The Tin-Eared Talk Show Wing’s Declining Influence
It’s been evident the past two months. The tin ear and declining influence of the so-called “talk show wing” of the Republican Party. That’s the agglomeration of conservative talk show hosts, pundits, and bloggers who play the doppelganger role (and vice versa) to the “netroots” of the Democratic Party, would-be enforcers of an ideological political correctness. Like their lefty counterparts, they’re good at stirring up anger in their hyperpartisan echo chambers. And like their lefty counterparts, they failed utterly in the presidential primaries.
This is because they have political tin ears.
This week, we saw it again, when a yahoo Cincinnati talk show host decided to whip up the crowd at a John McCain rally by going off on Barack Hussein Obama. I won’t repeat any more of his blather, because in real world politics, it’s an irritating waste of time. In real world politics, this is a plus for Mr. Hussein Obama bin Laden, don’t you know?
McCain, knowing full well that this sort of swill is anathema to mainstream voters, couldn’t apologize fast enough. Then a state Republican party in Tennessee, infected as some other state parties are by this virus of nitwit hyperpartisan invective, put on a repetition. Only to be jumped on by the Republican National Committee and Karl Rove, no bleeding heart lib he.
Last week, the tin ear of the king of the talk show wing, El Rushbo himself, was on vivid hi-fi display. Rush Limbaugh was ranting on about the New York Times‘ attempted hit job on McCain, which I dissected at the beginning of the week. This, to Limbaugh, was proof that McCain had been oh-so-wrong in cultivating the American press rather than kow-towing to him and his colleagues. Limbaugh sneered that the Times and Chris Matthews, himself a yakker of a certain renown, were just out to do McCain in, like all the rest of the dread MSM.
As fate would have it, in the real world of politics, Matthews was, at that very moment, busily defending McCain from the NYT hit job. As did, frankly, most of the press that Limbaugh painted as mindless left-wing automatons.
While the Times effort, a ludicrous piece of innuendo masquerading as journalism more fit for the hyperpartisan blogosphere than a major newspaper, succeeded in helping McCain get some very tardy backing from the talk show wing of his fractious party, the truth is that the story was beaten down not by hyperpartisans, but by mainstream thinkers. And in large measure by the press itself.
So Limbaugh will have to wait about as long for John McCain to become a regular on his show as Mitt Romney will have to wait to get the vice presidential nod on the national Republican ticket. Which is to say, forever.
Which brings me to the enormous example of the talk show wing’s tin ear.
The Republican presidential primaries.
In their attempts to enforce a stifling political correctness of the far right, the talk show wing set about their relentless task of destroying one John Sidney McCain III, Captain USN (Ret.)
Folks, I give you your Republican presidential nominee.
They also went about the dismantling of Mike Huckabee.
And set themselves the task of nominating the candidate who was by far the best-funded and hewed, as it were to their strict dogma, Mitt Romney.
They ramped up these efforts into a fever pitch in the run-up to Super Tuesday.
But the Rushes, Seans, Lauras, Anns, etc. of this singular universe failed quite utterly. For on Super Tuesday, McCain and Huckabee, the two targets of their various barrages of the past months, did by far the best.
And Romney? Well, the man who I can tell you with utter certainty will most assuredly not be the Republican vice presidential nominee spent far more money than Mac and Huck combined. And was knocked out of the race for his pains, after suffering a crushing defeat in California, where McCain won all but a handful of delegates.
This, mind you, was a closed Republican primary, excluding any of the independents who comprise the fastest growing constituency in the Golden State. A primary designed specifically by talk show wing acolytes who narrow control the California Republican executive board to advantage a conservative candidate, namely Romney, the favorite of most of the Orange County conservative money crowd.
It was a perfect set-up for the talk show wing to demonstrate its power. And it was a near perfect failure. Of course, Romney’s megabucks California campaign was up against not only McCain’s Vietnam War hero/maverick Western senator persona, but also McCain’s endorsement by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Who last year called Limbaugh “irrelevant.”
