

    Geoff B (#54): For some time now I’ve believed that most Americans would be perfectly happy living under a benevolent dictatorship. I think this stems from (a) an unfamiliarity with the founding events and documents of our country and (b) a desire to be “taken care of” by a father figure (or perhaps a Big Brother) rather than stand independently and individually. My own father tells me he doesn’t mind if the government is listening in on his phone calls because he has nothing to hide (!).

    meems (#51): Dr. Laura actually is a doctor. She holds a Ph.D. in Physiology. The rest of her credentials are here.

69. I think that radio would be better if it went back to having the announcers read all advertisements. I think WFMT in Chicago does that still, but I’m not sure because I no longer live there. That is a great radio station.

70. Folks – it’s ENTERTAINMENT. And I find Dr. Laura entertaining (and yes, I cringe). I love listening to Diane Rehm. Sadder was when a local NPR host, Glenn Mitchell, passed away last year. Some of his stuff was carried on the larger NPR network as well.

    Mostly, though, I’m listening to one particular local sports/guy talk radio station here in the Dallas area. I just turn it on and leave it there (and only browse the other stations when the station goes to certain dumb regular programs). Still, the fake Tiger Woods and fake Jerry Jones interviews are priceless.

71. You wanna have a good laugh? Listen to protest radio piped out of Berkeley.

72. I listen pretty much exclusively to pubic radio and Christian music stations–they don’t carry commercials (and perhaps they balance each other out).

    I am glad to know the President’s warrantless “terrorist surveilance” is popular among the public. That must mean it is constitutional and does not violate FISA.

73. DavidH –

    well, the relevant case law (including Supreme Court decisions) indicate Bush’s eavesdropping program is perfectly legal.

    Also, there is the precedent of the Clinton administrations warrentless searches.

    But as far as Bush’s program goes:
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php#012631

    In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong . . . The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the “object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators,” and the search is conducted “primarily” for foreign intelligence reasons.
    -snip-
    -snip-
    The Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977), a firearms prosecution. The court said:

    Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement….
    -snip-
    The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi’s detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi’s detention; the Court’s plurality opinion describes them as follows:

    The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].
    The Court noted that apprehending military combatants is a necessary incident of the use of military force:

    We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use.
    Thus, neither the language of the Constitution nor the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence can justify a claim that the NSA program is illegal. While the Court has never specifically ruled on the issue, its decisions are entirely consistent with the administration’s view that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to obtain foreign intelligence information through warrantless searches. We turn now to the decisions of the federal Courts of Appeal.

    Go read the whole thing. It’s very long (the above isn’t even a quarter of it), but it shows Bush is clearly within the bounds of the law. There’s still some discussion to be done, but Bush has remained consistently within court decisions.

74. I’m blessed to commute on foot, so I don’t have to listen to the car radio (which was stolen a month ago, anyway)!

    When I used to take Abby, our yellow lab, to the park in the mornings, I would listen to Imus. Sometimes just a grouchy rant about some pet peeve, but great interviews with politicians and other Washington insiders.

    Not a talk radio guy, but if the drop in blood sugar level around 6:00 is leaving me feeling enervated, I turn on CNN and listen to Lou Dobbs, the biggest pompous ass on television. Before I know it my blood pressure is up to 220 over 110 and I’m ready for bear.

75. Ivan,

    Just because something is going to pass muster with the Supreme Court doesn’t make it moral ethical or anything else. Why are we assuming that “legal eavesdropping” equals “righteous eavesdropping?”

    It doesn’t.

    Addressing the content of talk radio … If you want to talk content, realize that most of the posters have completely ignored half of the content of most of these shows.

    Half the content, half of the message, (perhaps more) of talk radio is commercials. You just can’t blithley compartmentalize and say that the message of Hannity’s show is separate from the commercials that accompany it. Human beings just aren’t rigged that way.

    For that reason alone, I consider Hannity, Limbaugh, Dr. Laura and the rest pure drivel.

76. Ivan #73: If Bush truly is within the bounds of the law, and the courts uphold the Constitutionality of his surveillance program, then we truly have come a long way from the vision the founders had for our nation.

    WAR IS PEACE.
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

    BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

77. Mike, why do you say that. I can see being opposed to the ideas. Yet I’d be very surprised if the founders would have. I think the founders would have taken a much rougher and harder line towards justice and expediency than what we find in America the last 100 years. I think most concerns on civil rights on these sorts of issues largely presuppose that what evolved the last 100 years was what was in place the first 50. Whereas it really wasn’t. It’s sometimes shocking to read the history of the late 18th and early 19th on issue of justice. America then was, by our modern standards, extremely unjust.

    Consider a few examples. Freedom of the press. Today we hold that so sacrosanct. Yet, as our own church history shows, destruction of presses as public nuisances wasn’t uncommon. We look at the prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan and sometimes are horrified. Until you read what happened in the Civil War and indeed most wars, not to mention most non-whites in the 19th century. Even privacy seems to have been viewed radically different in the 19th century, from what I can see.

    None of this is to say that the 19th century ought to set what America ought be. Far from it. I simply disagree with the idea of original intent with the constitution that sees the meaning in terms of the social understanding of the time. (Which of course is not the only sense of original intent) But it was this change, that really was “finalized” under FDR’s massive changes and stacking of the court, that delineates the debate today. Indeed this is why organizations like the People for the American Way see conservative justices as such a threat. They want the constitution purely interpreted as the FDR court largely did. But I think this highlight the changes. It was those changes, largely under FDR, that really gives us our preconceptions today.

