Doug Grow – long known as the DFL’s number two shill in the mainstream media (second only to Lori Sturdevant) – is trying to blow some wind into the sails of the Elwin “E-Tink” Tinklenberg campaign.
E-Tink is trying to unseat Michele Bachmann in the Sixth Congressional District. He’s most “famous” in Minnesota for having been Jesse Ventura’s do-nothing Tranportation Commissioner. He should be even more famous for his ghoulish performance after the collapse of the I35W bridge, almost a year ago. As the fires still blazed and before the last girders had fallen into the water, Tinklenberg joined State Rep. Alice “The Phantom” Hausman on TV and radio coverage of the tragedy, claiming – before the National Transportation Safety Board investigators had shut off their pagers summoning them to Minneapolis – that the collapse was the result of Tim Pawlenty’s refusal to raise the gas tax. The performance was a ghoulish embarassment that would have ended the career of a politician…
…that was not a DFLer in a city where having paid lefty PR flaks like the MNPost and the Minnesoros “Independent” are almost redundant.
Anyway – Doug Grow writes in re the race:
A month ago, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann said she’s on board with a campaign plan to get gasoline prices back to $2 a gallon…Do people in the 6th Congressional District buy this sort of campaign talk?
Well, if “they” don’t understand the laws of supply and demand, they can certainly get jobs as economics reporters for the Minnesoros “Indepdendent” perhaps they deserve to be getting their news from Doug Grow we can trade them all to Massachussetts?
I digress. Grow is doing what he’s done his whole career; spin, whilst carrying water for the DFL:
At this point, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has NOT put the 6th District in its “red to blue” category. Instead, it calls the district an “emerging” race for Democrats. The difference in categories is substantial: Democrats in “red to blue” districts receive financial and other resource help. Those in “emerging” districts receive pats on the back and encouraging words from the DCCC: “Go get ’em, buddy!”
But even if the DCCC isn’t convinced that Bachmann can be defeated after one term in Washington, Tinklenberg says he’s optimistic.
I’d actually pay money to hear some DFLer say “Oh, I’m going to get my donkey kicked. It’s hopeless. Smoke ’em if you got ’em”.
Of course, being a DFLer in Minnesota means never needing to come up with your own facile explanations:
Recall, Bachmann defeated Patty Wetterling by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42. BUT there was a third candidate in the race, John Binkowski, of the Independence Party, who picked up 7.8 percent of the vote. This time around, the IPs endorsed Tinklenberg.
When you add Wetterling’s 127,144 votes and Binkowski’s 23,557 votes, Bachmann won the district by just 548 votes.
Fascinating.
Except that Bachmann and Wetterling were running for an open seat – which is always much more up in the air.
And the national Democrat establishment did a lot more than pat Patty on the back; they poured truckloads of money into the race. The media, even more in the bag than usual for the DFLer, called in all its markers, assisted by a large, sometimes deranged pack of alternative media adjuncts. And for all that, Bachmann still not only won, but won by the biggest margin of victory of any Republican in the state, in a year where Republicans got trounced nationwide, with the most conservative message of any Republican in Minnesota.
This time around? She’s the incumbent. That’s worth a few points all by itself. The media has moved on to other races, doing its damnedest to get Al Franken elected. The DCCC knows a dead horse when it sees one. Her alt-media stalkers – having provided her (I am convinced) with at least one point of her margin of victory – have marginalized themselves into near-irrelevance; even some of the media figures that used to regard them with breathless credulity have gotten the message.
E-Tink; Dead Bid Walking.
“… that would have ended the career of a politician that was not a DFLer in a city where having paid lefty PR flaks like the MNPost and the Minnesoros “Independent” are almost redundant”
“Bachmann, who’s idiotic performance spying on the DFL members of the legislature would certainly have ended the career of a politician who didn’t have paid righty PR flaks like Bob Davis, James Lileks, Michael Bordkorb, Katherine Kersten, the entire radio operations of WWTC, KSTP, and KTLK as well as dozens of other righty ‘talk radio’ propoganda BS stations scattered throughout her red(undantly propogandized) district.”
Irony.
