|
Did Michael Savage do something stupid recently (well, stupid enough to get pulled)? My local talk station has had him on for well over a decade, and he's been quietly replaced with some other rear end in a top hat. I think of all these personalities, he is one of the more deranged.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Doesn't our supposedly left-wing media deserve some share of the blame for not fighting the Fox News bandwagon? I mean, who's the leftest person on national TV right now? Maddow? Olberman? As far as I can tell they're both capitalists. Depends on what you mean by "national TV". If you're talking about mainstream cable channels, it would probably be Maddow or possibly Stewart. However, if you're talking about networks that are generally available but not mainstream, I'd pick Thom Hartmann. His show airs on RT, which is available to anyone with a satellite dish and in some large markets on cable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
I was talking VHF/UHF broadcast, actually. Or whatever protocol they use now. Digital something-or-other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 11:06
|
|
|
SpRahl posted:No he's really not. I know that its apparently the thing now to call O'reilly one of the Yes you're right and I regretted my first post almost immediately. Bill-O deserves his own header in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Sean Hannity: Rorus Raz posted:Did Michael Savage do something stupid recently (well, stupid enough to get pulled)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not like Europe is that much different these days anyway. I mainly started this thread to discuss U.S. media but I'd be interested in examples of similar stuff in Europe or the UK, sure. E: General Dog posted:I don't think Fox News, AM radio, etc. really shape public opinion that much, I think they really just tap into a market for people who want to have their opinions/biases confirmed. Just like you go to church and listening to the sermon helps you to maintain your faith, listening to Rush Limbaugh every day maintains your faith in your politics. Rarely is either going to convert nonbelievers, the goal is just to keep the masses energized. I think you're very mistaken here. Just read the comments section of any news site or the letters to the editor of any newspaper to see how pervasive their influence really is. The buzzwords are always the same in all of these places. ("Socialism", "ACORN", "birth certificate", "cut and run", "tree huggers", "activist judges", "voter fraud", etc.) I could always tell what FOX and Rush were on about in any given week just by eavesdropping in the lunchroom. These shows and their terms have a way of seeping into the discourse almost without people really noticing it. Your analogy to church sermons I think only serves to drive the point home more. Many, many people attend church in order to be told what to think. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I don't think Fox News, AM radio, etc. really shape public opinion that much, I think they really just tap into a market for people who want to have their opinions/biases confirmed. Just like you go to church and listening to the sermon helps you to maintain your faith, listening to Rush Limbaugh every day maintains your faith in your politics. Rarely is either going to convert nonbelievers, the goal is just to keep the masses energized. This is interesting. What percentage of our +300million citizens actively consume right-wing media? Is the percentage disproportionately larger than what's found in other countries? I'm just speculating, but I bet among any group of people, particularly in declining powers like the US, there will be a segment of the population that finds Stabbed-in-the-back myths to be agreeable. The disproportionate number of older, less-educated americans we have also might be an issue. BiggerBoat posted:I think you're very mistaken here. Just read the comments section of any news site or the letters to the editor of any newspaper to see how pervasive their influence really is. The buzzwords are always the same in all of these places. ("Socialism", "ACORN", "birth certificate", "cut and run", "tree huggers", "activist judges", "voter fraud", etc.) I could always tell what FOX and Rush were on about in any given week just by eavesdropping in the lunchroom. These shows and their terms have a way of seeping into the discourse almost without people really noticing it. This speaks to how vocal this segment of the population is, but not necessarily their representation in numbers. Anecdotally, you can find a lot of fascist and ultra-nationalist comments under soccer videos on youtube, but I know fans with those views can't amount any more than 1% of all fans. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
I've always wondered why the left wasn't able to replicate the same thing. If SA is to go by the ultra-left isn't short on incoherent rage. Why is there no leftist version of Rush calling people unamerican?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
While we're naming names, here's a thing on why the right wing media cocoon is damaging to Republican electoral prospects: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/10/17/fox-kills-the-romney-star/ quote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rydUk0YjIeI
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I've always wondered why the left wasn't able to replicate the same thing. If SA is to go by the ultra-left isn't short on incoherent rage. Why is there no leftist version of Rush calling people unamerican? Because the modern left is individualist as gently caress and so hates each other almost as much as the right, and the last time a bunch of collectivist leftists got together they got beat down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