    Interestingly though with respect to the current debate, FDR did the same thing Bush did, only (as I understand it – someone correct me if I’m wrong) only much wider and even before the US entered the War.

78. Mike and Seth –

    And your point is?

    I never claimed Bush’s eavesdropping was “righteous” – just that it *might* actually be legal. That’s it.

    Of course, like I said, this is what prevented me from becoming a Democrat. The sheer hatred of Bush and the refusal to listen – as well as the constant ascrining of views to conservatives they don’t have.

    I don’t really like the Republican party all that much, but the anti-Bush/ Democratic crowd has shown itself to be much more closed minded, radical and in thrall to special interests.

79. On the wiretapping thing, because a president has done similar actions previously in no way excuses Bush for his wiretapping. That’d be like saying that because a rapist hadn’t been caught for doing his rape, it is ok for another guy to rape. Not to compare wiretapping and rape too closely, but just to illustrate the point: so what if FDR and Clinton and every other president did it? If it is against the law let every man answer to the law of the land. The FISA explicitly states that a warrant is needed to search US persons in the US. Agents of foreign powers are apparently fair game, but the government will be hard pressed to prove that each of the apparently very large volume of communications intercepted were from Agents of foreign powers. Bush should be in hot water here. Bush is generally not using case law or the wording of the FISA to defend himself though. He is saying it is alright because he is the president and he is only surveying dangerous people as if we are supposed to just give up our constitutional rights and trust him on this one. I definitely don’t want to trust Bush with any of my constitutional rights. He also argues that the authorization to use force on Al Queda gave him the right to wiretap without warrant. That’s going to be a hard sell in a court of law. I hope Bush does some time behind bars for this though that probably won’t happen. I consider him a supreme criminal with all of the murder he has committed in Iraq and explicitly supported in places like Haiti. He probably won’t hang for those crimes so I’d settle for at least a little time behind bars for breaking the 4th. (Apparently an offense worth 10,000$ or up to 5 years in jail).

80. Ivan #78,
    There are alternatives to the two headed monster that runs this country you know.

81. As has been said, there are WAY too many (and repetitious) ads on talk radio. I bounce to NPR during the ads. For a taste of Rush on your own schedule, he provides a few transcripts and audio clips from the most recent show for free on his website. With many of the hosts, you have to get a feel for their personality before you can enjoy the show. One of Rush’s biggest gags is the ego thing. He’s only half joking, but he is playing it up.

    You can also hear a few audio bits from Glenn Beck on his site. I couldn’t believe how much I enjoyed it when I happened to catch his special Christmas essay. He has the one from 2004 up on his site for you to hear. It is very well worth the listen.

82. Curtis, while I agree with the principle you espouse, I think past actions are helpful to judge whether something is constitutional or not. The real debate is over the division of powers. The debate about whether Bush ought do something like this is a separate debate. Something can be legal and wrong. When people raise the constitutional flag though, I note that they tend to conflate the issues. There is a sense that the constitution is what people think is right according to their worldview. Unfortunately so, in my book.

    Back to talk radio and podcasting. I was just looking and I noticed a few other podcasts that were interesting in iTunes.

    Slate has one. Slate’s interesting since while I think there’s a definite Democrat slant to the site, they do have a wide variety of views. I confess I do read Slate regularly.

    The McNeil/Lehr Newshour now has a podcast of each show. (OK, I used the old name, sue me – I bumped into McNeil once walking down the street in Halifax near an Eaton’s. My one brush with fame other than briefly dating an ex-girlfriend of Brad Pitt and being brought up on stage as a little kid at a Captain and Tenniel (sp?) concert at Disneyworld)

    There are many others. There are really starting to be a lot of good content for news to replace a lot of the radio shows.

    One I’m intrigued about is Supreme Court Watch.

    Anyone else know of good news focused podcasts?

83. Ivan,

    Interesting that you seem to assume I’m a Democrat. I’m not even a clear-cut “liberal.”

    Anyway, I’m not really interested in pursuing this threadjack further.

84. Set h-

    I didn’t assume you were a Democrat. I said it was things like what you said that make me not like the Dems, but I didn’t say “Democrats like Seth or anything. Perhaps my wording was too loose, but it’s interesting you would assume I assumed you were a Democrat.

85. Clark –

    I like Slate a lot too. In fact, I have mostly given up on talk radio because of the enormous amounts of ads. I prefer blogs and websites to get my commentary.

    I haven’t really gotten into podcasts yet, except for the “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica” ones.

86. 63 I like listening to Howard Stern. Too bad he’s now on Sirius radio where you have to pay to listen to him.

    I know this is a joke, but a cousin sent me a couple of clips of his show recently. I only know his show from the couple of times I tuned into it on vacation (he’s not on in Utah). One had him interviewing Larry Kings wife, the other had him interviewing Ricky Schroeder , my cousing had sent me these clips because those two are LDS and he thought I’d be interested. I was amazed at the kinds of things Stern was able to get both of these two to admit to him. It was like they’d forgotten they were on the radio and their inhibitions totally left them. If Stern could drop all the talk of lesbians kissing and other sex talk I’d imagine he could be wildly succesful interviewing politicians.

    Anyone else know of good news focused podcasts?

    Diane Rehm News and most of the NPR newscasts are all good. I’ve tried most of teh top 20 in the news catagory on iTunes. The 60 minutes one is pretty good if you like 60 minutes. Newshour with Jim Lehrer is another. Slate is off and on, sometimes too liberal for me, but usually good. The Public Broadcasting section of iTunes has a bunch of broadcasts from the CBC, BBC and NPR if you’re interested in a wide variety of views. KCRW’s Left, Right and Center is the anti-cable news show. A bunch of people from all sides of the political spectrum sit around discussing issues calmly.