Mitch, while you may feel the papers schill for left candidates, it would be difficult at best to argue that the radio isn’t filled from left to right on your radio dial with schill’s (like you) for conservative politics and positions. While MPR may prefer left positions (in your opinion), they don’t assail Republicans – and they are essentially an island in a sea of cacauphony from the right (other than the pathetic listenership/reach numbers for KTNF). Everything you complain about here is reflected a thousandfold by Fox, Rushbo, Medved, Savage, Ingram, Hannity (just to name a few) – and thousands of small stations , oh like the one that puts you on the air (which should be considered an in-kind contribution – free air time to mouthpieces for the GOP should not be anything other than a direct contribution imho, same for KTNF of course). The reach of radio is far greater than papers, and you know it. I wonder, if Grow and Sturdevant were GOPers, whether you’d complain a peep – well, no, I don’t, you abide Kersten, and act as her cheerleader whenever the mood strikes.
Mitch:
Balanced against incumbency, there are several factors that may help El make up Wetterling’s margin. First, it is a Presidential year, so higher turnout will help Democrats, esp. if Obama runs up huge margins in Minnesota. Second, whatever priority MN-06 gets, the DCCC has a much bigger cash advantage over NRCC in 2008. Even if El gets a smaller slice, the pie is much bigger. Finally, Bachmann now has a record that includes some difficult votes e.g. against expanding S-CHIP and the new G.I. Bill of Rights. These will make for much better ads than the ones Patty ran.
I have always thought she would be the hardest of all GOPers in MN to unseat, but there are plenty of reasons to think El will do much better than Patty.
Bachmann, who’s idiotic performance spying on the DFL members of the legislature
Really?
What “members of the legislature” did Bachmann “spy” on?
And, uh, leave the clever to the professionals.
Irony.
And you know what PJ O’Rourke said about irony…
Mitch, while you may feel the papers schill for left candidates,
It’s not a feeling. It’s documentable fact (the quadrennial LATimes survey of newsrooms), and it’s been admitted by not a few journalists in statements against interest.
it would be difficult at best to argue that the radio isn’t filled from left to right on your radio dial with schill’s (like you) for conservative politics and positions.
a) the word is “shill”.
b) NO KIDDING, GENIUS! We bill ourselves as conservative alternatives. In as many words! We don’t wrap ourselves in some phony mystique of monklike detachment and pretend to be objective and above it all!
Hope you can retain that little factoid after twenty years.
While MPR may prefer left positions (in your opinion), they don’t assail Republicans – and they are essentially an island in a sea of cacauphony from the right
a) It’s cacaphony
b) Yes, they do.
c) If the only context you consider is “talk radio”, then yes, they’re an island. The market made them that way. If you consider all media – which would be intellectually honest – then no; they are a bay along the edge of the mighty ocean.
Everything you complain about here is reflected a thousandfold
Y’know, Peev, you need to find another line. Repeating “Everything you say is reflected a thousandfold…” over every single discussion gets a little repetitive.
by Fox, Rushbo, Medved, Savage, Ingram, Hannity (just to name a few) – and thousands of small stations , oh like the one that puts you on the air
Are just an island in the great sea of networks, cable and newspapers.
(which should be considered an in-kind contribution – free air time to mouthpieces for the GOP should not be anything other than a direct contribution imho, same for KTNF of course).
So when did the First Amendment stop applying to conservatives?
The reach of radio is far greater than papers, and you know it.
The comparison is really weak. Conservative talk radio has very arguably become stronger at focusing on issues. But more people read newspapers as a whole, and newspapers have higher impact where the money and power change hands.
For now.
I wonder, if Grow and Sturdevant were GOPers, whether you’d complain a peep – well, no, I don’t, you abide Kersten, and act as her cheerleader whenever the mood strikes.
WHOAH!
What a blinding flash of insight!
Er, Peev? No kidding.
Of course, if that were the case, I’d complain less about Grow and Sturdevant not so much because they were Republicans, but because they’d then be right on the issues, as I see them. As Kersten is now.
But they do suck up to the other party. And I fact check their asses (and inevitably shred them). Others try (and fail) to fact-check Kersten; handicapped by the fact that Kersten is usually right, and most of her critics aren’t fit to carry her intellectual gig bag, they fail (and subject themselves to derision in return).
It’s the blog circle of life; Liberals say stupid stuff; Conservative commentators shred them; liberals try to shred in return; their arguments are (just about inevitably) exposed as facile and trite, and are disposed with. Lather, rinse repeat.
Everybody sing along…
Rick,
All fair points.
Against which the Sixth is conservative, and likely (outside Saint Cloud) getting moreso.
And while the DCCC might have that “bigger pie” going into this race (justifiably, given the lousy performance of the Congressional GOP measured by conservative principle), I’ve been hearing that Bachmann’s (and Paulson’s) numbers are much better withing their respective districts than E-Tink’s and Madia’s.