Any generalization distorts. But here is one of the least distorting of all political generalizations: Independent voters hold the balance of power in American politics, now and even more so in the future.
Smart political analysts know this. Smart politicians know this. Hyperpartisans don’t.
The talk show wing discovered that it is really in the infotainment business. Whip people into an ideological frenzy in their echo chambers. Some listeners and readers take it very seriously. Others tune in for the entertainment value, then continue on in the real world to vote for John McCain, Mike Huckabee, whomever. There’s no question that Rush Limbaugh, at least, is entertaining, though some of the other folks are just angry. Although, personally, I thought Limbaugh was a lot more entertaining in the early years, before he took himself so seriously as a political power broker.
Now, of course, their equally angry counterparts on the hyperpartisan left, the so-called netroots, were no more successful in the Democratic presidential primaries than the talk show wing was in the Republican primaries.
Mitt Romney, meet John Edwards.
Edwards, who was actually highly electable in his earlier incarnation as a center-left Southern Democrat, moved well to the left in an effort to find some traction when he realized he would be up against superstars in the form of Obama and the Clintons. He was the clear choice of the netroots in the primaries. But after he lost Iowa to Obama, his only effect in the race before dropping out at the beginning of February was to siphon off enough votes in New Hampshire to enable Hillary Clinton to save her candidacy with a narrow win.
Which was not exactly what the netroots wanted, needless to say.
There’s a lot of sound and fury in those hyperpartisan echo chambers. But in the end, to paraphrase a line from the immortal bard — lest I be accused of plagiarism by a certain ever charming campaign — it doesn’t signify all that much.
Bill Bradley is a Pajamas Media correspondent. His Xpress blog is New West Notes.
What nonsense.
Conservative talk radio is alive and well. It is also that true that many people with agendas surely wish it dead. And they, like Mr. Bradley, will continue to write articles like this one in their attempt to diminish its influence. Unfortunately for the authors, it says a lot more about the author than the messengers they are attacking. Honest critics challenge the message. Dishonest critics attempt to smear the messenger. The tactic is very old and very worn out, but people keep doing it.
‘These people won’t think the way I want them too! What’s wrong with them? The idiots!’ is essentially what this article is communicating.
There are many who would prefer the American people to be lemmings that mindlessly follow their political overlords. How frustrating it must be for them to find themselves on the wrong side of the pond – in a country with a Constitution that allows them to be challenged by a bunch of ignorant backwoods hicks,country bumpkins, yahoos, little peons like us. The sheer horror of it all!
So Rock on, ALL you talk radio hosts (even those with shows I can’t stand.) You are giving people a voice where they otherwise would have none. Long live independent thinking and free speech.
The conservative base is really blowing it.
If conservatives rallied to McCain and swept him into office with a huge mandate, he’d have no choice but to enact much of their agenda. This is a golden opportunity for them to control him for the first time in his career.
But if McCain wins the presidency without help from the conservative base, he’ll owe nothing to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, Free Republic, et al, and he won’t take their desires into account.
Instead of playing it smart, conservatives are forming the mega-embarrassing FALCON Party, or the American Conservative Party, or whatever other fantasy they need to gratify themselves.
Dummies. Short-sighted clowns. Fanatical, self-destructive purists who are marginalizing themselves at an astonishingly fast rate.
I don’t even listen to Rush anymore. I did a couple months ago, but he’s just another irrelevant yapper now.
Should one’s politics be formed by values?
Or should one’s values be formed by politics?
This is a laughable analysis. Just wait until the illegal issue comes up in the campaign. Just because all of the potential candidates are pro-amnesty is not going to insulate any of them.
It’s nice to see how the McShame rooters are taking his tack with the conservatives – trying to equate us with the nutroots. I can’t wait for the “bigot”, “racist” (already started as you people whined about Barack Hussein Obama – more laughable politics) and “nativist” calls. Do you even listen to yourself? The nutroots didn’t beat back the Senate, and the bulk of both parties’ “leaders” several times. You really need to get a doctor to look at that memory problem you have.