    For non-news podcasts, I like Comic Geek Speak (Comic Books), This Week In Tech(Tech News), This Mormon Life, Cinecast(Movie Reviews), Mormon Stories, Onion Radio News(short satiracal news clips), Engadget(gadget stuff) and MacCast(Mac news and tips).

    Honestly I don’t know how people can stand listening to the radio anymore with the wide variety of podcasts available for free. No commercials and thousands to choose from mean I haven’t turned on my radio in months, the only time I listen to commercial radio now is when driving with someone else who hasn’t seen the light.

87. The thing is, the differences between Republicans and Democrats have become one of degree rather than substance. Both want to spend a lot of money (just on different pet projects). Both want to tax a lot (and use tax cuts to their constituencies to buy votes). Both want to use the military as a global police force (just under different circumstances). Both want to be heavily involved in the personal lives of citizens (the only difference is in which parts of their lives). Both are on the take from lobbyists (not because campaign finance laws aren’t tough enough, but because they have so much power that people will always find ways to buy them). Both envision the government as a cross between Santa Claus and your mother, giving gifts and protecting you from anything bad that could happen in life.

    There are only a handful of wedge issues (like abortion) that become the differentiators when election time comes. There has to be something they can use to scare their constituents into proper voting patterns, after all.

    Hence my libertarianism.

    This connects with talk radio in that many talk radio shows — especially after 9/11 — show fidelity to one party over the other, regardless of the virtues of the opposing party and the vices of one’s own. Limbagh, Hannity, Ingraham, Medved, etc. praise Republicans and curse Democrats without admitting that there is very little difference between the two. Ditto Air America on the other side. And for that matter, even NPR and other sources that try to be objective, for not even questioning the unlying problems (NPR stories always assume that the government is not doing enough to solve this or that problem).

    Hence my dislike of much talk radio.

88. Mike, I think that’s always been true of both parties. If anything the differences are more stable now than say in the 70’s or even 80’s. But there definitely are many Republicans who want small government and want less foreign involvement. I’ll confess that I have problems with Libertarianism but there definitely is a strong Libertarian wing of the Republican party. Parties (on both sides) encompass a wide variety of view.

89. But the Republican leadership in the Congress — and the current occupant of the White House — are not that sort of Republican. They’re big government/social values Republicans, their majority maintained through the evangelical Christian vote. And I don’t see any libertarian Republicans on the 2008 horizon.

90. Case in point: Tom Delay’s recent statement that “there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.”

    Balony like that makes me wonder what planet the Republican leadership is beaming in from.

91. I don’t think either party can be counted on to resemble what it did 20 years ago. The Republican Party hasn’t been for small government for years.

92. Mike, I think a lot depends upon who wins in the house leadership. Although I do confess that I suspect the reformers won’t win and that the Republicans will lose a lot in the next election. Which will fully be their own fault. I think Democrats would do even better except they have their own massive incompetence going on.

93. Oh, Clark, my friend — you’re making my point for me! [grin]

94. The only thing I can compare to the democratic, visceral, intense dislike of Bush 43 was the republican, visceral, intense dislike of Clinton (both of them). While democrats did not care for Bush 41, I believe there was a deeper dislike of Bush 41 from the right wing of the republican party than from the democrats.

95. I agree David. Although I honestly think that the hate of Bush is worse in many ways than on Clinton. Perhaps understandably since it involves war.

96. The hate for Clinton seemed so . . . personal. I have a friend that still brings up Clinton and his infidelities in conversations, and it’s always said with horrible venom. It was strange, the first time I’d seen that at such a scale for a politician (maybe I’m just young). Now I’m afraid that is probably the norm. If a Democrat is elected in 2008 I have no doubt the hatred will be as strong as it has been for Bush and Clinton within weeks.

    Politics is a nasty business, and I count on it to keep getting worse. The Religious Right especially seems to be gearing up for some kind of WWF-like final showdown in the next few years, even sacrificing fellow Republicans if it means getting one more anti-abortion politician into office.

97. jjohnsen –

    that’s quite funny, because the hate towards Bush on the left seems so personal.

    I’ve actually had professors use profanities in class when discussing Bush (often of the “son of a b**ch” and “b*st*rd” variety, but a few more vulgar ones). It’s even worse at parties and socials with fellow grad students.

    If you go to websites like DailyKos or Democratic Underground, the viscous nasty hate just oozes from the screen.

    I think the hate of Bush now is worse than the hate of Clinton then. One example:

    During Clinton’s reign, documentaries like “The Clinton Chronicles” were rare and never embraced by any but the very far right. Yet now, Documentaries about the evils of the Bush administration are a dime a dozen, win awards, and are embraced by the mainstream of the Democratic Party (witness Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National convention).

    Far left groups “Bush hate” groups like MoveOn.org have much more say in Democratic policy making (Harry Reid lost my respect when he started sounding like nearly every press release from MoveOn and every talking point from DailyKos) than similar groups have on the right. The right may rely too much on the far right, but it’s not in thrall to it the way the Dems seem to be in thrall to their radical wing.

98. I tend to agree Ivan. Although I don’t think the Democrats necessarily want to embrace MoveOn.com, but have been led there for several reasons. The first was the failure of Kerry. The second was the money coming from these groups. But it’s very sad in many ways that they rejected the “triangulation” strategy that Clinton had so much success with.

    It’s odd that all the success that Democrats have had have been rejected by a return to 1968, when that turn itself was a failure for the Democrats.

