Here's a second post from the same forum but a differen thread. This one is also about CA politics but mostly about left and right and right wing conspiracies
Eric (1950 posts)
21-Aug-03, 03:37 AM (EST)
"Vast Right Wing Conspiracies"
When Hillary C. coined this term, I winced. It was a rather inane statement, and played right into the hands of her detractors. Now, when any criticism is levelled at the right, the pat response is "Oh yes, the vast right wing conspiracy," as if right wingers can do no wrong, and certainly not band together to target a certain individual or cause.
Certainly they can do wrong. They do it all the time. However, I very much doubt they have a weekly conference call that organizes the attack strategy and the targets and so on. I seem to remember a number of Democrat talking points coming out of Carville and Blumenthal's offices. Would you consider them part of a vast left wing conspiracy?
But that no longer amazes me. What does amaze me is the homogeneity of the messages. I swear they send out some sort of memo. They all referred to some AP story in which the UN people expressed surprise that they were attacked, having requested that American soldiers not make a huge presence at their building. Of course, the theme of each show centered on the naivette of UN leaders, and practically suggesting that they deserved what they got. Apparently, they couldn't even wait for the bodies to cool before taking their gratuitous shots. Hell, it took the Democrats a week to blame the blackouts on "the dim bulb in the white house." What's the hurry?
They "hurry" is that everyone wants to float the idea first. Journalism has become far more focused on being first than being right. Get it out now and if it's wrong, we'll run a correction or retraction. They usually forget about the latter part. As for the UN in Iraq. I think in a sense they were naieve. They were warned by the US forces that they were a potential target and they refused to increase security as it would send a bad message to the Iraqis. I think the unstated inference here is, "We're the UN, everybody loves us." In fact, they don't. To the Islamofascists, they are just infidels like any other. For the right wingers, any chance to take a swipe at the UN must not go untaken.
Prager was the most intent, suggesting without apparent embarrassment that the UN ought to be kissing up to us. Coincidentally, the president will now be going to the Security Council for help. Kind of conjures up conspiracy theories!
The UN should be giving us more credit than they are but that's another post entirely. I've not heard anything new about the President going to the UNSC. I'll have to look into that one.
Comes the afternoon we have Hannity, Medved, Reagan, and Savage (plus another local lunatic, but he's so incoherent, it's hard to take him seriously). And Terminator holds his press conference. And march in line each of them does, talking about how he hit a "home run," and finally provided the details of his "plan" - the details being he's going to hire consultants to make an audit and then figure out what to do. No mentions of the UN. That was old news by then.
News is a very time sensitive industry. How long can you talk about a given topic before it's played out? When a press conference happens you have to go to it or listeners will switch the dial to here it elsewhere. It's live and it's topical. I didn't hear the press conference but likely Arnold did hit a "home run" in that, he's very good with media appearances. He's a savvy guy in that respect and he's not going to be under the gun like Davis is right now. I'm not sure you could claim he gave "details". Mostly he seemed to say, "Vote for me and I'll figure out what I'm going to do later. No promises."
A new program was in place. Gratuitous attacks on Davis and Bustamente (and even one or two for Simon and Uberoth for not towing the line). Uniform reaction to Davis' pointing out that Republicans are so apt to resort to impeachments, recalls, anything to avoid loseable elections. Actually, they were very much on the defensive about this. I think he hit a nerve.
Do you consider all attacks on Davis and Bustamente to be gratuitous? Seems to me there's plenty of legitimate ones you could make. The media pounced on Arnold demanding to know the details of his plan should he be elected. Nobody seems to have applied the same scrutiny to Davis though he's been in office a few years now. To say that Republicans are "so apt" to do "anything to avoid loseable elections" is just silly. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Some people think that when you swear to tell the truth you should, you know, tell the truth. They're just so judgemental and intolerant that way. The state of California is bankrupt and their bonds are now junk bonds. This is not a surprise to anyone who's been watching. That the voters are a little peeved isn't surprising. If the recall succeeds, it will be thanks to the Democrat voters without whom, this thing would never have gotten off the ground. In the latest poll, 38% of [b]Democrats[/b] said they would vote to recall Davis. How is this simply a partisan Republican effort?
Anyway, I know a couple of posters here listen to these guys, and I don't want to denigrate them even more, except that you might consider that the vitriol is less "entertaining" when it's aimed at you. I mean, I'm a political geek, so I enjoy listening to it. But with the possible exception of Medved, I tend to think that these shows are accomplishing the complete abolition of constructive political dialogue in this country. That millions of people listen to this stuff every day, absorbing it, disturbs me. Medved has an advertisement aimed at sponsors, in which it states that his show has a listenership that is very "responsive" to sponsorship, meaning that they fall for advertisements more readily than other people. Maybe THIS is why there are no nationally syndicated liberal talk shows. Liberals don't respond to advertisements.
Denigrate away. Savage is an ignoramus par excellence. Anyone who deviates in the slightest from his line of "thought" is a communist liberal marxist fascist or whatever. He was run on a trial basis here for about 3 days and the listeners on our most ardently rightwing station here booed him off the schedule. I lasted about 4 minutes. I'd rather chew tinfoil than listen to his show. I do listen to Hannity on the way home but only when our local guy is on a break (he's less annoying than commercials but only slightly so). I don't listen to Rush mainly because he takes forever to make a point. If he actually stopped drawing everything out, he could do his show in about an hour. At times he can be entertaining but I find him tiresome. So, Medved said the listeners buy products that are advertised on his show and this surprises you? He's trying to get people to buy ads! "Liberals don't respond to advetisements." PLEASE do you have any idea how pompous you sound? When it comes to advertising, liberals are just like everybody else. Some ads are effective some are not. If it weren't for ads, there would only be NPR but I'm sure you'd be just fine with that.