Bachmann can take nothing for granted, naturally.
The 6th is the most GOP district in the state, but what evidence do you have that it is getting moreso? The state leg results in Woodbury would suggest otherwise.
In 2Q 2008 Bachmann raised 378K compared with 271K for Tink, which is very competitive for a challenger. As for Madia, he outraised Paulson.
Madia outraised Paulson only via out-of-district contributions.
As to the 6th’s overall disposition – just things I’ve heard.
Conservatives, what is good?
“To watch Michele Bachmann crush her competition, to see Democrats driven from office and to hear the lamentations of penigma..”
So Bachmann voted against big gov’t spending. Sounds like a good Congressman.
Wonder if the Democrats are going to make an issue over her church again. In 2006, the Democrats said those who belong to the Lutheran church-Wisconsin synod, should not be in Congress. (never mind that liberal Rep Kind of western Wisc belongs to the same denomination)
“only via out-of-district contributions”
I think you can still spend Iowa money in MN.
“just things I’ve heard”
well hate to let evidence get in the way of that.
“So Bachmann voted against big gov’t spending.” Given that S-CHIP polls at like 70% or something, I encourage Michelle to use this defense.
well hate to let evidence get in the way of that.
Let me know when you have some. Fundraising is an indicator, but isn’t a dispositive barometer of a district’s sympathies (and I don’t care if you do find something on Wikipedia that says it is).
I think you can still spend Iowa money in MN.
But you can’t use Iowa votes here (DFL efforts notwithstanding).
Actually Mitch, Fox news DOES pretend to be exatly that, and Grow and Sturdevant are columnists, allowed to write whatever they like. There is no difference. none, zero, zip.
And if you choose to get into pedentic corrections. here’s one..
“performance was a ghoulish embarassment that would have ended the career of a politician…
…that was not a DFLer in a city where having paid lefty PR flaks like the MNPost and the Minnesoros “Independent” are almost redundant.”
“by focusing on issues” you claim talk radio has become more broad – you mean like “swfit boating” or that Obama will appoint Loius Farakhan, or maybe by claiming he’s a Muslim? That focus?
BTW, you may want to fact check yourself and then shred your own ass – because while absolutely there is NO question that newspapers have more readership – how many of those newspapers are liberal? The obvious point was that the ‘lefty’ influence of newspapers is far offset by radio FAR offset, so pretty obviously we’re talking about readership of ‘lefty’ papers vs. righty radio. I’d venture a guess that the number of liberal papers, and their readership isn’t in fact far above radio listenership at all, and more – speaking of weak arguments, most people don’t read the op-ed section -while most people listening to talk radio – DO in fact listen for the faux news they get. It’s funny, in one breath you argue you’re biased on talk radio, in the next you claim it’s success comes from focusing on issues (as opposed to opinion I suppose?) – the point however is, the left claims the exact opposite, and there is nothing other than your opinion to say which is right or wrong. They are doing exactly what you do, no different, none.
Meaning, you claim to be about issues, while your opponent about hyperbole, and the left claims the same about you. You’re two school kids shouting at each other, and nothing else, and your complaint about Grow (using opinion to prop up campaigns) is entirely mocked by the universe of Rushbo, or for that matter, you, in trying to pretend that the GOP stands a chance against Ellison or McCollum, there is no difference. None.
Given that S-CHIP polls at like 70% or something,
Lots of things poll well until people know the details.
At any rate – conservatives win by running as conservatives, not as worthless RINOs. Whatever Bachmann’s flaws (and there are areas where I disagree with her), what she campaigns as is what you get; the genuine conservative article.
Meaning, you claim to be about issues, while your opponent about hyperbole,
Yep. Correctly.
and the left claims the same about you.
Yep. Incorrectly.
You’re two school kids shouting at each other, and nothing else, and your complaint about Grow (using opinion to prop up campaigns) is entirely mocked by the universe of Rushbo, or for that matter, you, in trying to pretend that the GOP stands a chance against Ellison or McCollum, there is no difference. None.
That is an interesting point and I will have to think about it.
Mitch,
Are her votes to invade Iraq on false pretense, engage in nation-building and run up the debt indiciative of her genuineness?
Actually Mitch, Fox news DOES pretend to be exatly that, and Grow and Sturdevant are columnists, allowed to write whatever they like. There is no difference. none, zero, zip.
Well, if you say so.
