George Will Mocks Fellow Republican's Lily-Livered Response To Limbaugh

[mg]

Am I being unfair when I think of Republicans as being yellow-bellied,
chickenhawk, craven cowards who want to bomb Iran, but are afraid of
Rush Limbaugh? It looks Like George Will probably agrees with me, by
the way:

"George Will Mocks 'Depressing' GOP Response To Rush Limbaugh

Conservative columnist George Will on Sunday tore into top Republicans
for their tepid response to Rush Limbaugh's smear of Georgetown law
student Sandra Fluke, declaring that the GOP is "afraid" of the right-
wing radio host.

"It would've been nice if they had shared that with the larger public,
the Republican leaders," Will said on ABC's This Week. "Instead, Mr.
Boehner comes out and says, Rush's language was inappropriate. Using a
salad fork for your entree, that's inappropriate. Not this stuff. I
mean, and Rick Santorum says well, what he says was absurd, but an
entertainer is allowed to be absurd. No. It is the responsibility of
conservatives to police the right in its excesses, just as the
liberals unfailingly fail to police the excesses in their own side.
And it was depressing, because what it indicates is that the
Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb
Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/george-will-mocks-depressing-gop-response-to-rush

[SNORDO]

"mg" <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a709d7c9-042f-4662...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
: Am I being unfair when I think of Republicans as being yellow-bellied,

: chickenhawk, craven cowards who want to bomb Iran, but are afraid of
: Rush Limbaugh? It looks Like George Will probably agrees with me, by
: the way:
:
: "George Will Mocks 'Depressing' GOP Response To Rush Limbaugh
:
: Conservative columnist George Will on Sunday tore into top Republicans
: for their tepid response to Rush Limbaugh's smear of Georgetown law
: student Sandra Fluke, declaring that the GOP is "afraid" of the right-
: wing radio host.
:
: "It would've been nice if they had shared that with the larger public,
: the Republican leaders," Will said on ABC's This Week. "Instead, Mr.
: Boehner comes out and says, Rush's language was inappropriate. Using a
: salad fork for your entree, that's inappropriate.

reallllyyyyyy ?

why ???

if it works better do it

[SNORDO]

"mg" <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a709d7c9-042f-4662...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...

: Am I being unfair when I think of Republicans as being yellow-bellied,

:



limbaugh has the core of the retarded, right wing, hillbilly vote tied up, his
stooges will do exactly what he says,
or so the republicans think

[Earl Evleth]

On 5/03/12 6:32, in article
a709d7c9-042f-4662...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com, "mg"

<mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Am I being unfair when I think of Republicans as being yellow-bellied,
> chickenhawk, craven cowards who want to bomb Iran, but are afraid of
> Rush Limbaugh? It looks Like George Will probably agrees with me, by
> the way:

One editorialist use the expression Opossum Republicans referring to
their rolling over and looking dead if a conflict with their right wing
occurs.

On the other hand Limbaugh is a world class ass hole and possibly
merits being ignored at least by name. He has 14-15 million followers
But Father Coughlin had a third of the radio audience in his day.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs gives
the numbers. I long had the impression that talk-radio was dominated
by right wingers, Jeff said there were also lefties.

Who are they? The top names listed on the internet source are

The Rush Limbaugh Show
The Sean Hannity Show
Glenn Beck Program
The Mark Levin Show
The Dave Ramsey Show

A lot of brain washing going on.

[El Castor]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:30:42 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

>On 5/03/12 6:32, in article
>a709d7c9-042f-4662...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com, "mg"
><mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Am I being unfair when I think of Republicans as being yellow-bellied,
>> chickenhawk, craven cowards who want to bomb Iran, but are afraid of
>> Rush Limbaugh? It looks Like George Will probably agrees with me, by
>> the way:
>
>One editorialist use the expression Opossum Republicans referring to
>their rolling over and looking dead if a conflict with their right wing
>occurs.
>
>On the other hand Limbaugh is a world class ass hole and possibly
>merits being ignored at least by name. He has 14-15 million followers
>But Father Coughlin had a third of the radio audience in his day.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs gives
>the numbers. I long had the impression that talk-radio was dominated
>by right wingers, Jeff said there were also lefties.

