Posted on 08/24/2005 5:35:23 AM PDT by PolishProud
(I am a staunch conservative converted to the right by Rush Limbaugh. I remember the exact issue of my conversion - Limbaugh pointed out that so called cuts in federal spending were actually cuts in the growth of spending. Clinton's duplicity in using the words "spending cuts" insulted my sense of what defines honesty as did Clinton in general. But over the years I have become critical of talk show hosts. )
In my opinion the best hosts are as follows; Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Denver's Mike Rosen and Laura Ingraham. Hosts that suffer by comparison include Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, O'Reilly (radio and TV), Michael Gallagher and Michael Savage. The worse host, by far, is Michael Savage. He gives conservative talk radio a bad name. When liberals excoriate conservative talk, they use Savage as an example and rightly so.
The most overrated talk show host has got to be Sean Hannity. His show consists of promoting his TV show (40%), and telling us what will be on in the next hour (25%). Once in a while he works in a caller, mostly women. Sean really likes women callers. His interviews with politicos are predictable. And the object of recently program content has been used to take advantage of tragedy TV ratings, i.e. the Natalee Holloway's epic.
Rush Limbaugh is very articulate and knows what turns his audience on. But at times Limbaugh takes us back to the sexual innuendoes of the 1970s. He seems to relish "dirty talk." I can remember when, for one week, he talked about women "farting" in their cars. He thought it was so clever that this double entendre could also refer to women putting on make up in their cars. The other day, he was obsessed with the word "condom," asking if anyone on his staff had a condom in his or her billfold. I kept thinking he was getting some little charge in his neither parts as he said "condom." I don't know where the condom bit was going because I turned him off - and besides the next story, was going to be about a guy who died after having sex with a horse.
People listen to Limbaugh for his political bent, but Rush thinks he's a sports talk show. I and others, judging from Rush's own comment about listener input, don't tune in to hear Rush's NFL predictions or golf scores. If you want to get on Rush's show ask him a NFL question. In talk radio there's a conundrum - news talk shows want to be sport shows, and sports shows wants to be news talk shows.
While Rush relates to his audience on most subjects, he disconnects when he talks about social security as an entitlement. He doesn't accept that the government has made a contract with taxpayers; whereby, in return for the payment of social security taxes, the government promised to provide monies for retirees.
Hugh Hewitt is radio's would be PBS talk show host - that is, when he's on the air. He takes more vacations than President Bush. I'm sure talk show listeners can't wait for Hewitt's to feature Shakespeare, religion, extreme sports or NASCAR - at times Hewitt sounds like a religious show host. Whereas Medved doesn't give much worth to single people, Hewitt doesn't take old people seriously, despite talk show listener demographics. For some reason Hewitt comes across as someone trying to make up for his 5 foot 7 inch stature although I have no idea how tall he is. His most redeeming facet, which puts him in my top five, is his recent work on judicial nominations. Plus he has finally realized that his listeners can discuss complicated issues - whereas in the past he would toss out one line questions any idiot caller could answer.
Mike Medved and Mike Rosen are the best debaters. Although recently Medved has gotten off on social rather than political issues. I mean - how many times do we need to discuss homosexuality, TV is bad, movies are good and being single is unnatural? Medved also annoys with his "conspiracy day" where he takes advantage of sickos who tell us over and over that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio and that the secret Yale "Skull and Bones Society" runs the world. Still his debating skills secures the number two spot in my book.
Caustic and irreverent, Denver's Mike Rosen does not suffer fools gladly; but at times, he becomes a sport show host when he shills for the hapless Colorado Rockies - not coincidentally his station, KOA, carries Rockies games. The other day he jeopardized his top five standing when he did a segment on bad breath. I suppose, when you're on air some thirty plus days a year, some shows will stink - pun intended.
Last but least is the Laura Ingraham show, or as it should be known, Laura's musicfest. What Laura does not seem to understand is, while she may be tired of political talk, her audience isn't. Listeners want political talk not music and movie reviews. As the old saying goes "you gotta dance with the one that brung you," and Laura did not get where she is with her personal taste in music. But Laura does scores big with her attack of lefty sound bites. She and her staff must watch every political TV program aired and it pays off with an entertaining show.
The worse talk show host of a national syndicated program is Mike Gallagher. He doesn't bother with research. You will not hear anything new from Gallagher just the latest issues that gets calls. His demographics seem to be pissed off red necks.
While conservative talk appeal to millions of listeners, advertisers don't think much of its demographics as demonstrated by ads for hair growth, belly fat reduction, gold investing and dating services. Surly conservative talk show listeners aren't as dumb as advertisers think we are.
People don't want to know the honest truth, that FICA is a flat rate income tax with no deductions.
Here in L.A. we are blessed with Doug McIntyre, Dennis Prager, John and Ken, Al Rantel, and Larry Elder.
But the best of the best, several laps ahead of the next highest in the race, is Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Best political commentary, twinkle-in-the-eye sexy humor, spot on analysis and perfect explanations for the masses. Rush Limbaugh is a national and conservative treasure.
He can talk dirty all he wants in my house.
Not really. I always answer my hate-mail, as I get quite a kick out of it.
You can choose to be on the ship, or not, but your input as to the course it takes is for all practical purposes, completely irrelevant. It is as relevant as anyone else's. However, as you can see from this thread, there are other people who are on my side.
Hannitized? Baiting doesn't work well with me. What else you got? I'll take that as a yes. A better question is, however, what else have you got? You see, I outlined specifically why I do not think Hannity is all that great. You have neither countered my points or made points of your own--you have just told me that I am unqualified to make that judgement. In short, you argue like a Democrat.
ping
Totally ignorant rant and a hit and run to boot.