“by focusing on issues” you claim talk radio has become more broad
That is incorrect. Focus implies less broad.
you mean like “swfit boating”
The SBVftT were correct on every particular.
or that Obama will appoint Loius Farakhan, or maybe by claiming he’s a Muslim? That focus?
Um, huh? Why am I having to answer for crackpot claims? I’ve never heard a credible conservative pundit make any such claim. So I’ll tell you what; you answer for the significant minority of Democrats who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and I’ll tackle the above.
Get right on it.
BTW, you may want to fact check yourself and then shred your own ass – because while absolutely there is NO question that newspapers have more readership – how many of those newspapers are liberal?
Nearly all of them.
The obvious point was that the ‘lefty’ influence of newspapers is far offset by radio FAR offset, so pretty obviously we’re talking about readership of ‘lefty’ papers vs. righty radio.
You’ve lapsed into incoherence, here.
I’d venture a guess that the number of liberal papers, and their readership isn’t in fact far above radio listenership at all, and more – speaking of weak arguments, most people don’t read the op-ed section -while most people listening to talk radio – DO in fact listen for the faux news they get
A fair point – indeed, one that Chafetz pointed out in his profile of Limbaugh a few weeks ago; Limbaugh (and general conservative talk) listeners tend to be largely better-informed about current events than the general public.
It’s funny, in one breath you argue you’re biased on talk radio, in the next you claim it’s success comes from focusing on issues (as opposed to opinion I suppose?)
I’m not sure what the problem is; one can focus on an issue from the perspective of a point of view. I focus on issues in this blog, constantly, from a point of view. There’s nothing about the two that doesn’t go together.
– the point however is, the left claims the exact opposite, and there is nothing other than your opinion to say which is right or wrong. They are doing exactly what you do, no different, none.
That is an interesting point and I will have to think about it.
and the left claims the same about you.
“Yep. Incorrectly”
Only because you say so, there is no proof of that other than your words.
Past that – Mitch, again, the volume of liberal newspapers and their reach is far exceeded by conservative talk radio, neither does anything more (on it’s op-ed pages or with it’s columnists – in the case of papers – or through the people it puts on the air – in the case of radio) or less than the other in research or focus on issues. I would say that if you are trying to claim that conservative radio focuses on issues to a greater extent than do papers, most people, including most research on the depth of information provided in either medium, would disagree. I would also say most of the public disagrees with that statement – talk radio is about invective – for example Mitch Berg once said “(democrats) spent most of the 80’s trying to ensure the Soviets won the cold war” – what issue, what fact is that, and where does the hyperbole start and the fact end? That comment was deeply offensive, represented a CONCLUSION not a fact, and certainly wasn’t about focusing on an issue. As a radio commentator, that’s your perogative clearly, but it’s no different than Grow’s comments as a columnist.
Are her votes to invade Iraq
She didn’t enter Congress until 2006.
Mitch, again, fact check that piont on papers, actually, the VAST majority of papers are rural, and another big bulk are shoppers (free circulars). I’ll do my own research, but I’m guessing you can accept that in fact, most rural papers are NOT liberal, that’s just a claim made by you without I think, thinking it through.
I think you’d find Swift Boaters weren’t correct on every particular – but I surely don’t care to get into that nonsensical crap with you.
As far as ‘truthers’ go, Mitch, they’re wrong – but to be skeptical of government isn’t. I don’t answer for them, but perhaps you’ll want to look up a guy known as ‘the Original Rush’ in Liousianna, who backs calls by his callers (i.e. agrees with them) who claim that Obama will appoint Farakhan, I guess he’s a crackpot, but he’s got a bigger signal than many other talk radio statiosn. As for Obama being a Muslim, I don’t know where anyone would get the impression Obama is a Muslim – I mean , no one EVER uses his middle name to refer to him (Barack Hussien Obama) that’s never happened anywhere.. i’m sure that was issue focus though by those people, right?
You are, of course, correct about her vote and status, I made an assumption – my bad..
yet – she certainly has voted to endorse and extend the nation building and deepening the debt.
Only because you say so, there is no proof of that other than your words.
Which, with matters of my own conscience and mind, are all I need.
Past that – Mitch, again, the volume of liberal newspapers and their reach is far exceeded by conservative talk radio, neither does anything more (on it’s op-ed pages or with it’s columnists – in the case of papers – or through the people it puts on the air – in the case of radio) or less than the other in research or focus on issues.
Possible, and irrelevant.