    I honestly think that if Democrats really took the ethics issue by the horns, made something like the Contract with America, and stopped adopting these radicalisms, that they’d have at least as much success as the Republicans did in the 90’s.

    The only thing keeping the Republicans afloat is the even larger incompetence of the Democrats. And that is sad since this is the time when we need both parties at their best, not their worst.

99. Ivan #97: “That’s quite funny, because the hate towards Bush on the left seems so personal…. I think the hate of Bush now is worse than the hate of Clinton then.”

    Perhaps. But, on the other hand, no one has seriously started talking about impeachment, even though good arguments could be made for it. Clinton was impeached for what, in retrospect, seem like pretty silly reasons. “When Clinton lied, nobody died,” etc.

    And, to be honest, Bush couldn’t make himself the butt of more jokes if he tried. His complete inability to speak extemporaneously — or even very well even with a prepared text — is enough to make people who are not enamored with him roll their eyes every time he opens his mouth.

    The other night on The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened with, “Tonight: … the Bush Administration.” He paused for only a moment, and the audience started to chuckle. He then said, wryly, “Is that all it takes these days?”

    Heh.

100. Mike –

     it seems your joke from the daily show somewhat proves my point.

     And I hear people seriously suggesting the impeachment of Bush every day. Heck, we even have commentators on this thread seriously suggesting jail time for Bush, so I don’t find your point to persuasive.

101. I have to agree that the politics of Hate is hurting the country. For a short period of time I hated Clinton until I was reminded, by people online that we all have weaknesses. I still laugh when Dems talk about how Clinton was responsible for our successful economy during the 90s, but I respect President Clinton and believe he, like President Bush, believed in what he was doing and did accomplish many good things. Having known many politicians, I’ve found they believe in what they are doing and want to improve our lives, but they are often just as misled as most of the public is. Its not that people aren’t smart enough, its that the issues are complex and far too many people are willing to lie on both sides.

     Bush was lied to many times in securing his support for the war. Sure he was previously inclined, but when people believe Bush did it for his dad I think they are as naive as those of us who try and convince ourselves that the war was “completely” justified.”

     Who really knows, maybe Bush was trying to correct events his father was responsible for as Dir. CIA.

102. Re the need to be a New Yorker in #25 –

     Maybe its idiots like Savage and the “New Yorker” label that makes the avergae American despise New York.

103. Mike, I strongly think Clinton got a bit of a raw deal from both the press and the public. Yet, he did lie under oath. One can criticize the lawsuit that was brought up. But lying under oath is an extremely serious charge. While I don’t think I’d have voted to impeach him, I’m not sure the controversy was unwarranted. If Bush lied under oath I’d want the same thing done to him.

104. I believed Clinton ought to have been impeached. Not because of anything involving his sexual behavior, but because of his subsequent abuse of power and obstruction of justice, resulting in the subversion of judicial processes and corruption of the system.

     Based on this reasoning, what other conclusion can I come to than that Bush also should be impeached? When confronted with his unlawful behavior, he brazenly insisted that he will continue to do as he pleases. What other remedy is there besides impeachment?

     Many of Clinton’s defenders, trying to distract from the real issue, liked to remind people that previous presidents had behaved in similar ways. Now Bush in his State of the Union tries to justify his acts by an appeal to past presidents. None of them, however, exhibited such open contempt for the rule of law.

     In fact, references to what presidents may have done prior to 1978 are not pertinent, and any suggestion that other presidents since then have deliberately flouted the law is deeply misleading. If the illegal wiretaps (which could very easily have been made legal, absent administration stubbornness) do provide any important information, it would likely be inadmissible in court, necessitating further secrecy and corruption of the system

105. I disliked Clinton because of his personal behavior and some of his policies, and I dislike the Bush Administration because of almost all of its policies. And, yes, had I seen the Daily Show that day, I would have laughed when Stewart began “Today the Bush Administration . . .” Just as I almost always started laughing when Letterman began a story about Clinton in the context of his compulsive behaviors.

     I don’t consider myself as having hated Clinton or hating Bush. I believe in loving the politician but hating the policies.

106. You really can’t compare what Bush did with what Nixon or Clinton did. Both of those presidents abused power for personal reasons. They abused the system to protect their own skins.

     President Bush may be wrong, I don’t necessarily believe he is, but he is certainly acting in the interest of national security. You may disagree where to draw that line or what the president can do, but he is doing it for you. Because way down in places you don’t want to admit exist you want him on that wall, you need him on that wall. Besides were only talking about international call where one of the people is on the watch list. You don’t get on the watch list without a reason and the real question is whether we want government to punish or prevent terrorism.

     If you are happy to treat terrorism like crime and punish people after the crime, vote accordingly. Most of the country, according to polls wants government to prevent terrorism.

107. I’m not sure that’s entirely true with Nixon. It was a blurry line. Probably closer to the abuses of power one saw with Hoover. Even with Clinton, I’m not entirely sure it was just personal. I’m sure Clinton honestly saw it as a personal attack with political motivations. Even if the attacks didn’t represent all conservatives, I think it safe to say that it was orchestrated by conservatives in effort to undermine Clinton’s political efforts. (Which is largely did) Thus I think it fair for Clinton to see it in national/political terms as much as personal.

     Same with Nixon. He is someone I can’t stomach, but they were looking for evidence of misconduct by the Democrats. It was an amazingly stupid thing to do. (Doubly so given Nixon’s lead in the polls) But I’m sure they thought the ends justified the means. I’m sure even the coverup was, as with Clinton, seen in terms of protecting their political interests which they saw as more important than themselves. But almost as sure, as with Clinton, personal interests were there as well.