Go get all those moderates, guys. You’re going to need them.
No what’s been evident is that the Republican party used the media to attract Independents and Democrats to
vote in open primaries, whittle down
the field to fewer choices and get the
candidate that they wanted, McCain.
I don’t think talk radio failed at anything. I think the Media succeeded in pushing McCain to the front as he is a candidate they could live with if he won.
There are many more people influenced
by cable news, the alphabet channels and the print news organizations than by talk radio, and those news organization started pushing McCain when we came out of Iowa.
The Republican Party elites sure have strange way of showing their appreciation for all the support the conservative base has given them over the years. So according to you Tom W. people who don’t tow the republican line are “Dummies. Short-sighted clowns. Fanatical, self-destructive purists who are marginalizing themselves at an astonishingly fast rate”.
People who seek smaller less intrusive government, don’t support amnesty for illegal aliens,want to reduce taxes on citizens and corporation, want to bring runaway government spending under control, support a strong national defense,
and a host of other conservative ideas. We should just throw all that out the window and support The republican nominee? As Rush would say,”SCREW THAT”.
I’m a proud supporter of the American Conservative Party and have no problems looking in the mirror when I wake up in the morning because I know I did not sell out my conservative principles just so I can get along with you and others like you.
That name calling shows some real class there Tom.
Wake up to reality, sport.
It’s alive and well … as infotainment.
I love a good laff.
As realpolitik, it is a failure.
>RE :
What nonsense.
Conservative talk radio is alive and well. It is also that true that many people with agendas surely wish it dead. And they, like Mr. Bradley, will continue to write articles like this one in their attempt to diminish its influence. Unfortunately for the authors, it says a lot more about the author than the messengers they are attacking. Honest critics challenge the message. Dishonest critics attempt to smear the messenger. The tactic is very old and very worn out, but people keep doing it.
Sigh. I’m not running off and forming another political party. Been there, done that, still had Carter, Clinton and Bush as president.
But your whole screed hasn’t given me one reason to vote for, that word is “for”, any of the jokes running for president. You know, “for”, as in “I support what he plans to do”.
re: MSM. I want you to reread this article you wrote the first week in November, and review the coverage they give their good freind McCain. I believe you’ll have some words to eat.
From Rolling Stone interview with “main stream” and “moderate” Democrat politician harry Reid, via The Raw Story blog:
“RS: You’ve called Bush a loser.
HR: And a liar.
RS: You apologized for the loser comment.
HR: But never for the liar, have I?”
Is this the kind of real-world political speech that highly electable politicians engage in Mr. Bradley? This Reid gentleman is the Senate majority leader.
Bradley pretty much nails it.
I remember the night before the ’06 midterms when the talkers were predicting failure for the Dems.
Dems won huge of course, and the next morning all the Republican talkers reinvented themselves as “independent conservatives”.
Their slogan was: “Democrats didn’t win, conservatives didn’t lose!” Yeah, right.
Right-wing talk has peaked. Bradley overlooks the netroots however, by treating them as merely a left-wing version of Limbaugh.
Netroots are still in their infancy and have already eclipsed the talkers in their ability to organize and impact elections. Netroots is not just Democratic bloggers. It is the real journalists like Josh Marshall who won a George Polk award this week for his tenacious reporting that played a large role in Alberto Gonzales being forced from office.
Netroots is the GOTV efforts that have produced 2:1 margins for Democrats in many of this years primaries. Netroots efforts fill sports arenas with 20,000 voters for Obama, while John McCain struggles to attract 300 McCainiacs to the local Ramada Inn.
And netroots is the massive fundraising success story that has Hillary and Obama raking in a combined 85 million dollars last month, compared to McCain’s paltry 12 million.
Nothing like this exists on the right. And talk radio can never deliver these results.