I would say that if you are trying to claim that conservative radio focuses on issues to a greater extent than do papers, most people, including most research on the depth of information provided in either medium, would disagree.
“Most people?”
Really?
Show me cites indicating “most people” think any such thing.
The Market rebukes you in advance!
I would also say most of the public disagrees with that statement – talk radio is about invective
Talk radio is about entertainment. Sometimes it’s invective. Sometimes…
for example Mitch Berg once said “(democrats) spent most of the 80’s trying to ensure the Soviets won the cold war”
…it’s button-pushing, and sometimes it’s giving people the feeling that they’re part of something much, much bigger. Conservatism can be a solitary pursuit; we don’t usually gather in mobs. Talk radio, among all those other things, is a huge support group for people who believe in conservatism.
That comment was deeply offensive, represented a CONCLUSION not a fact, and certainly wasn’t about focusing on an issue. As a radio commentator, that’s your perogative clearly, but it’s no different than Grow’s comments as a columnist.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I disagree with that.
It’s, like, part of the business.
I’m not sure why you continually miss that.
OF COURSE it’s no different. Other than Grow being, as I showed, wrong.
BTW – Mitch, there have also been studies which showed readers of the NYT were far better informed than listeners to talk radio. Those kinds of facts are non-sequiters – the nature of other and outside interests impacts such findings. I don’t hold much water with findings about the literacy or illiteracy of talk radio listeners. A study that said that was teh ONLY place they got information I might give merit, but you’d have to be a fool to trust only one source.
Mitch:
“Let me know when you have some”
In case you missed it, I mentioned the Woodbury State Leg results. The DFL swept all three seats in SD 56. So the second largest city in the district is trending DFL. Plus, GOP party ID is down nationally. There is no reason to exempt MN-06 from the trend.
“Lots of things poll well until people know the details”
I have no interest in debating the policy, but spending time explaining the details of her opposition to the very popular S-CHIP program is not an electoral advantage for Bachmann.
“conservatives win by running as conservatives”. I agree with you. Bachmann is a great candidate and her outspokenness will help counteract the general GOP McCain/Norm apathy. The open question is whether that will be enough.
Mitch, again, fact check that piont on papers, actually, the VAST majority of papers are rural
OK, my bad. I was referring to major papers – in the top 100 markets, if you want to have a number. I know smaller papers vary much more widely, but the editorial position of the Minot Daily Herald (which is conservative) doesn’t drive policy or network coverage.
I think you’d find Swift Boaters weren’t correct on every particular – but I surely don’t care to get into that nonsensical crap with you.
Good, because it’d be pretty fruitless for you.
As far as ‘truthers’ go, Mitch, they’re wrong – but to be skeptical of government isn’t.
Look, I’m the former big-L libertarian. Skepticism is all I do.
I don’t answer for them, but perhaps you’ll want to look up a guy known as ‘the Original Rush’ in Liousianna, who backs calls by his callers (i.e. agrees with them) who claim that Obama will appoint Farakhan, I guess he’s a crackpot, but he’s got a bigger signal than many other talk radio statiosn.
I’m not quite sure how to respond to that. Or if.
I mean, of course there are crackpots on the air. I’ve worked with a few of ’em. The radio is full of them. George Winrod and Father Coughlin used to have audiences shares that’d make today’s cable news networks drool with envy (as percentage of market share). And signal power is nice to have, but not really dispositive either (anyone can buy time on a 50,000 watt blowtorch and pretty much say what they want; indeed, it happens). Ratings – cumulative audience rather than share – is a little more useful.
As for Obama being a Muslim, I don’t know where anyone would get the impression Obama is a Muslim – I mean , no one EVER uses his middle name to refer to him (Barack Hussien Obama) that’s never happened anywhere.. i’m sure that was issue focus though by those people, right?
You mean, Hillary?
I mean, I’m still not sure why you’re demanding I respond to that sort of thing, since I’ve rebuked the whole thing several times.
Mitch, your comemnt wasn’t about Grow being wrong, it was also about Grow keeping alive a campaign because of his own activities, that was the title of your commentary.
Beyond that, you hardly showed Grow to be wrong – Bachmann won in a red district against a pathetically weak candidate. Wetterling got money, sure, so did Bachmann, but Wetterling was generally a poorly informed, one-issue candidate with little appeal, especially in a red district.