     With Bush it’s a little different. Probably closer at best to Iran/Contra. A dispute over separation of powers. Once again I’m fairly positive Bush is doing it for the best of intentions. Unfortunately over the years I’ve come to have a distinct lack of faith in Bush’s competence. His motivations though I tend to have a great deal of confidence in (contra all the conspiracy theories about him). With Bush I’m constantly reminded of that old saying, “never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.” Bush has done a lot of right things. But he’s also managed to show a distinct lack of anticipation of problems. And it’s not limited to Iraq. I think we can see it in his education reforms, the atrocious problems in his drug coverage, his lack of foresight regarding his efforts on social security reform, FEMA, numerous ambassador appointments, and even this current spy “scandal” which he really ought to have anticipated being reported.

     I think the lesson Nixon provides is that when you don’t value fair process, corruption isn’t far behind. I think that was true of Clinton. I often fear it might be true of Bush as well. The things about his Presidency that bother me the most aren’t the uncontrolled spending, the massive increase in the size of government, or the other things that understandably bother most conservatives like me. What really bothers me are his attempts to undermine process for expediency. Especially relative to science. Nothing he’s done has been nearly as egregious as anything Nixon or even Clinton did. (At least that we know of) But there’s a lot that makes me worried. I think process is extremely important in our nation. It’s unfortunate how many place expediency above it.

108. I think we are governed more effectively when there is less secrecy. Obviously some secrecy is required, but many administrations (none more than the present one) confuse national security with the preservation of their own power, hoarding information on a wide variety of issues which would be better resolved with more sunlight and open debate.

     Whether it’s secret health care meetings with Ira Magaziner and the First Lady, or secret energy task forces with the Vice President and Ken Lay, the method is not constructive.

     Even in security matters, sometimes the more the general public knows, the better. When the snipers were terrorizing the Washington suburbs, the police were originally trying to keep a stranglehold on information. Finally a lower level staffer leaked a description of the vehicle they were after and within minutes, they had solid tips and then the suspects in custody. Similarly, when the passengers of flight 93 found out from cell phone calls what the aims of the highjackers were, they took matters into their own hands and provided the only effective response of the day. It was the hoarding of information by government agencies that were concerned about their prerogatives rather than sharing that led to some signals being missed.

     Heli, some of us are less afraid than you think we are. I want the government to be on the terrorism watch 24 hours a day, but to do so intelligently, which does not require the bypassing of incovenient laws or the use of ineffective means of interrogation. And in return for the hackneyed Nicholson quote, I give you one I prefer from Ben Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

109. 45 The problem with talk radio is that people become FOLLOWERS not just listeners.

     There were elders in my mission (1992-1994) whose parents taped Rush Limbaugh and sent them the tapes. There was one whose parents sent him the Limbuagh Letter, and not only carried around The Way Things Ought To Be but used it in companionship study.

     I eventually learned to just laugh at the guy.

110. The funny thing about Nixon was that he was doing it in response to Kennedy’s purchase of his election. Most everyone with connections knew that Kennedy’s dad bought sherriffs and county officers through out the East and South. There was so much corruption that Nixon had known about and wanted to stop. Its kinda like in pro basketball, the first guy who fouls rarely gets the call, its the guy who responds that the ref sees.

     Nixon was largely responding to a corrupt system as he saw it. Still his coverup was to hide his personal actions and I don’t think a coverup to stay in power or to expand your personal influence is the same as acting specifically in the interest of national security. Its similar, but not the same because you are assuming you’ll do whats in the nations interest and resorting to dishonesty to retain that power. Certainly the attacks were politically motivated, the always are, but Clinton and Nixon both wanted to retain power. Arguably they were both very effective presidents and alot of people would want those two in office because they accomplished so much that presidents before and after couldn’t.

     Bill, I know the Franklin quote, my brother sends it to me weekly. In many ways I think Franklin was simply wrong or oversimplifing a very complex dynamic. Freedom is always sacrificed for freedom. With ever traffic law, we sacrifice freedom, we can’t speed 100mph even if we don’t hurt anyone, even if its completely safe we can’t do it. Did we lose our freedom, only to a minor degree and we exchanged that freedom for the security that the guy coming the other way will stop for the red light.

     With respect to wiretapping, that is giving up such a small piece of perceived liberty (it may not even be liberty at all-you are still free to make any call you want). In exchange we gain a significant increase in security. I think the American public will gladly give up a penny of liberty for a couple dollars of security. I’m not saying we don’t need to be extra vigilant.

     With today’s technology many of the search and seizure laws are antiquated. If we have a program that can detect Osama Bin Laden’s voice and we let that program listen to every phone call in the world are we really giving up any liberty in the USA? I mean the computer listens to every word you say, but since you have nothing about Bin Laden you’re not even kept in the pool to be checked.

     The characterization that Bush is “Spying” on US citizens is disingenuous. Some see big brother as a threat, some as a potential savior. If we get to the point where terrorists are nuking cities I can guarantee you’ll see the loss of freedom. The very marginal search or seizures we are currently allowing are more akin to the search at an airport. There is certainly less of an expectation of privacy on an international call. Infact if you are calling some countries you know someone is listening.

111. Maybe it’s time to re-start this thread. As I said on another thread, many people who say they don’t like individual talk radio hosts have very often never really listened to them and gotten their information from Media Matters or another such source.

     Mike Parker, if you read this, you are a notable exception to this. At least you agree with me on Dr. Laura!!

112. As I said in the Julia Roberts post, if most liberals/Dems actually listened to Glenn Beck for a few days and ignored the Media Matters posts, they’d see he isn’t what they think he is. None of what Dan accused him of in the Roberts thread is true when put in proper context.