Bill Bradley, you and your ilk (true ideologues) are the reason the USA will have a far left, socialist Democrat in the Presidents office this time next year. Thanks a lot!!!
The talk shows you berate may well be infotainment but, they have way influence that’s worth pursuing.
If you’re do darn smart, you’d get them to do your influence peddling; as they’re far better at it than you.
This is an oversimplfying inaccurate analysis undeserving of debunking.
As someone who supported him in 2000, as a member of Veterans For McCain, I am sure that makes me a “socialist” in the eyes of various keyboard hot shots.
Get real, boys.
Or get used to President Obama.
Partly right, mostly wrong.
Yes, talk radio involves infotainment. Rush Limbaugh has made that clear from the start.
But conservative talk radio is composed of conservatives – many of them serious conservatives. John McCain is not a conservative – his policies sometimes match conservative policies and sometimes not, but his thinking is not conservative.
Hence it is hardly surprising that conservative talk show hosts have attacked him.
What will separate out the silly from the serious is how they treat him now. If they continue to attack him, when it could hurt his election chances, then they are not serious – they are just demagogues or entertainers or shock talkers. Supporting his election is the logical position of any conservative, as his policies will certainly be closer to conservative policies than that of his Democratic opponent.
In lumping all conservative talk radio hosts together, Bill Bradley really misses it. There is significant variety – from Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved to Savage or the local wackos.
The netroots, on the other hand, are remarkably consistent in their total hatred, vitriol and extremism – they are not at all like the major conservative talk radio folks.
Hugh Hewitt wasn’t wrong?
Hugh was TOTALLY wrong.
And I like Hugh. I’ve been on his show several times. He used to tout me, before he got it totally wrong on McCain.
Now he has to come climbing back.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhouse Nixon, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, and just for current candidate variety, Hillary Rodham Clinton. We’ve all heard these full names for years. Could someone please explain to me why calling a man Barack Hussein Obama, when it’s his name, can be considered racist or dirty? I heard the rest of what that guy said, and it was the same “He has no plans or realistic positions” crap that everyone else says too. The only thing that he did different was call him by his full name. If he is embarrassed by his name, maybe he should have legally changed it before entering the race. I find it amusing that the MSM will frequently put the names Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama next to each other. Why is it ok to use her middle name and not his? I’m sorry if he feels ashamed that he is named after Mohamed’s grandson, but his is so deal with it.
If Huckabee had not been in this race, Mitt would be our current candidate.
That said, I will be one of the first to admit that a) Conservatives, by themselves, can not a candidate elected; b) Conservatives, by themselves, can not keep a candidate from getting elected.
I am not talking about conservatives that are more interested in holding power – most Republicans fall into this category – nor am I talking about self-described conservative people that say they are conservative but vote anything but democrat.
I am talking about Conservatives that hold onto their principles and stand by their positions. Something Rush does, and Bill Bradley does not (if his support of McCain is any indication…)
Talk radio in declining in influence due to the increased competition. I personally spend more time now on the Internet. And yes, I sense that Rush Limbaugh is more than a little upset with the new reality. The good old days are gone forever. His slice of the overall media pie will be a bit smaller.
The odds are solidly in favor of John McCain becoming our next commander-in-chief. He should beat Barack “Barry” Obama by the minimum of six percentage points. A land slide victory is actually more likely. Obama is too weird to be embraced by the middle of the road voter. His race is not the reason. This is not about Obama’s skin color. He will be rejected because of the similarity of his positions to those of George McGovern.
“If Huckabee had not been in this race, Mitt would be our current candidate.”
This canard–repeated ad infinitum by the not very sophisticated Sean Hannity–turns out tohave been dead wrong.
Exits and other polls showed repeatedly that McCain was the second preference of far more Huckabee voters than Romney.
“I am talking about Conservatives that hold onto their principles and stand by their positions. Something Rush does, and Bill Bradley does not (if his support of McCain is any indication…)”
Limbaugh most certainly has not held on to his principles. I heard him with my own ears say that neither Hillary nor Obama would surrender in Iraq.