I don’t think Tinlenburg will win. While you understand Grow isn’t different from you (or Kersten), yet you complain about life-support tactics of the left, while ignoring the same conduct on the right. My comment wasn’t being made only for you, it was also made for people to see you were complaining about conduct you openly endorse when it benefits you – if you wanted to say Grow was wrong, then there is no need to make the issue about the conduct of the left media in general acting as a mouthpiece. Apparently you like that conduct in general, so why even bring it up?
One more thing, you claim most people DON’T see talk radio as chiefly about invective, but I’m supposed to prove that they do? Are you serious?
Mitch – it’s an opinion, just like yours about Grow. You can’t POSSIBLY prove Grow wrong, sure Bachmann won, but as I said, the facts can be argued another way and to a different conclusion, and it’s purely opinion whether you are right, not fact. However, on the invective nature of talk radio – Mitch – I doubt you’d have to ask very many people to come up with pretty conclusive proof that the majority think it’s mostly about opinion and spin. Yet.. unlike what I think you’d do, I’ll go look for some polling on what people think of talk radio if you like, though I dearly believe you know full well what I said was true.
mentioned the Woodbury State Leg results. The DFL swept all three seats in SD 56. So the second largest city in the district is trending DFL.
In a bad year for Republicans.
Look, you’re right – the GOP faces challenges. Bachmann (and Kline) are better equipped to face those challenges than most. Coleman should thank his lucky stars the DFL came down with mass insanity in time to nominate Franken; I bet Ciresi would be running equal to slightly ahead rigiht now.
I’m not demanding, you claimed the view that Obama was a muslim came from crackpots, I pointed out maybe it didn’t that’s all. I pointed out it came from people like you, whom i don’t see as a crackpot – being casual with the use of his middle name, because it suited your spin to do so, to ‘push buttons’ and your listeners, not all, but some, took a meaning from the usage, without fact checking.
I wanted Cerisi, but I disagree he’d be running even. He has little charisma, and was overfocused in the primary season on too few issues.
Beyond that, Norm is nothing if not telegenic and able to convince the voter that, after the first four years with 90% plus support of the President, that the last two years matter. His voting record on close votes on important bills is way above 95%, the only vote I know of where he disagreed with Bush on a close bill was on ANWR. He votes against Bush when he can do so safely, not on tough choices, yet he’s seen as an ‘independent’. Unless Franken strips that off, he’ll lose.
Mitch, as memory serves, the Swift Boaters claimed Kerry never got off the boat – that was refuted by his own crew-mates. however, this is going back now 4 years, and frankly, I’m over 40, so it’s just a little fuzzy, was that claim by the swift boaters right or wrong?
Mitch:
I won’t take the Ciresi bait, lets just end this nice civil discussion on a positive note.
Mitch, your comemnt wasn’t about Grow being wrong, it was also about Grow keeping alive a campaign because of his own activities, that was the title of your commentary.
Groooooooan.
I’ve pretty well established both.
Beyond that, you hardly showed Grow to be wrong – Bachmann won in a red district against a pathetically weak candidate. Wetterling got money, sure, so did Bachmann, but Wetterling was generally a poorly informed, one-issue candidate with little appeal, especially in a red district.
And E-Tink is even worse!
While you understand Grow isn’t different from you (or Kersten), yet you complain about life-support tactics of the left
Incorrect.
I’m not “complaining”. I’m pointing it out, dissecting it, having fun with it, and dumping it by the curb.
“Complaining” implies that I thing Grow et al should not be doing what they do, and pushing to institute a “Fairness Doctrine”, for example.
My comment wasn’t being made only for you, it was also made for people to see you were complaining about conduct you openly endorse when it benefits you – if you wanted to say Grow was wrong, then there is no need to make the issue about the conduct of the left media in general acting as a mouthpiece. Apparently you like that conduct in general, so why even bring it up?
Um – to point out to those who might not have figured it out that Grow, speaking with the authority that his decades at the Strib gives him, is talking BS?
One more thing, you claim most people DON’T see talk radio as chiefly about invective, but I’m supposed to prove that they do? Are you serious?
I’m going to smack my head on my desk a few times.
There.
You made a claim that you thought “most people” believe something. I asked for proof, since claiming “most people [agree with me about whatever]” is sort of an appeal to false (non-existant!) authority.
Mitch – it’s an opinion, just like yours about Grow. You can’t POSSIBLY prove Grow wrong, sure Bachmann won, but as I said, the facts can be argued another way and to a different conclusion, and it’s purely opinion whether you are right, not fact.
Well…yeah!
Yet.. unlike what I think you’d do, I’ll go look for some polling on what people think of talk radio if you like, though I dearly believe you know full well what I said was true.