113. Tossman, I agree with you. It amazes me how many people love to pounce on Rush or Sean Hannity without ever having listened to them.

     Here are a few thoughts I have on talk radio since first writing this post almost two years ago:

     Rush and Michael Medved are still my favorites. Michael Medved is really a great, great talk show host, a great debater with encyclopedic knowledge on a variety of subjects. I give him extra credit for being one of the few conservative talk show hosts to be a moderate on the immigration issue. He is in favor of heightened border security but avoids the anti-Latino talk you hear on Sean Hannity and elsewhere.

     I’m listening to Dr. Laura more now, and she is the best. Some of her advice is so surprising and spot-on that it makes me sentimental (weepy) sometimes.

     Air America failed in Miami, so I can’t comment on that. NPR seems to be getting better lately — I’m not sure what has changed but there seems to be more of an attempt to show both sides on important issues, and they are actually acknowledging some of the facts on the ground in Iraq, which is nice.

     Unfortunately, there are many Lou Dobbs clones with talk shows in Miami. I listen to country music or NPR when they come on.

114. Proper context? talking about strangling Michael Moore? How can that be in any context but the insane?

     And questioning Keith Ellison’s patriotism because he is a Muslim? There is no getting the context wrong, Tossman.

     If there is smoke, there usually is a fire. I don’t really care about the rest of Glenn Beck’s shows if he offers that kind of drivel every once in a while. It speaks far more of his character that he even allows himself to go on record like that! If Glenn Beck truly were a good guy, then there would be no issue here. If he truly had a good show, then there would be no examples of him saying the dumbest things possible. But he’s not a good guy. He’s another Anne Coulter, who would rather say the most provocative thing to make a buck. That’s quite sad, frankly. I feel sorry for the man.

115. Dan, could you provide the citations with the entire context for those two claims about Glenn Beck? In other words, could you quote the entire monologue that took place and where and how he said those two things? If things are as you say, I’ll agree with you. But I’d be willing to bet the context will make things look a lot more innocent. Thanks.

116. What about Glenn Beck issuing a fatwa on penguins?

     Let me ask you this, Dan- other than the 30 second youtube clip of Glenn and Ellison, have you ever listened to the radio show or watched the entire TV show?

117. Every time I listen to Hannity, I come away feeling pissed-off. I felt the same way watching Crossfire back before John Stewart basically deep-sixed the show.

     Just a bunch of hucksters showboating for manufactured outrage.

118. Geoff,

     First is the incident with Keith Ellison. After Mr. Ellison had been elected by his district to represent them, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, Mr. Beck had him on his CNN show. The following is the transcript of the show, from beginning to just past the flagrant incident:

     BECK: History was made last Tuesday when Democrat Keith Ellison got elected to Congress, representing the great state of Minnesota. Well, not really unusual that Minnesota would elect a Democrat. What is noteworthy is that Keith is the first Muslim in history to be elected to the House of Representatives. He joins us now.

     Congratulations, sir.

     ELLISON: How you doing, Glenn? Glad to be here.

     BECK: Thank you. I will tell you, may I — may we have five minutes here where we’re just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?

     ELLISON: Go there.

     BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I’ve been to mosques. I really don’t believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I — you know, I think it’s being hijacked, quite frankly.

     With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, “Let’s cut and run.” And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”

     And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

     ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There’s no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don’t need to — need to prove my patriotic stripes.

     BECK: I understand that. And I’m not asking you to. I’m wondering if you see that. You come from a district that is heavily immigrant with Somalians. And I think it’s wonderful, honestly, I think it is really a good sign that you are a — you could be an icon to show Europe, this is the way you integrate into a country. I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing. With that —

     ELLISON: I’d agree with you.

     Prove to me you’re not working with our enemies? What kind of question is that to ask a newly elected Congressman?

     Second is the incident with Michael Moore. This one I do not know the context of beyond the particular quote. Here it is:

     BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out — is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, “Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,” and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, “Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.” And you know, well, I’m not sure.

     If anyone can provide the rest of the transcript, that would be fine, but let me tell you, I don’t know any liberal who, upon listening to that, will think anything but that Glenn Beck is insane and pondering on how to murder a man.

119. Your first example was better Dan.

     The guy sounds like a real chowderhead.

120. Dan, the Michael Moore quote was from his radio show. I remember it now. If you had ever listened to the radio show, you’d know that it is filled with sarcastic humor. This was sarcastic humor which, taken out of context, sounds terrible. I don’t think you’d take it that way if you listened to the show. It’s the tone and the context. He’s never “pondered on how to murder a man,” though it’s very convenient for you to take it that way. It’s no more irreverent than the attempts at comedy I hear on Air America or America Left (XM) and I don’t hear you decrying that crowd.

     Now with Ellison, I believe he did question his patriotism. But he questioned his patriotism because he was a Democrat, not because he is a Muslim. He has explained numerous times (and with a lot of self-depricating humor) that it came out very wrong, and has since joked with Ellison about it.

     I don’t have a problem with people questioning each other’s patriotism. I question Cindy Shehan’s patriotism, along with many on the radical fringes of both parties. I don’t think that’s wrong. I don’t have a problem if you question my patriotism. Have at ‘er- I don’t care.

     Beck’s point (as he stated on his radio show just before he recorded the TV show and botched it) was that as a Muslim, Ellison should understand the threat of radical Islam better than anybody. Thus, he should know that “cutting and running” would only embolden the radicals. Glenn was baffled that Ellison would favor cutting and running, given his religious heritage.