I wonder sometimes how much these outlets' ratings are artificially inflated by people like me who tune just for train wreck and comedic value of the whole thing. Like after the debate last night, I immediately jumped over to FOX just to see what crazy poo poo they would say to make it a tie somehow. Their webpage didn't disappoint me this morning. http://www.foxnews.com/
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I've always wondered why the left wasn't able to replicate the same thing. If SA is to go by the ultra-left isn't short on incoherent rage. Why is there no leftist version of Rush calling people unamerican? People on the left don't need some angry, sweaty blowhard yelling at them and telling them what to think in between commercials for scam products. There's just no market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I've always wondered why the left wasn't able to replicate the same thing. If SA is to go by the ultra-left isn't short on incoherent rage. Why is there no leftist version of Rush calling people unamerican? Because the media are not about educating people, but making money. And without financial backing, the main source of the income for the media are advertisements. So first, they need to ensure that they are read by people with substantial purchasing power, which is usually the middle class, or rather its wealthier parts - which can afford more expensive stuff. Screaming about patriotism would be counter-productive here, because your audience doesn't like that at all. Many of them consider themselves intellectuals, so they avoid reading regularly anything that could make them appear unreasonable. Everything considered "extremist" is not reasonable, and therefore disliked. Arguments to moderation make their boners hard as titanium. They absolutely love professionals (because a job is an important part of their identity), and hate ideologists. Because of that, a liberal media corp which would try to educate Republican electorate would either be ineffective, or lose income faster than they can gain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
The whole "left Rush" has been tried, and it died under an avalanche of liberals hand-wringing about civil discourse and other such poo poo. The left today refuses to fight fire with fire. Insert "Social Justice League" comic here.Gantolandon posted:Because the media are not about educating people, but making money. And without financial backing, the main source of the income for the media are advertisements. So first, they need to ensure that they are read by people with substantial purchasing power, which is usually the middle class, or rather its wealthier parts - which can afford more expensive stuff. This is right on. For some reason, the only thing liberals love more than free trade policies is false equivocation - if you believe in something really strongly, you must be as bad as the person literally advocating fascism. What is it about the American left and their seemingly unique disdain for ideology of any sort? Radbot fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is right on. For some reason, the only thing liberals love more than free trade policies is false equivocation - if you believe in something really strongly, you must be as bad as the person literally advocating fascism. What is it about the American left and their seemingly unique disdain for ideology of any sort? It's mostly a class-related cultural gimmick and has nothing to do with nationality or political affiliation. Middle class members hold white-collar jobs, so in their environment, intellect is an important thing. One of the ways to improve their social status within their class is to appear professional, intelligent and reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is right on. For some reason, the only thing liberals love more than free trade policies is false equivocation - if you believe in something really strongly, you must be as bad as the person literally advocating fascism. What is it about the American left and their seemingly unique disdain for ideology of any sort? The right has pushed this idea that "the ideology of the left failed in '68!" because Bill Kristol said it did, who said it because Irving Kristol said it, and the other neo-cons pushed that line of attack during the 80's and 90's leading the left to decide that it couldn't run on it's ideology, because it had been poisoned. That's why it's impossible to even be a real libertarian on the right. You can't be pro-choice, because that's a liberal policy, and liberal policies have failed. Because of the 1968 Democratic convention. Seriously. It's just marketing, and the right wing won out on that. Which is also why we have a thread dedicated to the loopy alternate reality game that is right-wing media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Because the media are not about educating people, but making money. And without financial backing, the main source of the income for the media are advertisements. So first, they need to ensure that they are read by people with substantial purchasing power, which is usually the middle class, or rather its wealthier parts - which can afford more expensive stuff. Educated people are typically well-off and support many liberal viewpoints. A perfect example of this is the success of stuff like "The Economist", which supports stuff like gay marriage and weed legalization, but diverges from college leftists when it doesn't support harshly redistributive taxes and a bunch of social justice stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Educated people are typically well-off and support many liberal viewpoints. A perfect example of this is the success of stuff like "The Economist", which supports stuff like gay marriage and weed legalization, but diverges from college leftists when it doesn't support harshly redistributive taxes and a bunch of social justice stuff. Unfortunately working class people, who traditionally have supported reasonable redistributive taxes and "a bunch of social justice stuff" like ending mass discrimination and racism, are trapped in a morass of misinformation from the media described in this thread, a workplace culture that says everyone is a professional and so unions are unnecessary and harmful, despite making $7 an hour sweeping floors, and political dysfunction brought on by concentrated attacks from the right for 40 years. It's a perfect example of the victory of the right wing media narrative that anything to the left of laissez faire liberalism is considered the immature ramblings of college leftists. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