I said there were ALSO lefties -- not that they were as numerous.
Sigh. You make me work, Earl. Here are a few links:

About a year ago Ed Schultz (a "progressive host") called Laura
Ingraham (a right wing host) a "slut", and gosh if memory serves she
never got a call from Obama, or so much as a "tut, tut" from Rita.
http://www.wegoted.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ed-schultz-suspended-from-msnbc-after-calling-laura-ingraham-a-right-wing-slut/2011/05/26/AGOcV2BH_story.html

More "progressives" ...
http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html
http://www.mikemalloy.com/
http://www.billpressshow.com/
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/
http://www.leftjabradio.com/
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
http://www.kgoam810.com/showdj.asp?DJID=47603

[Earl Evleth]

On 5/03/12 10:16, in article j0v8l71cbr4df4e88...@4ax.com, "El

Castor" <ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs gives
>> the numbers. I long had the impression that talk-radio was dominated
>> by right wingers, Jeff said there were also lefties.
>
> I said there were ALSO lefties -- not that they were as numerous.

The data I see then is that the field is dominated by the right,
and the nasty right at that.

Others beside George Will see a danger from these groups

°°°°


February 23, 2009 Issue
Copyright © 2012 The American Conservative



How Radio Wrecks the Right

Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological
comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.

By John Derbyshire



You canąt help but admire Rush Limbaughąs talent for publicity. His radio
talk show is probably‹reliable figures only go back to 1991‹in its third
decade as the number-one rated radio show in the country. And here he is in
the news again, trading verbal punches with the president of the United
States.

Limbaugh remarked on Jan. 16 that to the degree that Obamaąs program is one
of state socialism, he hopes it will fail. (If only he had said the same
about George W. Bush.) The president riposted at a session with
congressional leaders a week later, telling them, łYou canąt just listen to
Rush Limbaugh and get things done.˛ Outsiders weighed in: Limbaugh should
not have wished failure on a president trying to cope with a national
crisis; Obama should not have stooped to insult a mere media artiste, the
kind of task traditionally delegated to presidential subordinates while the
chief stands loftily mute. Citizens picked sides and sat back to enjoy the
circus.

For Limbaugh to remain a player at this level after 20-odd years bespeaks
powers far beyond the ordinary. Most conservatives‹even those who do not
listen to his show‹regard him as a good thing. His 14 million listeners are
a key component of the conservative base. When he first emerged nationally,
soon after the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, conservatives for
the first time in decades had something worth listening to on their radios
other than country music and bland news programs read off the AP wire. In
the early Clinton years, when Republicans were regrouping, Limbaugh was
perhaps the most prominent conservative in the United States. National
Review ran a cover story on him as łThe Leader of the Opposition.˛

Limbaugh has a similarly high opinion of himself: łI know I have become the
intellectual engine of the conservative movement,˛ he told the New York
Times. This doesnąt sit well with all conservatives. Fred Barnes grumbled,
łWhen the GOP rose in the late 1970s, it had Ronald Reagan. Now the loudest
Republican voice belongs to Rush Limbaugh.˛ Upon discovering that Limbaugh
had anointed himself the successor to William F. Buckley Jr., WFBąs son
Christopher retorted, łRush, I knew William F. Buckley, Jr. William F.
Buckley, Jr. was a father of mine. Rush, youąre no William F. Buckley, Jr.˛

The more po-faced conservative intellectuals have long winced at Limbaughąs
quips, parodies, slogans, and impatience with the starched-collar
respectability of the official Right. American conservatism had been a
pretty staid and erudite affair pre-Limbaugh, occasional lapses into
jollification on łFiring Line˛ being the main public expression of
conservatismąs lighter side.

Now the airwaves are full of conservative chat. Talkers magazineąs list of
the top ten radio talk shows by number of weekly listeners also features
Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin.
Agony aunt Laura Schlessinger and financial adviser Dave Ramsey are both in
the top ten too, though their conservatism is more incidental to the content
of their shows.

Liberal attempts to duplicate the successes of Limbaugh and his imitators
have fallen flat. Alan Colmesąs late-evening radio show can be heard in most
cities, and Air America is still alive somewhere‹the Aleutians, perhaps‹but
colorful, populist, political talk radio seems to be a thing that liberals
canąt do.