This effectively negates the entire argument that Limbaugh made over the past twenty years, that Dems can’t be trusted with national security.
“That name calling shows some real class there Tom.”
I’m talking about the fanatics, the ones spew on and on about McShame, McLame, McInsane, etc.
Again, you conservatives have it within your power to control McCain, but you won’t sully your precious “principles” by supporting him and thus forcing him to take your agenda into account. You can wring concessions from him by making your support conditional.
If you sit out the election and he wins anyway, you’re going to be irrelevant. Why can’t you see this?
Fanatics? For calling him McShame? I think the Founders would have dealt much more harshly with any politician who tried to surrender US sovereignty to the hordes. And “McShame” pales in comparison to the “bigot” and “racist” calls that we’ve had to put up with. You people are really pulling at straws, these days.
Now we’ve been treated to Bradley’s attempt to declare us the nutroots of the right. What a joke. Just look at the difference between how the shamnesty went and how the FISA bill has gone.
My principles are precious. Call me silly.
And your contention that anyone can “force” McShame into concessions is living in la-la land. All of McShame’s history is a refutation of that thesis.
He still refuses to change on the illegal issue, though now he likes to bring up the canard of the border fence – which is a joke. We have tens of millions of foreigners coming through the US every year and it would be simple for a few million of them to just come and stay every year, bringing us back to the present situation, even with a border fence. The issue with illegals will always be one of interior enforcement, which McShame refused to support and still refuses to support. Only now, he thinks he’s being smart by hiding behind a “border fence”. It’s a joke and a bad one.
Nice to see how you care about us so much. This line might carry more weight if you hadn’t written all that garbage before it. From what you claim earlier, you should be rooting for us to be irrelevant, since we seem to be messing up your vision of how the political world needs to run.
One can but surmise how “fast” Mr. Bradley’s analysis may be, but it is certainly half-blind. To an American looking down on politics, the imperial Lumbardian imperative, “Winning’s not everything, it’s the only thing,” is not the only thing in play. There’s the virtue of sportsmanship, the evaluative ethic of “how you play the game.” And for the conservative slouching towards crestfallen, there’s the pruning proverb of Victor Frankl, “That which does not kill you makes you stronger.”
Unlike Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Mr. Limbaugh et al. cannot arrange surreptitious land-deals. Unlike Boss Tweed they have no patronage jobs to proffer. They can summon no “quid” for the “pro quo”, nor extra “tit” for any “tat”. All they wield is a potential of public opinion across a few million on-off switches and the notion of individual free-will.
To frame Mr. Limbaugh et. al as power-brokers is foolish. Rather are they as acolytes bearing their lamps on America’s founding axioms.
If there be anything “dwindling”, it is not the light from these lamps, nor the truths we hold as self-evident, but the affection of nominal Americans for the Declaration and Constitution on which they stand.
Talk radio succeeds because it reflects the principles and beliefs that millions already hold and cannot find in any other media.
It is not ‘opinion leaders’ on the radio shows, it’s the FOLLOWERS of the opinions of a certain American group.
If some evangelical Christians had not rejected ROmney because of his religion (we were not, after all, voting for Pastor in Chief), if Texas got to vote first instead of Iowa and New Hampshire, if Huckadork’s followers hadn’t been directed to go across the hall and vote for McCain when Romney was leading the first ballot in Carolina, if Fred Thompson hadn’t waited so long to try to find campaign workers and organizers (already spoken for by other candidates and already hard at work by the time Fred called), if if if. There are lots of reasons we got McCain, but Rush Limbaugh isn’t one of them. He just told the truth. McCain is not a real conservative. I know that, you know that, everyone knows that. Limbaugh just told the truth, and in the end it was ‘events, dear boy, events’ that gave us McVain.
Our Founding Fathers fought a REVOLUTION over the Stamp Act.