Well, it all depends on who you poll, and how you poll them, now, doesn’t it?
An awful lot of people listen to talk radio because it gives them better information. You can’t seriously say that Bill Bennett, Dennis Miller, Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt are about “invective” – they are as sober but not as boring as NPR, except for Miller, who is just too damn sharp to need shrill invective.
And Limbaugh is vastly more content and less “invective” than he’s credited with, except for that whole “if a conservative ordered chow mein in the woods and no liberal heard him, would he still be clogged with hate?” thing.
Ah, Peev’s back.
Pity.
was that claim by the swift boaters right or wrong?
Don’t recall they, as a body, made that claim.
Their claims, as I recall (same age bracket) focused on the extent of the injuries for which he receieved three purple hearts, discrepancies between his statements and actual actions, and of course his nonexistant trip to Cambodia.
Mitch,
Did Bush win in 2000 by running as a conservative?
Did he win in 2004 by doing so?
In one, he cliamed to oppose nation building, claimed to oppose debt spending, claimed to endorse good conduct of government as a policy engine, free from the bickering of politics.
In the next, he endorsed nation building, took one of Gore’s arguments for debt spending, lied to say it was his, and then ran up the debt, he polluted report after report with political injection, and violated the Constitution at Gitmo and on FISA (as well as creating an environment full of folks like Monica Goodling). Is that wining by being a conservative?
Well, Mitch, Swift Boaters DID in fact make that claim – and were roundly refuted as a result, so, on point of fact – I’m afraid they weren’t universally correct.
I pointed out it came from people like you, whom i don’t see as a crackpot – being casual with the use of his middle name, because it suited your spin to do so, to ‘push buttons’ and your listeners, not all, but some, took a meaning from the usage, without fact checking.
“People like me” don’t care if someone’s a Moslem, and attack him on his many, many policy shortcomings.
I know a few “conservatives” harp on BHO’s middle name. I have called several of them on it. “Hussein” makes him no more Moslem (indeed, went to college with a couple of Lebanese Phanangists – Maronite Christians – who had “Hussein” as given or middle names) than “Paul” makes me Catholic, and I’ve said so.
Well, Mitch, Swift Boaters DID in fact make that claim – and were roundly refuted as a result, so, on point of fact – I’m afraid they weren’t universally correct.
As I recall – and I could be wrong, but I’m not going to jump to that conclusions – that wasn’t a claim made officially by SBVvtT.
And even if so – 95% correct is close enough to “universal” for county work.
better information. You can’t seriously say that Bill Bennett, Dennis Miller, Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt are about “invective” – they are as sober but not as boring as NPR,
Yes, sure I can, though I’ll give Bennett a pass on being wontonly hyperbolic.
Miller, I saw him recently, he’s a screed monger – better than Savage, sure.
Medved – let’s see, as I recall, said “Being a christian ISN’T about loving your enemies” while advocating for killing anyone who openly opposed our occupation.
So, yeah, actually, i’ll be happy to say that Bill Bennett, Dennis Miller, and Michaal Medved are WAYYYY beyond NPR.
I agree that , to YOU, using the name Hussien makes someone no more a muslim, but to your readership.. not so much Mitch, not so much. I don’t know of ONE crackpot or otherwise who claimed Obama was a muslim, not one, yet.. 10% of the country thinks so, I wonder why?
Sorry, time’s up for me.. thank you for the civil and engaging discourse.
Let’s agree that:
Op-Ed pages and columnists are opininated
Talk radio is too
Both appeal to their audiences – and each has significant reach.
Lastly, that Grow may be right, or he may be wrong, but it’s purely your opinion, nothing was proved.
Hope your head feels better.
Penigma sez:
I agree that , to YOU, using the name Hussien makes someone no more a muslim, but to your readership.. not so much Mitch, not so much.
How do you know that, P? What do you know about Mitch’s readership? It’s always the assertions that get you in trouble. I’m part of Mitch’s readership and I haven’t mentioned Obama’s middle name here or on my own blog. I haven’t done exhaustive research of all of the other bloggers who write here, but I can tell you that a lot of them are like me – they couldn’t care less about that particular issue. Go read some of them and see; I read a lot of them regularly and their critiques of Sen. Obama deal with the issues, not his ancestry. As has been pointed out numerous times, much of the bruiting of Obama’s middle name has come from the Clinton campaign.
