Shining Example of Civility from the Limbaugh of the Left

What the hell is a "pother"? Did I type that?

robeiae said:

What the hell is a "pother"? Did I type that?

Click to expand...

Yes, you did. I assumed you meant "other", but I honestly didn't notice until you just pointed it pout.

ETA: at ypur "pout"

Roger J Carlson said:

I didn't say anything about "popularity".

I just thought it was odd that you were trumpeting Olbermann's "minuscule" audience as a positive.

If Olbermann's audience is minuscule compared to Limbaugh's and all of Limbaugh's audience agrees with him (they're Dittoheads), then it stands to reason that Limbaugh represents a larger percentage of American thought, hence making him more relevant.

Click to expand...

I don't think it stands to reason that at all. You're extrapolating from my post something other than what I meant. That's fine if that's how you interpret it, but I'm not co-signing the interpretation.

You missed my point which was Olbermann's viewing audience on MSNBC is small compared to Limbaugh's radio program. And I didn't say all of Limbaugh's listeners agreed with him. Just the loyal legions of Dittoheads who accept what he says without qualification.

Limbaugh is relevant---to his core audience and critics. But in a nation of millions, those that listen to Limbaugh is vastly overwhelmed by the millions that have not.

They are both just part of the background noise and drown out serious and sober representatives of their particular political persuasions.

Roger J Carlson said:

I didn't. Nighttimer did, calling Limbaugh's audience "legions of Dittoheads". Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the majority of regular listeners/viewers of either show hold more ideals in common with the host than not.

Still, agree or disagree, if Olbermann's audience is "minuscule" with respect to Limbaugh's, then far more people listen to Rush and he therefore has a greater impact on the national discourse, making him more relevant.

I just wondered why that is a good thing from Nighttimer's perspective.

Click to expand...

It isn't a good thing or a bad thing, Mr. Carlson. It simply is. You're the one who made the leap into illogic.

Perks said:

Nothing, if you're not Scott Brown. Have you seen the cheeseball lounging pics?

Click to expand...

I hadn't, but I have now.

nighttimer said:

Limbaugh is relevant---to his core audience and critics. But in a nation of millions, those that listen to Limbaugh is vastly overwhelmed by the millions that have not.

Click to expand...

And since Olbermann's audience is even smaller, it stands to reason he is even less relevant.

It isn't a good thing or a bad thing, Mr. Carlson. It simply is. You're the one who made the leap into illogic.

Click to expand...

Not illogic at all. Just following your logic to its conclusion.

Roger J Carlson said:

And since Olbermann's audience is even smaller, it stands to reason he is even less relevant.

Click to expand...

Stands to reason to you. Not to me.

Not illogic at all. Just following your logic to its conclusion.

Click to expand...

The wrong conclusion, but it seems you've already predetermined what the conclusion was supposed to be.

do I win if I say I find them BOTH equally repugnant?

Sheryl Nantus said:

do I win if I say I find them BOTH equally repugnant?

Click to expand...

In words of one syllable: YES.

robeiae said:

Well, she was a part of this nonsense: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3892880&postcount=103

She "reported" on how there was this republican memo going around that outlined how to disrupt townhalls all over the nation. But, as I noted in the post linked to above, it was BS.

More: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/think_progress_msnbc_manufactu.asp

Really, that's kinda Rather-esque. She either willfully spread false info, or she did one god-awful job of fact-checking. So, she's just another partisan talking head, imo. She's as likely to be full of shit as Olbermann, O'Reilly, Hannity, Mathews, or any of the pothers.

Click to expand...

Actually, Maddow's investigative reporting and fact checking are rather good.

Having a strong point of view, she sometimes exaggerates things somewhat, I would say. But she has a hourly show five days a week, and finding one instance of supposed sloppy work in one story hardly puts her in the realm of Limbaugh or Beck and their daily insanity.

"Supposed" sloppy work?

Well, as long as she only exaggerates "somewhat", that's okay then.

Rush Limbaugh of the left? I still can't get over this thread title. There is no equivalency to Rush Limbaugh on the left. There are crazy people on the left, but none equivalent, none quite so influential or crazy.

* * *


Rachel Maddow has a PHD from Oxford and doesn't tell anyone how she votes, or what her exact political stance is. She may come off as "liberal" to a lot of people, but she's been very critical of the Obama administration -- I think securing personal liberty through the law is most important to her -- and besides these two links, I haven't encountered any outright BS like I have on Fox News, CNN, and Chris Matthews. I guess it stands that people can take someone's two mistakes and color the whole career and person with them, but I don't get it.


AMC

Well, as long as she only exaggerates "somewhat", that's okay then.

Click to expand...

Her exaggeration isn't in terms of fact, duh, it's in terms of reaction. I think Rugcat is referring to her delivery, which is sometimes melodramatic.



AMC

I like Maddow an awful lot more than any of the other heads. She (or, more correctly, her staff) does good work in general, and few TV personalities are more honest torchbearers of important social causes.

Roger J Carlson said:

And since Olbermann's audience is even smaller, it stands to reason he is even less relevant.

Click to expand...