There are many reasons to be grateful for conservative talk radio, and with
a left-Democrat president and a Democratic Congress, there are good reasons
to fear for its survival. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is
generally perceived as the major threat, but may not in fact be necessary.
Obama is known to have strong feelings about łlocalism,˛ the FCC rule that
requires radio and TV stations to serve the interests of their local
communities as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. łLocal
community˛ invariably turns out in practice to mean leftist agitator and
race-guilt shakedown organizations‹the kind of environment in which Obama
learned his practical politics. Localism will likely be the key to unlock
the door through which conservative talk radio will be expelled with a
presidential boot in the rear.

With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to
conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole‹limited
government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty,
patriotism, realism abroad‹has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good
things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a
prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs,
Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?

They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless
George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the
great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too,
were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to łbuild
democracy˛ in no-account nations with politically primitive populations.
Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a łmassive success,˛ and in January 2008
deemed the U.S. economy łphenomenal.˛

Much as their blind loyalty discredited the Right, perhaps the worst effect
of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from
what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a
middlebrow conservatism. There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism.
Itąs energizing and fun. Whatąs wrong is the impression fixed in the minds
of too many Americans that conservatism is always lowbrow, an impression our
enemies gleefully reinforce when the opportunity arises. Thus a liberal like
E.J. Dionne can write, łThe cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert
Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity. Š Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.˛
Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development.

It does so by routinely descending into the ad hominem‹Feminazis instead of
feminism‹and catering to reflex rather than thought. Where once conservatism
had been about individualism, talk radio now rallies the mob. łRevolt
against the masses?˛ asked Jeffrey Hart. łLimbaugh is the masses.˛

In place of the permanent things, we get Happy Meal conservatism: cheap,
childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking
paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right. But
however much this dumbing down has damaged the conservative brand, it
appeals to millions of Americans. McDonaldąs profits rose 80 percent last
year.

There is a lowbrow liberalism, too, but the Left hasnąt learned how to
market it. Consider again the failure of liberals at the talk-radio format,
with the bankruptcy of Air America always put forward as an example. Yet in
fact liberals are very successful at talk radio. They are just no good at
the lowbrow sort. The łRush Limbaugh Show˛ may be first in those current
Talkers magazine rankings, but second and third are National Public Radioąs
łMorning Edition˛ and łAll Things Considered,˛ with 13 million weekly
listeners each. It is easy to mock the studied gentility, affectless voices,
and reflexive liberalism of NPR, but these are very successful radio
programs.

Liberals are getting rather good at talk TV, too. The key to this medium,
they have discovered, is irony. I donąt take this political stuff seriously,
I assure you, but really, these damn fool Republicans... Bill Maher, Jon
Stewart, and Stephen Colbert offer different styles of irony, but none
leaves any shadow of doubt where his political sympathies lie. Liberals have
done well to master this trick, but it depends too much on facial
expressions and body language‹the double-take, the arched eyebrow, the
knowing smirk‹to transfer to radio. It is, in any case, not quite populism,
the target audience being mainly the ironic cohort‹college-educated Stuff
White People Like types.

If liberals canąt do populism, the converse is also true: conservatives are
not much good at gentility. We donąt do affectless voices, it seems. There
are genteel conservative events‹Iąve been to about a million of them and
have the NoDoz pharmacy receipts to prove it‹but they preach to the
converted. If anything, they reinforce the ghettoization of conservatism, of
which talk radioąs echo chamber is the major symptom. We donąt know how to
speak to that vast segment of the American middle class that lives
sensibly‹indeed, conservatively‹wishes to be thought generous and good,
finds everyday politics boring, and has a horror of strong opinions. This
untapped constituency might be receptive to interesting radio programs with
a conservative slant.

Even better than NPR as a listening experience is the BBCąs Radio 4. One of
the few things I used to look forward to on my occasional visits to the
mother country was Radio 4, which almost always had something interesting to
say on the 90-minute drive from Heathrow to my hometown. One current feature
is łAmerica, Empire of Liberty,˛ a thumbnail history of the U.S. for British
listeners. The showąs viewpoint is entirely conventional but pitched just
right for a middlebrow radio audience. Why canąt conservatives do radio like
that? Instead we have crude cheerleading for world-saving Wilsonianism,
social utopianism, and a cloth-eared, moon-booted Republican administration.