Lets see,
Talk Radio vs NYT, LAT, NBC, CBS, WaPo, ABC, CNN, al-Reuters, AP, MSNBC, NPR, Trib, McClatchy, Scripps, etc ad nauseum
Yep, that’s a fair fight!
I love it when PB/Peevish/Peev/Penigma/All Alone/etc. pretends he’s a moderator.
No, no, Mr. D. Don’t you see? We’re all Mitch’s mindless lilliputians, in Peev’s mind. We’re drones who parrot whatever Mitch has to say every day, unable to control ourselves. The idea that we agree with Mitch on some things and not others, or that we just drop by here because we may have met Mitch a couple of times and get a kick out of some of the things he has to say, well, that just doesn’t make sense to Peev. We’re all conniving ScaifeNetters, bent on spreading the conservative creed!
I’m not sure how I’m able to do that by posting my IM conversations with co-workers and friends, but it’s apparently all very dark and manipulative in some way.
Medved – let’s see, as I recall, said “Being a christian ISN’T about loving your enemies” while advocating for killing anyone who openly opposed our occupation.
Medved is a Jew.
Medved has never advocated killing “anyone who openly opposed our occupation”.
Limbaugh’s radio share hovers at around 5. Anytime Limbaugh is on the air, 95% of radios are tuned to some other program.
Miller, Medved, Prager, Savage, and Bennet have shares of about 1 each. The fact that at some point during the day 1 out of 100 radio listeners is tuned in to Miller, Medved, Prager, Savage, or Benet drives liberals crazy.
The SBVfT did not claim that Kerry ‘never got off the boat’.
Half of Penigma’s statements are opinions, and the other half are lies.
I’m not sure how I’m able to do that by posting my IM conversations with co-workers and friends, but it’s apparently all very dark and manipulative in some way.
Your IM conversations are filled with skullduggery, Yoss. You put in a lot of bad juju in between the poop jokes. It is your gift.
Mitch,
Did Bush win in 2000 by running as a conservative?
Not to this Forbes/Kemp supporter, he didn’t.
Did he win in 2004 by doing so?
Ibid.
In one, he cliamed to oppose nation building
Yeah – and then a war went and started.
claimed to oppose debt spending
Us Forbes/Kemp guys warned the rest of the party about this.
claimed to endorse good conduct of government as a policy engine
Show me the politicians who runs on a “bad conduct” platform when you have a moment, OK?
free from the bickering of politics.
It makes a good campaign promise. To be fair, Bush’s record in Texas did show promise on that count. To be fairer, reaching across the aisle is the least of my concerns.
In the next, he endorsed nation building, took one of Gore’s arguments for debt spending, lied to say it was his, and then ran up the debt,
Just like us Forbes/Kemp guys warned everyone!
Is that wining by being a conservative?
As a recovering alcoholic, I’m sure he avoids “wining” in any political context.
Winning as a conservative? He never really was one.
Ah, Peev’s back.
Pity.
When I saw the thread count I got interested. Then I saw it was just Mitch in a haz-mat suit hosing it down after Peebs.
Yes, sure I can, though I’ll give Bennett a pass on being wontonly hyperbolic.
OK, you can, but you’d be wrong. Prager is at least as rigorous and sober a thinker as anything on NPR; you can search his show for the past 20 years had find no a shred of hyperbole that isn’t for demonstrative effect. The rest of ’em – well, calling them (other than Savage) hyperbolic is a huge stretch.
Miller, I saw him recently, he’s a screed monger – better than Savage, sure.
He’s the least dogmatically conservative of the bunch – indeed, he’s more a libertarian, and admits to being still a liberal on more than a few issues. Screeds? Well, his “rants” are a long-standing bit of his (“I don’t wanna go off on a rant, but…”)
Medved – let’s see, as I recall, said “Being a christian ISN’T about loving your enemies” while advocating for killing anyone who openly opposed our occupation.
I’ve heard that statement, and it’s being presented very much out of context. Christianity, says he, isn’t about loving your enemy at the expense of getting yourself, your family and your society destroyed.
So, yeah, actually, i’ll be happy to say that Bill Bennett, Dennis Miller, and Michaal Medved are WAYYYY beyond NPR.
In terms of market interest? No doubt.
And part of that is the fact that they do have to be entertaining to survive in the market. And sometimes, that involves adding an emotional element to a show (that is usually lacking from NPR), whether it’s “invective” (Laura Ingraham) or yanking chains (Michael Savage) or playing on feelings of disenfranchisement (Limbaugh). And they do it well.
Which is why people listen.