     You should know that Beck is extremely respectful of Islam. You’d know that if you ever listened. Way more respectful than I would be. He truly believes that true Islam is peaceful. I’m personally not so sure. But he constantly speaks out against discriminating against Islam, and has many allies in moderate Islamic circles.

     But you don’t know that because you’ve only watched that youtube clip and read Media Matters.

121. Tossman,

     You’re not going to convince me that Glenn Beck is a good guy. The words that come out of his mouth are too foul for me to even consider that. If I had a neo-conservative on my show, my very first question to him would not be, “Are you a warmonger?”

     And if I ever had such hateful feelings for a guy that I’d be pondering how I would murder him, even jokingly, that’s just something I will never ever say publicly. Maybe my sense of humor is too refined and elitist. Maybe my standards are just too high. Maybe I just can’t fathom lowbrow humor.

     My problem with Beck is that he is a Mormon and he should know better.

122. No. Your problem with Beck is that you consider him an evil neocon.

     I don’t need to convince you that he is a good guy. I don’t care what you think of him, and he doesn’t need you to feel sorry for him. But I’d prefer that you at least check him out a little before calling labelling him “reprehensible.” Seriously, all you know is what you read on Media Matters. You don’t even deny that.

123. Dan, regarding the above, I am wrong to assume what your problem with Glenn Beck is, and I am wrong to assume you consider him evil. I apologize.

124. We’re all sinners Tossman.

     Some of us are just more obnoxious about it than others.

125. Dan, regarding #118, assuming your quotations are correct, the Ellison interview was not as bad as you make it out to be. If you read it is context he clearly is referring primarily to the fact that Ellison has espoused a “cut and run” policy and as a Muslim he should understand that this emboldens the enemy. He says several times that he has no problem with Islam but feels it is being hijacked (which is how many Muslims feel, btw). I know this is not something you agree with, but I do feel that such a policy (cut and run) gives aid and comfort to our enemies. This is a completely valid question to ask. And, I would like to point out that Ellison has been elected to Congress and will be asked tough questions. If you had me on your radio show, and I were a neoconservative congressman, I would have no problem with you asking me “are you a warmonger?” If I couldn’t handle a question like that, I wouldn’t deserve to be a congressman, and I would have a good answer for it. Given that I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I had better be able to explain how, given that I follow the Prince of Peace, I can justify that. Ellison should be able to do the same thing, explain how as a Muslim he can support a policy that emboldens a mostly Muslim enemy.

     But, having said that, I will agree with you that it was probably not the best idea for GB to have mixed the two issues the way he did, and it showed bad judgment on his part. He should have concentrated on the Iraq policy first and left religion out of it. So, not one of GB’s finest moments.

     As for the Michael Moore quotation, that sounds like Glenn. You kinda have to be there to understand the humor. It is definitely not something I would say, even in private, but when GB says these kinds of things, and you listen in context, it comes across differently than when you see it written. GB has a great sense of humor, which is one of the reasons behind his popularity. But it’s definitely a performance humor that doesn’t come across in the written form.

     Dan, I’m glad you don’t like humor in which people talk about killing or hurting other people. I hope you can generate the same amount of outrage about the hundreds of leftists entertainers who have talked about hurting the President or other conservatives. I would agree with you that the world would be a better place if people used different language and were more respectful of each other.

     I listen to GB all the time. I am proud that he is a Church member. His show is really quite different than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. He is an independent, not a partisan Republican, although he calls himself a conservative. He encourages people to register as independents. He is a Giuliani supporter. I don’t agree with him on the immigration issue, but I don’t agree with most conservatives these days on that issue, so I kind of tune out when the anti-immigration rants start up.

     I don’t think you need to listen to people with whom you disagree. Frankly there are people I can’t stand to listen to. Al Franken, Randy Rhodes, Chris Mathews, Whoopi Goldberg come to mind. I think Michael Savage and Ann Coulter make conservatives look bad. But before you spend hours and hours researching and criticizing Glenn Beck you need to do yourself a favor and at least listen to or watch his show a few times. It really is not as bad as you think it is. I guarantee it.

126. Tossman,

     Dan, regarding the above, I am wrong to assume what your problem with Glenn Beck is, and I am wrong to assume you consider him evil. I apologize.

     No worries. My problem with someone like Glenn Beck is that if he wishes for someone like me to listen to his show, or watch his show on CNN, he must raise the level of his discourse. I keep hearing that these guys (like him and Anne Coulter) are really nice people, but their public persona are purposefully mean and cruel because it draws the money. Well, then they will never get me to watch. I don’t need the provocative language in order to be “hooked” on to a show. This is how Michael Savage got popular. He started insulting things, whether he truly believed it or not, and people started listening to him. That’s reprehensible. And I will not listen.

127. Geoff,

     If I couldn’t handle a question like that, I wouldn’t deserve to be a congressman, and I would have a good answer for it

     It’s not a matter of whether or not you could handle that kind of question. The question is premised on a logical fallacy, and therefore is flawed to begin with. The question also is intended to get the answerer to be defensive, instead of premising it in a way in which he will actually expound what he REALLY thinks. It is meant to draw a negative reaction rather than a positive one.

     I hope you can generate the same amount of outrage about the hundreds of leftists entertainers who have talked about hurting the President or other conservatives. I would agree with you that the world would be a better place if people used different language and were more respectful of each other.

     Definitely. The kind of discourse that gets people talking about hurting or harming is wrong, on any side of an issue. Do I highlight leftists on my blog, for example? Not really, unless it is highly provocative, like Glenn Beck’s examples. And of course unless I hear about it. I don’t pay attention to many conservative blogs. You get drowned out by all the vipers and wolves in the comments for a debate to have any merit. The blogosphere has done a great job in creating two massive choirs to which we all go, depending on our political views. We sit back in those choirs and hear the preaching.