I have a strong idea what they would have done to McCain. It would NOT have had any relation to presenting him as a CANDIDATE for ANY public office, much less President of the United States of America.
The GOP is proudly and meticulously, calculatingly setting themselves up to guarantee that McCain win this nomination, knowing full well he has won EVERY SINGLE poll in 10 years of “Who Is The Most Hated GOP Politician by GOP Voters?” hands down.
They are just as proudly manipulating the primaries and media to oppress negative truths about McCain, and to slander every politician who represents the ideals of Conservatives.
Including the news we are NOT seeing that 6 major televangelists are being raked over the coals by the IRS because something in their ministry touches on POLITICS – anyone here remember the First Amendment? And the kind of RELIGIOUS things our Founding Fathers incorporated into local community structures?
These ministries are NOT under scrutiny for ANY KIND OF FRAUD or CRIMINAL ACTIVITY – just due to McCain Feingold Thompson alone.
And most of them have EACH ALONE helped more people in practical terms that all these Socialist politicians put together.
No, I know full well what our Founding Fathers would do with McCain and his allies, including Fred Thompson, too!
It will be my honor to NOT VOTE for such a dispicable creature, or for Huckabee, LIKEWISE, as well as the Dim Party – in the memory of everyone who prayed and fought and bled, and sacrificed, and died for our nation, especially our Founding Fathers.
I will be voting for a WRITE-IN of my own choosing, someone with character and integrity and Founding Father principles.
These other Socialist creatures will land in the Hand of God soon enough. And if God needs testimony against them, I’ll be there, calling on every one of our Founding Fathers and every single one of our WW1 and WW2 Veterans and their families, and the rest of such Vets since then, as well, and the men who fought at the Alamo, and Sam Houston’s army, and Stephen F. Austin who had sense enough after being held by Santa Anna to learn to despise dictatorships, unlike John McCain.
And may God have the same kind of mercy on them that they had on America. It’s called “HARVEST TIME”.
It’s doubtful that “Veterans for McCain” contains many vets who actually served with him.
I know one Navy vet who served with him, and he definitely would not vote for him. The vet is all too aware of McCain’s temper and says he’d be afraid to have McCain’s finger on the nuclear button. (McCain’s nickname at the Academy was “McNasty.”)
One more thing: I really didn’t see a lot of MSM denounce the NYT story on McCain. Chris Matthews, maybe, but he’s hardly representative of the press at large. Some days, he hangs onto his job by his fingernails.
As for talk radio and Rush, they’re doing just fine, although I can understand how Pajamas’ correspondent might want to bad-mouth him and try to persuade people that he’s irrelevent. The correspondent has his own ax to grind, after all.
Bill,Bill,Bill as with all the pundits you all have it wrong about Willie Cunningham- 1) He used the middle name for the SOLE purpose of picking on the MSM’s poking fun at other presidential names- and before the “code word excuse” comes
comes out of your distasteful mouth -I didn’t see ANYONE; pundit or MSM; support Mitt Romneny while people were the picking on HIS religion. Before throwing stones make sure you are ALL not in glass houses. 2) He was trying to prove the point that the MSM was promoting Barack “not that Hussein” Obama to sainthood and push down McCain to the the mob-like witch hunt-like taking to the gallows-like of the MSM and other pundits. Even after ENDORSING him. Just goes to prove once again that everyone takes wothers say and uses it for their own ill-got’en games. As you will with my post here
Amen to Mr. Bradley. I am a good, conservative Republican who has about had it with the over-the-top comments and actions of these people.
If you want to hand the White House over to Hillary or Obama, vote for them. Otherwise, try and help our nominee be successful or just shut up, already.
Bunk. People like Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, and, yes, The Great One, have far more substance and import to their arguments than Bradley has. And they enjoy far greater stature & influence as well (perhaps this is the true basis of his bleating screed. Where was Bradley (and his ilk) when McCain & Co were trying to sneak yet another mega amnesty program past us? I will be voting for McCain this fall, but that doesn’t mean that I expect the conservative voices on talk radio to grant him carte blanche.