I don't think so at all, and I think you are missing the point entirely. It seems that what Nighttimer was saying is simply that Olbermann isn't really the equivalent of the Limbaugh on the left. I do agree, as I don't really equate Limbaugh with anyone else, including Jason Lewis, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Glen Beck.

The comparison doesn't really bother me, as Limbaugh is probably the most recognizable name. But no, I don't think he is really the same.

AMCrenshaw said:

Her exaggeration isn't in terms of fact, duh, it's in terms of reaction. I think Rugcat is referring to her delivery, which is sometimes melodramatic.



AMC

Click to expand...

I don't think "melodramatic" is the right word. I find her delivery to be a foundation of dry wittiness, but she tweaks up the dryness with clever word choices which aren't too terribly self-conscious. By "not self-conscious" I mean she's not smugly using huge S.A.T. words nor overly flowery sentence structures like the insufferable Rex Reed (film critic for the NY Times for many years) used to. Instead of smug with her word choices, she's kinda down to earth and laid back about her wittiness. The ting is there's almost always a grin on her face with nearly every news story she delivers. Only on are occassion does she get dark and serious. The rest of the time she treats the news almost as a laugh riot--in the truth is stranger than fiction school of thought. Her choice to look on life with humor is refreshingly different IMO. But "melodrama" isn;t what she goes after. THAT is Beck and Rush.*

My take, anyway.



*(Hmmm .... "Beckenrush." What a cool made up last name for a made up character. Any takers on that name for a current WIP???? Be my guest)





.

AMCrenshaw said:

Her exaggeration isn't in terms of fact, duh, it's in terms of reaction. I think Rugcat is referring to her delivery, which is sometimes melodramatic.



AMC

Click to expand...

I don't think "melodramatic" is the right word. I find her delivery to be a foundation of dry wittiness, but she tweaks up the dryness with clever word choices which aren't too terribly self-conscious. By "not self-conscious" I mean she's not smugly using huge S.A.T. words nor overly flowery sentence structures like the insufferable Rex Reed (film critic for the NY Times for many years) used to. Instead of smugness with her word choices, she's kinda down to earth and laid back about her wittiness. The thing is there's almost always a grin on her face with nearly every news story she delivers. Only on are occassion does she get dark and serious. The rest of the time she treats the news almost as a laugh riot--in the truth is stranger than fiction school of thought. Her choice to look on life with humor is refreshingly different IMO. But "melodrama" isn;t what she goes after. THAT is Beck and Rush.*

My take, anyway.



*(Hmmm .... "Beckenrush." What a cool made up last name for a made up character. Any takers on that name for a current WIP???? Be my guest)





.

AMCrenshaw said:

Her exaggeration isn't in terms of fact, duh, it's in terms of reaction. I think Rugcat is referring to her delivery, which is sometimes melodramatic.

Click to expand...

She's done a lot of work highlighting such organizations as Freedomworks which presents itself as a grassroots movement, but in reality is a corporately funded group chaired by ultra conservative Dick Armey.

I think the idea of a conspiracy is way overblown, but they are certainly intimately associated with the tea party people.

She also brought national attention to the conservative Christian group, The Family, (whose existence was previously unknown to me) whose members include such luminaries as Governor Sanford and Senators Ensign among others. Not to mention their involvement in Ugandan politics and the proposed death penalty for gays legislation. The light she helped shine on that had a big influence in getting US politicians to finally denounce that legislation.

There is no perfect voice of reason, on any show, of any political persuasion. But to equate her with hate mongers such as Rush, or the borderline mentally ill Glenn Beck, is a triumph of ideology over common sense.

I don't think either Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, on their worst days, spew the same type of venom that Limbaugh or Beck spew. Those two teem with anger and hatred and barely bother to disguise it - whether it's real or an act.

whistlelock said:

The key difference between Rush and Olberman is that Olberman has better hair.

Click to expand...

And a better vocabulary thanks to a higher IQ. He makes me smile~

Jersey Chick said:

I don't think either Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, on their worst days, spew the same type of venom that Limbaugh or Beck spew. Those two teem with anger and hatred and barely bother to disguise it - whether it's real or an act.

Click to expand...

Really? You think that his The Worst Person In The World schtick isn't venomous? And you really, really think his comment about Brown ("an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.") isn't venomous? This is not rational discourse or thoughtful criticism.

Or is it only venom when it's directed towards the Left?

I think this:

teem with anger and hatred and barely bother to disguise it

Click to expand...

describes Olbermann to a tee.

Roger J Carlson said:

Or is it only venom when it's directed towards the Left?

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. That's exactly what she meant. *rolls eyes*

rugcat said:

There is no perfect voice of reason, on any show, of any political persuasion. But to equate her with hate mongers such as Rush, or the borderline mentally ill Glenn Beck, is a triumph of ideology over common sense.

Click to expand...

I agree that she shouldn't be equated to Rush (nor should Olbermann be equated to Rush), by any stretch of the imagination. But that's mostly because Rush doesn't call himself a journalist and makes no bones about the fact that he's wholly one-sided.

Still, Olbermann engages in name-calling and insult hurling. He is--imo--right at the top in that category. He shouts down guests that disagree with him, just as O'Reilly does. And he's got an agenda, as does Maddow, as does Hannity.