I'm glad Mark Levin is getting the credit he deserves. He's much more relevant now than Savage, and even more despicable. I remember listening to his show when he was talking about healthcare and what can be done to fix the system. His suggestion was to force everyone, no matter how poor, to pay back the cost of their treatment (for the rest of their lives, if need be). No bankruptcy protection from medical bills. I can't remember who the guest caller was--some right-wing medical "expert"--but even he was rendered momentarily speechless by how ineffective and cruel THE GREAT ONE'S plan for fixing healthcare was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Some of my friends and family listen to these two http://www.wpgb.com/pages/quinnrose.html in the AM. I've been tuning in because of the debates and wow, the amount of fearmongering I hear is crazy. They hardly ever take calls to have a real debate about issues and if they do, the caller is mysteriously dropped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Posted earlier, but today is a actually a fine example of right wing media outlets do. If you watched debate last night, you'll know that the moderator fact checked Mitt Romney about whether or not Obama called what happened in Libya an act of terrorism (he did). Today, all of the conservative media I've watched and listened to is parroting the exact same message: that Candy Crowley was wrong and is backing off her correction of Mitt. She's doing nothing of the sort, mind you, but this is a great example of how this poo poo works. FOX News posted:BIAS ALERT: CNN's Candy Crowley injects herself into debate, remarkably siding with President Obama's claim that he immediately labeled the deadly attack on the Libyan consulate a terrorist act — and not allowing Mitt Romney to call him out. TheDailyCaller posted:CNN’s Crowley backtracks: Romney ‘right in the main’ on Benghazi Obama called it a terrorist strike the next day. This is the sort of thing I hope to do with this thread. Monitor and call out the spin as it happens, record and post what these people say and then watch as it effects the national discourse and the 24 hour news cycle as the arguments get framed. Right now, every Republican in the country thinks that Candy Crowley has apologized and that Mitt Romney was right, in spite of provable, demonstrable facts that say otherwise. They do this poo poo every single day. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Educated people are typically well-off and support many liberal viewpoints. A perfect example of this is the success of stuff like "The Economist", which supports stuff like gay marriage and weed legalization, but diverges from college leftists when it doesn't support harshly redistributive taxes and a bunch of social justice stuff. OK, SilentD. It'll be interesting once your theory is put to the test by the best educated generation in American history having the worst job and asset accumulation prospects. There's nothing terribly liberal about the idea of cannabis legalizaiton, and I think you could easily lump gay marriage into "social justice stuff". The Economist is liberal in a neoliberal sense only. Quick question - at what point, precisely, do taxes become harsh and redistributive, and why were the much higher taxes in the past not so? Radbot fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The whole "left Rush" has been tried, and it died under an avalanche of liberals hand-wringing about civil discourse and other such poo poo. It died because Air America was mostly horrible, unlistenable poo poo. Even Al Franken's show, the lynchpin of the format, wasn't all that great or particularly funny. I enjoy listening to Stephanie Miller sometimes, as well as Thom Hartman and Bill Press, but the way I listen to these shows is almost passive - certainly nothing like the way that people listen to Rush and Sean during their commutes and lunch hours. I actually manage to get tired of red meat. The right wing base eats this poo poo up as actual, honest-to-god news and, worse, the only news to be trusted because the rest of the media is all left wing bias.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Quick question - at what point, precisely, do taxes become harsh and redistributive, and why were the much higher taxes in the past not so? Intrestingly enough the only taxes in the history of mankind that can in any sane way be described as harsh and redistributive were all designed to funnel money from the lower classes and to the upper classes. Also this thread is a good initiative. Media matters a lot more than people think, and hopefully this thread will serve as a resource for pointing out the neoliberal bias in media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:Did Michael Savage do something stupid recently (well, stupid enough to get pulled)? My local talk station has had him on for well over a decade, and he's been quietly replaced with some other rear end in a top hat. He sued his boss and won after many years of legal bullshit, so he's essentially a free-agent now. Ona related note, I am one of *those people* that listens to these idiots daily. Sometimes for 10 minutes, sometimes I manage to sit through several hours of Rush. 9-12 is Glenn, 12-3 is Rush, 3-6 is a local guy named Bob Durgin, 6-9 is Sean, and 9-12 was Michael Savage. The only one I truly cannot tolerate for more than a few minutes is Sean...he enters "the zone" as I've started calling it, where he just rattles off number after number after number and it is so mind-numbing it hurts. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you all might have - I totally get you probably don't want to be going to their sites and giving them any additional page-views or ad revenue. I do listen to them ironically (now), but have probably been listening to Rush in some capacity since I was a small child.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It died because Air America was mostly horrible, unlistenable poo poo. Even Al Franken's show, the lynchpin of the format, wasn't all that great or particularly funny. You shut your face about Al Frankin. He and Air America saved me from being a dittohead. I like talking radio, audio books, stuff that isnt music that I can listen to. Back in 2001-2002 I was listening to talk radio and going dangerously down that 'boy lieberals are stupid road' Then Air America existed and I thought I would listen just to hear what a joke they were. I heard different perspectives and heard about events in a way that wasnt insane. It wasnt a overnight conversion, but without the existance of that alternate viewpoint I would probably just watch Fox News unironicly now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Radbot posted:OK, SilentD. It'll be interesting once your theory is put to the test by the best educated generation in American history having the worst job and asset accumulation prospects. As far as education, every generation ever has been the most educated generation in American history, more or less. The job/asset accumulation might be tricky, but the adults graduating into Vietnam helped put Reagan in power later, and the adults graduating during Reagan years are more or less calling the shots now. In other words, prepare to be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
shots shots shots posted:As far as education, every generation ever has been the most educated generation in American history, more or less. The job/asset accumulation might be tricky, but the adults graduating into Vietnam helped put Reagan in power later, and the adults graduating during Reagan years are more or less calling the shots now. I'm not sure what Vietnam has to do with anything - we're talking about money, and there's lots of young folks that don't have it (and they would have had they graduated with the same education in the Boomer cohort) and no real reason to think it's going to get better. I'd like to agree with you that every Tom, Dick, and Jane with $50K+ in education debt and no job is going to be subscribing to The Economist and railing against capital gains taxes but I'd like some reason to believe that first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
God, I can't believe I posted that whole OP and didn't mention Matt Drudge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Drudge This guy is sort of the godfather of of conservative internet news the way Rush is to radio. A lot of conservatives I know have The Drudge Report as their start up page. He sort of sets the table, even more than Limbaugh, for whatever the conservative agenda is for the day that all the radio shows and FOX will follow and hit on. Bombadilillo posted:You shut your face about Al Frankin. He and Air America saved me from being a dittohead. I love Al Franken but I thought his radio show was mediocre at best and not nearly as funny as his books or his sketch comedy. Strom Thurmond posted:I totally get you probably don't want to be going to their sites and giving them any additional page-views or ad revenue. Good catch (from Strom Thurmond of all people). That's why I linked wikipedia articles instead the news sights. Feel free to add whatever you've got since you seem to have a stronger stomach for listening to this poo poo than I do. Again though, I have to wonder, especially given what a few posters have said about listening to these people and visiting their sites, how much of their audience and ratings success is composed of and due to people like us who hear some piece of news damaging to Republicans and go "Holy poo poo! I wonder how they'll try and spin this poo poo?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
In St. Louis we have to deal with a real up and coming name in the art of indignantly reading the drudgereport for 3 hours, Dana Loesch. There is not a single talking point she won't regurgitate and yell about for the entire show. Luckily her radio station runs ads or 'news' for about 60% of their airtime, so if you ever accidentally tune it to 97.1, chances are you won't actually hear her. She got an "in" into national conservative stardom by being a huge Andrew Breitbart sycophant. On the day he died, she was in tears on the radio, and it was the greatest thing I've ever experienced. One of the things she likes to complain about is lazy people, because she has time to homeschool her children while working THREE JOBS! (those jobs are the radio show, running a blog, and being a right-wing parrot on CNN, for a total of maybe 20 hours a week?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Educated people are typically well-off and support many liberal viewpoints. A perfect example of this is the success of stuff like "The Economist", which supports stuff like gay marriage and weed legalization, but diverges from college leftists when it doesn't support harshly redistributive taxes and a bunch of social justice stuff. Of course. The main difference is that most of businesses don't have anything to gain by attacking gay marriage or weed legalization, but harsh taxes are bad for them (and their owners). Naturally, this means most of the for-profit media will oppose "social justice stuff" more than promote it. Cue to these ideas being mostly portrayed as irresponsible, extremist agenda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Here's a thing FOX News did today, swiped from the election thread: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/transcript-second-presidential-debate/ The transcript omitted Mitt Romney's answer regarding the gun question and about supporting the assault weapons ban. I can't believe that these arots of things are accidental mistakes any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Someone made the point Rush is really just the tip of an iceberg of local right wing radio hosts. For more on that, the famous fiction guy David Foster Wallace wrote up a really good piece on John Ziegler, one of the crazier dudes who people from the LA might remember: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/04/host/303812/