Eric (1950 posts)
21-Aug-03, 03:37 AM (EST)
"Vast Right Wing Conspiracies"
When Hillary C. coined this term, I winced. It was a rather inane statement, and played right into the hands of her detractors. Now, when any criticism is levelled at the right, the pat response is "Oh yes, the vast right wing conspiracy," as if right wingers can do no wrong, and certainly not band together to target a certain individual or cause.
Certainly they can do wrong. They do it all the time. However, I very much doubt they have a weekly conference call that organizes the attack strategy and the targets and so on. I seem to remember a number of Democrat talking points coming out of Carville and Blumenthal's offices. Would you consider them part of a vast left wing conspiracy?
But that no longer amazes me. What does amaze me is the homogeneity of the messages. I swear they send out some sort of memo. They all referred to some AP story in which the UN people expressed surprise that they were attacked, having requested that American soldiers not make a huge presence at their building. Of course, the theme of each show centered on the naivette of UN leaders, and practically suggesting that they deserved what they got. Apparently, they couldn't even wait for the bodies to cool before taking their gratuitous shots. Hell, it took the Democrats a week to blame the blackouts on "the dim bulb in the white house." What's the hurry?
They "hurry" is that everyone wants to float the idea first. Journalism has become far more focused on being first than being right. Get it out now and if it's wrong, we'll run a correction or retraction. They usually forget about the latter part. As for the UN in Iraq. I think in a sense they were naieve. They were warned by the US forces that they were a potential target and they refused to increase security as it would send a bad message to the Iraqis. I think the unstated inference here is, "We're the UN, everybody loves us." In fact, they don't. To the Islamofascists, they are just infidels like any other. For the right wingers, any chance to take a swipe at the UN must not go untaken.
Prager was the most intent, suggesting without apparent embarrassment that the UN ought to be kissing up to us. Coincidentally, the president will now be going to the Security Council for help. Kind of conjures up conspiracy theories!
The UN should be giving us more credit than they are but that's another post entirely. I've not heard anything new about the President going to the UNSC. I'll have to look into that one.
Comes the afternoon we have Hannity, Medved, Reagan, and Savage (plus another local lunatic, but he's so incoherent, it's hard to take him seriously). And Terminator holds his press conference. And march in line each of them does, talking about how he hit a "home run," and finally provided the details of his "plan" - the details being he's going to hire consultants to make an audit and then figure out what to do. No mentions of the UN. That was old news by then.
News is a very time sensitive industry. How long can you talk about a given topic before it's played out? When a press conference happens you have to go to it or listeners will switch the dial to here it elsewhere. It's live and it's topical. I didn't hear the press conference but likely Arnold did hit a "home run" in that, he's very good with media appearances. He's a savvy guy in that respect and he's not going to be under the gun like Davis is right now. I'm not sure you could claim he gave "details". Mostly he seemed to say, "Vote for me and I'll figure out what I'm going to do later. No promises."
A new program was in place. Gratuitous attacks on Davis and Bustamente (and even one or two for Simon and Uberoth for not towing the line). Uniform reaction to Davis' pointing out that Republicans are so apt to resort to impeachments, recalls, anything to avoid loseable elections. Actually, they were very much on the defensive about this. I think he hit a nerve.
Do you consider all attacks on Davis and Bustamente to be gratuitous? Seems to me there's plenty of legitimate ones you could make. The media pounced on Arnold demanding to know the details of his plan should he be elected. Nobody seems to have applied the same scrutiny to Davis though he's been in office a few years now. To say that Republicans are "so apt" to do "anything to avoid loseable elections" is just silly. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Some people think that when you swear to tell the truth you should, you know, tell the truth. They're just so judgemental and intolerant that way. The state of California is bankrupt and their bonds are now junk bonds. This is not a surprise to anyone who's been watching. That the voters are a little peeved isn't surprising. If the recall succeeds, it will be thanks to the Democrat voters without whom, this thing would never have gotten off the ground. In the latest poll, 38% of [b]Democrats[/b] said they would vote to recall Davis. How is this simply a partisan Republican effort?
Anyway, I know a couple of posters here listen to these guys, and I don't want to denigrate them even more, except that you might consider that the vitriol is less "entertaining" when it's aimed at you. I mean, I'm a political geek, so I enjoy listening to it. But with the possible exception of Medved, I tend to think that these shows are accomplishing the complete abolition of constructive political dialogue in this country. That millions of people listen to this stuff every day, absorbing it, disturbs me. Medved has an advertisement aimed at sponsors, in which it states that his show has a listenership that is very "responsive" to sponsorship, meaning that they fall for advertisements more readily than other people. Maybe THIS is why there are no nationally syndicated liberal talk shows. Liberals don't respond to advertisements.
Denigrate away. Savage is an ignoramus par excellence. Anyone who deviates in the slightest from his line of "thought" is a communist liberal marxist fascist or whatever. He was run on a trial basis here for about 3 days and the listeners on our most ardently rightwing station here booed him off the schedule. I lasted about 4 minutes. I'd rather chew tinfoil than listen to his show. I do listen to Hannity on the way home but only when our local guy is on a break (he's less annoying than commercials but only slightly so). I don't listen to Rush mainly because he takes forever to make a point. If he actually stopped drawing everything out, he could do his show in about an hour. At times he can be entertaining but I find him tiresome. So, Medved said the listeners buy products that are advertised on his show and this surprises you? He's trying to get people to buy ads! "Liberals don't respond to advetisements." PLEASE do you have any idea how pompous you sound? When it comes to advertising, liberals are just like everybody else. Some ads are effective some are not. If it weren't for ads, there would only be NPR but I'm sure you'd be just fine with that.
Comments