The “tin ear” is not with the talk-show hosts or bloggers but with the party and its constituents. Does it not impress anyone that the presidential election will have two senators from a congress with low teen approval ratings for our candidates?
What is broken is our 2 parties that do not represent what Americans want in their leadership. What exactly were the ‘choices’ conservatives had in the Republican party? Why allow non-Republicans vote in a Republican primary?
This essay is laughably insignificant.
The only thing committing self-marginalization is the GOP itself, and its wacko notion that it can win a national election without its conservative base – as will be forcefully taught to it – and to nitwitz like Tom W. – with McCain’s crushing defeat in November.
Has Rush or Hugh advocated staying home and letting a Democrat win the White House? No. The reason conservatism is flagging in this country is that it requires thought, not just feeling, and it requires political representatives more interested in serving their country than their own political power. Rush didn’t fail because McCain will get the nomination. It is his job to deliver the message. Too many weak-minded compromisers (and Democrats allowed to vote in Republican primaries) and identity-politics swindlers (Huckabee) outnumbered those who think we should control spending, control the border, and confirm good judges (thank you Johnny for the Gang of 14). Rush may be an easy target for you since he is so big, but I’m sure he’s never heard of this particular Bill Bradley.
I agree this article hardly warrants a response from me as a listener to talk radio. A primary is supposed to be contentious…duh! And, by the way, at least Huckabee still feels he has something to gain by opposing McCain still today. Bradley never won nomination and now he’s whining about conservative talk radio; give me a hanky.
I don’t think Rush, Laura and company have any less influence than they ever did. Not too long ago they stomped McCain’s abysmal immigration bill. The problem they’re having this year is that they can’t create something from nothing. They can’t stir up excitement in the Republican electorate when the candidates themselves aren’t cutting it with people. Mitt, Fred, Rudy, Huck etc. never were able to make conservative hearts sing the way Hill and Barack apparently can with Dems. That’s not the fault of Talk Radio. That’s the fault of the candidates.
Find a good cause and a good candidate and the radio guys will pump up the volume so to speak.
You’re acting as if those of us who listen to Rush and the rest are the robots the liberals say we are. We don’t follow them, zombie-like wherever they choose to lead. They’re successful because they reflect us, not because they direct us. I’m pretty demoralized with our choices this year. I don’t think talk radio is thrilled either. They’re not tone deaf at all. It is just that the music stinks.
Hey, you, Bill Bradley!
This is an update at midnight on March 5, right after the TX, OH, VT and RI primaries. I’ll let you have it from the guys at NRO:
“Winners: Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh. John McCain.
Losers: Mike Huckabee (for taking one last slam at Romney – his line about the most civil campaigns). Bill Clinton (who apparently wasn’t invited to the after party).
Reality Check: Obama.
Conclusion: Maybe there isn’t a place called “Hope,” afterall. (Think Huck and Bill, natives of Hope, Arkansas; Obama, resident of a fantasyland called “Hope.”)”
I fear that was some freezing cold water thrown to your argument!
Want a towel?
Ha!
This is a familiar argument…It sounds very much like Geraldo Rivera saying that Romney lost in Florida because Cubans didn’t like his stance on illegal immigration and that most Americans welcome the illegal invaders with open arms. Yea, we all know that Cubans are registered Republicans! He may as well be talking to himself in the mirror.
Mr. Bradley erroneously suggests that all Republicans listen to conservative talk radio. The fact that McCain got the nomination is no reflection on talk radio. To come to that conclusion, one would have to think that conservatives who listen in are in disagreement with the hosts. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
Most voters in this country are clueless and pick their candidates by sticking their finger in the wind. On the Republican side, talk show listeners are amongst the most politically educated voters in the country. Most of those who chose McCain are clueless.
Like Geraldo, Mr. Bradley may as well “talk to the hand”. Posting this kind of crap in the conservative blogsphere is a waste of his time and ours.