You might object that the Right didnąt need talk radio to ruin it; it was
quite capable of ruining itself. At sea for a uniting cause once the Soviet
Union had fallen, buffaloed by master gamers in Congress, outfoxed by Bill
Clinton, then seduced by the vapid łcompassionate conservatism˛ of Rove and
Bush, the post-Cold War Right cheerfully dug its own grave. And there was
some valiant resistance from conservative talk radio to Bushąs crazier
initiatives, like łcomprehensive immigration reform˛ and the Medicare
prescription-drug extravaganza.

But there was not much confrontation with other deep social and economic
problems. The unholy marriage of social engineering and high finance that
ended with our present ruin was left largely unanalyzed from reluctance to
slight a Republican administration. Plenty of people saw what was coming.
There was Ron Paul, for example: łOur present course ... is not sustainable.
... Our spendthrift ways are going to come to an end one way or another.
Politicians wonąt even mention the issue, much less face up to it.˛

Neither will the GOP pep squad of conservative talk radio. And Ron Paul, you
know, has a cousin whose best friendąs daughter was once dog-walker for a
member of the John Birch Society. So much for him!

Why engage an opponent when an epithet is in easy reach? Some are crude:
rather than debating Jimmy Carterąs views on Mideast peace, Michael Savage
dismisses him as a łwar criminal.˛ Others are juvenile: Mark Levin blasts
the Washington Compost and New York Slimes.

But for all the bullying bluster of conservative talk-show hosts, their
essential attitude is one of apology and submission‹the dreary old
conservative cringe. Their underlying metaphysic is the same as the
liberalsą: infinite human potential‹Yes, we can!‹if only we get society
right. To the Left, getting society right involves shoveling us around like
truckloads of concrete; to the Right, it means banging on about
responsibility, God, and tax cuts while deficits balloon, Congress extrudes
yet another social-engineering fiasco, and our armies guard the Fulda Gap.
That human beings have limitations and that wise social policy ought to
accept the fact‹some problems insoluble, some Children Left Behind‹is as
unsayable on łHannity˛ as it is on łAll Things Considered.˛

I enjoy these radio bloviators (and their TV equivalents) and hope they can
survive the coming assault from Left triumphalists. If conservatism is to
have a future, though, it will need to listen to more than the looped tape
of lowbrow talk radio. We could even tackle the matter of tone, bringing a
sportsmanąs respect for his opponents to the debate.

I repeat: There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Ideas must be
marketed, and right-wing talk radio captures a big and useful market
segment. However, if there is no thoughtful, rigorous presentation of
conservative ideas, then conservatism by default becomes the raucous
parochialism of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and company. That loses us a
market segment at least as useful, if perhaps not as big.

Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism.
Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right?
__________________________________________

John Derbyshire is a contributing editor of National Review and the author
of, most recently, Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of
Algebra.

The American Conservative welcomes letters to the editor.
Send letters to: let...@amconmag.com

[El Castor]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:21:48 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

>On 5/03/12 10:16, in article j0v8l71cbr4df4e88...@4ax.com, "El
>Castor" <ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs gives
>>> the numbers. I long had the impression that talk-radio was dominated
>>> by right wingers, Jeff said there were also lefties.
>>
>> I said there were ALSO lefties -- not that they were as numerous.
>
>The data I see then is that the field is dominated by the right,
>and the nasty right at that.
>
>Others beside George Will see a danger from these groups
>

>같같
>
First Amendment, Earl. As for nasty. Do you perceive a shortage of
"nasty" left wingers in this group? I don't.

Your attribution of "danger" to right wing speech makes me wonder if
you believe it should be silenced? Attempts at silencing the
opposition seem to be the left wing approach in most Western
countries. The US, because of our Constitution, is the exception, but
the Left always seems to have it's nose under the tent, trying to find
a way. Two approaches that have been broached in recent years are the
Fairness Doctrine, as well as the possibility of an FCC doctrine which
would require talk radio to be local in nature, thereby eliminating
syndicated national programs like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin.

Do you support the repeated French prosecution of Brigitte Bardot?