     But before you spend hours and hours researching and criticizing Glenn Beck you need to do yourself a favor and at least listen to or watch his show a few times. It really is not as bad as you think it is. I guarantee it.

     It’s too late, though, Geoff. I’ve already made my mind up about Glenn Beck. He needs to ratchet up his level of discourse before I even consider watching a single episode of his. Right now, I am on the side of signing a petition to have CNN remove him from their program (his show is the most poorly viewed show in the evenings), and thrust him back into just radio. He’s here in New York City. Maybe someday, if I meet him in person I might change my mind, but only after I’ve given him a few words of advice. 🙂

128. I’ve already made my mind up about Glenn Beck. He needs to ratchet up his level of discourse before I even consider watching a single episode of his.

     If you ever listened I’m sure you’d realize that the dialog wasn’t ever as ratcheted down as you think it is. And it your only exposure to GB is Media Matters and the other liberal watchdog groups that come up when you do a google news search on him, you’ll never see it because they will NEVER paint him in a positive light. You’re reacting just the way they want you to react.

     If he were such a horrible guy, why do his Salt Lake stage shows sell out in seconds? If he’s a Mormon who should know better, why is he approved of and praised by thousands of members all over the country? Why is he constantly invited to speak in Salt Lake at firesides and youth groups? If his TV show has such dismal ratings, what is CNN’s motivation for keeping him on?

     I actually listen to Air America regularly. I hate it, but I listen because I sometimes have to haul stuff long distances and being pissed off helps keep me awake. If you think the couple things you’ve read GB say are horrible, listen to Air America or XM’s America Left sometime.

     I don’t wish to be some big Glenn Beck advertisement (Lord knows he’s doing well enough without my endorsement). But I have met the man on several occasions and was at his stage show last year, where he spent an entire hour after the regular show bearing his testimony of the church. It was frankly the most powerful testimony I’ve ever heard.

     But if you choose to disregard him because Soros’ kids cherry-pick quotes now and then, whatever.

129. Tossman,

     We don’t need to get into how I feel about Utah Mormons. They reflect Glenn Beck’s style well enough, frankly.

     But I just have one quibble, and that is with your last line. There is no cherry-picking here, in regards to his quotes. They are not taken out of context. Glenn Beck said what he said, and he meant to be provocative. That is the intent of such language. That’s good enough for me to deride him and to avoid listening to what he has to say. In my branch, I will not invite him to speak, personally.

130. I agree that Utah Mormons can be quirky, but to compare them to a man you call “reprehensible” (again, without investigating) says a lot about how you feel about church members you don’t agree with.

     I love how it’s not ok for GB to question somebody’s patriotism, yet it’s perfectly fine for you to question his righteousness (“pondering on how to murder a man”, “a Mormon that should know better”, etc.), then make a direct comparison between him and a state full of your LDS brothers and sisters.

     Who’s sounding “reprehensible” now, Dan?

     By the way, I’m not from Utah and don’t consider myself a typical Utah Mormon. The members from my hometown dang near unanimously love him too.

131. Tossman, that comment is a bit out of line.

     Guys, we are going in circles on this discussion. Probably best to move on to another topic.

132. What exactly was out of line, Geoff? I’m really surprised you’d think that, given what Dan has said previous to it.

133. Dan calling GB “reprehensible” is different than you calling Dan “reprehensible.” I actually agree with your point, there’s just a better way of putting it that doesn’t going after Dan personally.
     That was my point.

     Thanks, guys. Let’s move on. How about that Rush Limbaugh, huh? 🙂

134. Ah, I think I get it. So if Glenn Beck were a poster here, you’d censure Dan for going after him personally. And if Dan weren’t a poster here it would be ok for me to go after him personally.

     Let me put it this way then:

     “I love how it’s not ok for GB to question somebody’s patriotism, yet it’s perfectly fine for unspecified non posters to this forum to question his righteousness, then make a direct comparison between him and a state full of an unspecified non poster to this forum’s LDS brothers and sisters.

     Impersonal enough for you?

     As for Rush, I don’t really care for him. I think his analysis is dead on, but he doesn’t float my boat. Hannity I’m not a fan of at all. I think Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt are great.

135. Tossman,

     I agree that Utah Mormons can be quirky, but to compare them to a man you call “reprehensible” (again, without investigating) says a lot about how you feel about church members you don’t agree with.

     Um, I lived in Utah and had some pretty bad experiences there. That’s what I base my judgment of Utahns on.

     In any case, we are going round and round. Time to move on.

136. Um, I lived in Utah and had some pretty bad experiences there. That’s what I base my judgment of Utahns on.

     Then by all means, feel free to insult all of them. No doubt that’s just fine here at M*.

     You do make a good point earlier, Dan, about the two choirs sitting back and listening to the preaching. That’s kind of why Rush and Hannity aren’t my guys, and I don’t like Ann Coulter a bit. I’m actually really sick of the preaching to the choir thing because it does no good. I’m all about debate- even irreverent debate, but until somebody or some media organization makes an effort to bridge the gap, the two choirs will never see eye to eye.

137. Every time I hear a discussion about these political talk shows it reminds me of that time John Stewart deep-sixed Crossfire:

     Thing is, I think the discussion pretty-much summed up the problem with our political commentary in the USA. Worth a look if you haven’t already seen it.

138. Glenn Beck.

     Geoff B.

     Same intials.

     Has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?

     Makes you wonder….

Comments are closed.