In addition to Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Franken, below are numbers for liberal talker Mr. Ed Shultz, who broadcasts in a different timeslot:
Host Share Avg. Quarter Hour Rank (all AM/FM
(Persons 12+) (Persons 12+) programming-
persons 12+)
Rush Limbaugh 4.5 34,200 8
Al Franken 0.3 2,100 43
Ed Shultz 0.3 2,300 43
Host Share Avg. Quarter Hour Rank (all AM/FM
(Adults 25-54) (Adults 25-54) programming-
adults 25-54)
Rush Limbaugh 3.5 14,800 11
Al Franken 0.3 1,300 44
Ed Shultz 0.4 1,800 35
You really need to get a life. You have waaaay too much time on your hands. Maybe you need a mate...
44 posted on 08/24/2005 5:52:53 AM PDT by tubebender
That's right, every woman needs a man. Doesn't like the dirty talk and therefore she needs a mate? Weird response. But maybe, with the name tubebender, you like the dirty talk. Just maybe.
"You should listen to Rush for more than a week before you start posting vanities about him or anyone else."
Oh come on, it's you who must not have been listening all these years. Rush with some frequency makes sexual innuendos. He gets off on it. It's clever repartee and play on words. Now, some will be offended and some won't. I love Rush and it doesn't make any difference to me as some of these "dirty" comments are also funny. Although occasionally he verges on being a bit obscene. I can see where some would be offended by this, but then they can use their finger to push the off button on their radio. But don't pretend that Rush doesn't make the periodical sexual comment because he does. But it is such a minute part of his schtick as to be totally unimportant in the scheme of things.
As I recall, "FARDing" had something to do with the alleged tendency of women to apply makeup or otherwise groom themselves while driving. Usually when he gets on this kind of a kick, it's in response to some silly study or news report; he takes the words of others and replays them in a clever way. Some of these folks didn't listen to him long enough to know the origins of the comments. Some of them still think Spatula City is a real store.
I dunno. Those last two posts of yours made me have dirty thoughts....
But then I'm weird, so it's all my fault.
;-)
I think you've confused my mockery as hate. I used mockery as an arguing method. In the fact that we are on the same side of the conservative vs liberal conflict, we are more friends than enemies. We are just have a disagreement about fighting techniques, so to speak.
It is as relevant as anyone else's............................However, as you can see from this thread, there are other people who are on my side
In the question of marketplace, their opinions aren't very relevant either. They are just a few individuals in an enormous market.
My point all along isn't about an individuals opinion, my point has been about the meaning of 'marketplace'. You are treating the word as though in the marketplace one person can stand up and say " he just isn't qualified to do a three-hour radio show." and thus the show is taken off the radio. You aren't that powerful, you are unqualified, and by making such an assertion you invited ridicule, and I was more than happy to oblige.
In short, you argue like a Democrat.
Democrats, well liberals really, typical argue from a position of willful ignorance. In that respect the position you've taken is most like a liberal.
Go to a dictionary and look up marketplace.
Me thinks FlagLady47 has the fixation on dirty talk...
Cyborg touches on a very important point.
Each of these hosts has a distinctive style that is part of his or her market appeal. Laura Schlessinger is the strict mom who doesn't mess around when dispensing practical advice, for example, while Laura Ingraham is lighter, floatier, more political and more interested in entertainment news and views. That she and Michael Medved digress into discussing current movies is perfectly defensible as germane, because movies -- like the plays of Terence, Plautus, Shakespeare, Thornton Wilder, David Mamet, and Aristophanes -- put ideas and the consequences of ideas squarely before the public.
Even Gilbert and Sullivan had something important to say about personalism, cronyism, and honesty in public life; far from just musical comedy, Gilbert and Sullivan's plays have been recognized as the first really "high comedy" since the Golden Age of Greece. It would have been impossible for anyone to comment on The Pirates of Penzance, when it was first mounted, without uttering a form of political speech: Gilbert and Sullivan's kind of comedy was almost the exact opposite of Seinfeld.
Finally, each of these radio hosts has the right to offer his or her unique point of view. If someone out in the audience doesn't care for the show, then that is the audience member's business.
In fact, he's even better with a clean,pain meds free mind. The only one I think that needs a little help sometimes is Mike Savage *lol* Even HE has his own unique style.
I also like Neal Boortz, and listen to him, when I can, on an Internet feed. He's not on here in KC.
AND
Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah!
WE GOT JERRY AGAR!!!!
Mark
That's because it's become just that: An entitlement. What else do you call a program that will pay people without their having contributed to in? It's not an "insurance" policy. Not in that respect.
A contract, huh? Where did I sign? More importantly, I want out. Who do I contact to say I don't want to participate in this contract. And even more importantly, have you seen the mailings you get every now and then from the Social Security Administration? Have you noticed that little line at the bottom of the page that says that Congress can change the terms of that "contract" wheneverthehell they want! Sounds like a terrific deal to me!
Mark
I don't believe it is there. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Silly you! Just because it's not actually written in the Constitution, doesn't mean it's not IN the Constitution. It all depends on the meaning of "in."
Then again, they may have the authority to do so from the Interstate Commerce Clause. You see, money is used to buy things. And retirees need money to buy things. And retirees might buy things from another state: Hence, the Constitution demands that the government give retirees money to buy things from other states, giving us "interstate commerce!" Q.E.D.
Mark
Do you remember the booger-eating-moron who called in and spoke to Dr. Willaims while he was talking about judicial activism, and he said that it was judicial activism in the Dredd Scott case before the Supreme Court that outlawed slavery?!?!?!
I nearly drove off the road when I heard that!
Mark
Another note about Dr. Williams. Given some of the things he says about his wife, I'm thinking that he must have a very comfortable couch downstairs!
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.