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
So today Rush Limbaugh said that Crowley “committed an act of journalistic terror” by calling out Romney. The tears, so delicious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I've always wondered why the left wasn't able to replicate the same thing. If SA is to go by the ultra-left isn't short on incoherent rage. Why is there no leftist version of Rush calling people unamerican? I'd like to think the left is better than lying to get what they want. Also, SA is by no means ultra-left, but the rage voiced by posters every now and then is pretty coherent. I'd like to ask what can actually be done about all this spin. There's this common pop-psychology trope I see posted every now and then that facts don't matter, and a poster brought up Gramsci who studied this exact phenomenon in the 30s - why working class Italians were spending their hard-earned money on bourgeois newspapers, and why they were going with fascists and capitalists rather than communists. The framework of hegemony, and presenting the interests of the elite as coincident with that of the subalterns, describes modern-day right wing media very well. But now that we know right wing media is doing this and we can catch them red-handed, no one seems to care. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the right wing media machine and how can the weak points be exploited?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
The most aggravating the about fox news is that they like to complain about the mainstream media on one had while gloating about their high ratings on the other. You can't have both, no matter what you tell yourself at night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
flatbus posted:What are the strengths and weaknesses of the right wing media machine and how can the weak points be exploited? One of the wisest moves the right wing ever did was create and foster the notion of left-leaning bias in the media. This is the perfect outlet for inevitable cognitive dissonance. I will explain briefly. Every conservative will inevitably realize the following two ideas: 1. As a conservative, I like conservative ideas/policies/politicians. 2. The latest headline shows that a particular conservative idea/policy/politician is flawed. These two ideas are clearly in conflict, at least slightly. Now, as rational creatures, we'd like to believe that item #2, the very clear evidence that the conservative idea is bad, will indicate that the person's feelings about the idea (item #1) were flawed. It would be easy for the individual to conclude that maybe the ideas just weren't as good as they initially thought. Maybe we can make them work by changing other things, or perhaps the circumstances were wrong. It's not a big concession. No big deal, right? But this rarely happens. Instead, they find a flaw in item #2. But how could that be? Well, clearly there is a massive liberal conspiracy throughout all of American media. Never mind the fact that you can't actually find any real evidence of bias. Never mind the fact that there are plenty of examples where the media was distinctly not biased for the left, such as when Romney was unanimously declared the winner of the first debate. It just has to be true! Part of the problem is that politics in this country is treated as a sport. Admitting that there is actual, factual evidence out there that would make your side appear as though it is not 100% in the right is like sacrificing yards. The attitude displayed in political discourse, from the water cooler to the White House, is nothing like what you would see from someone who was honestly trying to reach an accurate conclusion. It's not an intellectual exercise. It's a show. And this country loving loves it. I don't have any ideas on how to fix it, though. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Semi-formed ideas which I will hopefully expand on later but I'll post them here in case they spur discussion anyway: 1. It takes actual effort now to find factual news, more effort than I'm guessing most people have the patience for. If the news media can't be trusted either to tell the truth, or to call someone on their lies, then how can we expect someone to be well informed? I'm fortunate to have a nice office job and no major responsibilities at home, I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to monitor multiple news sites and blogs just to get some facsimile of the truth about a news story. 2. Fox is like World of Warcraft, in that no other MMO will singlehandedly kill it. Or, Fox is a big colonial power that can't be unseated by traditional warfare. You need an insurgency to defeat Fox because another news network can't and wont do it. This is why blogs and other micro-news outlets are so important, because the bullshit MSM noise machine will only die a death of a thousand cuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Just gonna leave this right here. From FOX's front page.
BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Remember back at the beginning of his term when Obama was saying that Limbaugh is the unelected leader of the Republican party? And some GOP congressman denied that, but within 48 hours offered profuse apologies to Rush for any perceived disrespect? I wish the president had kept bringing that up. That was Michael Steele and he said Rush was just an entertainer. Then he had to come back a few days later and apologize for not saying what he meant, And claimed that Rush was one of the great leaders of the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:37
|
|