[mg]

On Mar 5, 1:56 pm, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:21:48 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >On 5/03/12 10:16, in article j0v8l71cbr4df4e88ua36lbuc176h9c...@4ax.com, "El
> >Castor" <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programsgives

> >>> the numbers.  I long had the impression that talk-radio was dominated
> >>> by right wingers, Jeff said there were also lefties.
>
> >> I said there were ALSO lefties -- not that they were as numerous.
>
> >The data I see then is that the field is dominated by the right,
> >and the nasty right at that.
>
> >Others beside George Will see a danger from these groups
>

> >°°°°

>
> First Amendment, Earl. As for nasty. Do you perceive a shortage of
> "nasty" left wingers in this group? I don't.

. . .

In the case of Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a slut, it was a
situation where one public figure was calling another one names.
Sandra Fluke, however, is a college student. She is not a public
figure. That means that Limbaugh might not be protected by the First
Amendment.

"Libel lawyer: Fluke ‘definitely’ has reason to sue Limbaugh
By Michael Hinkelman
Daily News Staff Writer

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh issued a second apology
today - this time on the air - to the Georgetown Law School student he
called a "slut" and a "prostitute" on his show last week.

But a prominent Philadelphia trial lawyer who's been involved in a
number of high-profile defamation cases still thinks the conservative
talker is vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit.

A number of people have urged the student, Sandra Fluke, to sue
Limbaugh, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.

"I'd like to see her take him to court," Hoyer told the Montgomery
Advertiser in Alabama yesterday. "She's not a public figure and, for
that reason, she should be able to sue for slander, libel or whatever
else might be involved."

Fluke, who is reportedly considering it, could not be immediately
reached for comment.

Limbaugh made the on-air comments about Fluke in response to her
testimony at a congressional hearing in support of the Obama
administration's new contraception rule requiring employers - or their
insurers, for those with moral objections - to provide preventative
services, including contraception, for their employees.

"I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and
independence in the program," Limbaugh told his listeners today.
"Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate, they were uncalled
for. They distracted from the point I was trying to make and I again
sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those words to describe
her."

Max Kennerly, a lawyer with The Beasley Firm in Center City, thinks
Fluke "definitely" has a defamation case against Limbaugh if she
chooses to pursue it. . . ."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/141467803.html

[Earl Evleth]

On 5/03/12 21:56, in article n79al7tick393r25g...@4ax.com, "El

Castor" <ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> First Amendment, Earl. As for nasty. Do you perceive a shortage of
> "nasty" left wingers in this group? I don't.

The article I posted also claims that talk radio is not
a liberal thing but os affliction of the right.

That was the subject of the posting, not this groups
liberals

[Earl Evleth]

On 6/03/12 4:42, in article
41c3a5e0-7ac8-4b09...@od7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, "mg"

<mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But a prominent Philadelphia trial lawyer who's been involved in a
> number of high-profile defamation cases still thinks the conservative
> talker is vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit.

since we have been involved in a defamation suit here, and the laws
here differ from those in the US, my wife looked up what os a slam
dunk in the USA. It certainly is clear in the US, if you falsely claim
somebody has committed illegal acts that is slander. So probably
calling a woman a slut is not slander in that sense, but calling
her a prostitute is. Here we also have injury laws and so calling
a woman a slut would fall into that class.

We were called drug peddlers a number of times and the accused
admitted to using those words, so his conviction would have also
been slam dunk in the USA.

I don't see any of the current exchanges on this ground as illegal.

What I think happened is that Rush's lawyer told him to back off
and apologize quickly. I personally would not recommend such a
suit. Rush has been already damaged more than he could be in a suit.
But there might be bigger court awards in the US than here (we were
accorded 3000 euros, half for our lawyer). People here sue for
honor or media coverage and not money.

[El Castor]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:31:42 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

You posted one man's opinion -- John Derbyshire, whoever that is.
It's always good to remember that opinions are like ass holes --
everyone has one.

[Earl Evleth]

On 6/03/12 9:25, in article 5gibl751poehocg8p...@4ax.com, "El

Castor" <ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> You posted one man's opinion -- John Derbyshire, whoever that is.

He writes for the National Review, which in turn

describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and
web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

Of course this represents the one or two intellectuals among Republicans.