"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-John Kenneth Galbraith
-John Kenneth Galbraith
Labels: conservatives, philosophy, quotes
Andrew Sullivan posted a video of a young self; I decided to see what he's up to on TV today.
Here is a C-span interview. As much as I disagree, a beautiful series of speeches. He talks of his HIV, mortality, and God. More evidence that C-span is the most underrated channel in the history of television.
Here is a C-span interview. As much as I disagree, a beautiful series of speeches. He talks of his HIV, mortality, and God. More evidence that C-span is the most underrated channel in the history of television.
Labels: conservatives, HIV, Lally, sullivan
The Uninspiring Republican Field
15 Comments Published by Brandon Ruiz on Sunday, July 15 at 8:18 AM.
It's been a while since I've written anything and Billy has just simply begged me to (and offered me all manner of favors) so I've decided to post once again. Today's topic of interest in the field of 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls. All I can say is: Really? IS THAT REALLY THE BEST THEY'VE GOT!? Let's do a rundown, shall we?
Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani is a "new brand" of Republican. Pro-life, pro gun control and pretty pro government in general. He's very socially liberal, but appears willing to compromise his beliefs for votes. Some people call him a pseud0-Democrat, but ever since I heard him in a debate I've been singularly unimpressed. My favorite Giuliani moment was when Ron Paul humbly suggested that perhaps the United States is reviled and hated because we interfere in other countries' politics and kill their people, Giuliani retorted with something along the lines of "No, it's because they hate freedom!" to a roar of applause. I knew then that the Republican party was irrevocably doomed for the '08 election cycle. Oh and a large minority of Americans would not vote for a guy who's been married three times. Dressing up like a pretty lady probably doesn't help him either.
Mitt Romney
Romney's an interesting cat. He, like Giuliani is sort of a "new brand" of Republican. He's socially liberal (although rapidly trying to backpedal on just about all of his former positions), economically conservative, and he's got the presidential look. His major liability is that a good number of Americans wouldn't vote for a Mormon. So if the base can swallow Mormonism and a less than perfect record on social issues, Romney would be a good pick. If the base wants pretty, he's also their Ken.
John McCain
What can be said about the Arizona senator? He's managed to piss off so many people that his campaign is sinking faster than the Titanic. He was once the presumed presidential nominee for 2008. Republicans always pick the guy who waits his turn like a good boy, but McCain is getting the shaft. His strong pushes for government accountability and to limit the influence of big money on elections as well as his less than perfect conservative track record have raised the ire of just about every segment of the Republican base except the Billy Joe Mills types. Add to this the fact that Americans don't like old people, it's pretty safe to write his candidacy off.
Fred Thompson
A lot of moderate conservatives love Fred Thompson. I mean c'mon, he played a lawyer on TV! What good Republican doesn't love lawyers and TV (read Hollywood). He's also been a lobbyist (we love the beltway culture) and apparently a lackluster senator. Many tell me that he's John McCain without the baggage, but I think he's going to run into trouble for his lobbying career and late entry into the field. But at least he's conservative.
Newt Gingrich
The leader of the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994. Newt Gingrich curiously sat on the sidelines during the impeachment proceedings of then president Bill Clinton. Well, it's not so curious, he's also been married three times and was doing the no no bad thing with a staffer at the time. Gingrich is a hardcore conservative on most issues though. Unfortunately he's not the most deft politician as evidenced by his taking the blame for the government shutdown of 1996 when Clinton made him look like a petulant child who was throwing a tantrum over not getting his spending cuts (despite the fact that it was Clinton who shut the government down). He's still a force to be reckoned with, but hasn't taken any serious steps toward a presidential bid as of yet.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul's a funny guy. People I know on the hill call him "Dr. No" because they say he votes no on almost every single piece of legislation and the Republicans don't count on him in anything really. That, and the fact that he has little appeal outside of the hardcore libertarian wing of the party, means that his candidacy is not exactly soaring on the updrafts. I have to give him credit for being honest and more realistic than the other candidates especially on national security matters.
There are several other candidates that are to the right of all of these gentlemen, but the right seems to be somewhat dormant in this year's selection process and this post is getting too long, so I'll just stop the list here. The only hope Republicans have in 08 is that their relatively moderate candidate field will attract centrist voters, but the primaries will likely get really ugly because each of the major candidates has a good deal of baggage that people aren't going to want to have on their candidate. It looks like 2008 will be a good year for Democrats...
Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani is a "new brand" of Republican. Pro-life, pro gun control and pretty pro government in general. He's very socially liberal, but appears willing to compromise his beliefs for votes. Some people call him a pseud0-Democrat, but ever since I heard him in a debate I've been singularly unimpressed. My favorite Giuliani moment was when Ron Paul humbly suggested that perhaps the United States is reviled and hated because we interfere in other countries' politics and kill their people, Giuliani retorted with something along the lines of "No, it's because they hate freedom!" to a roar of applause. I knew then that the Republican party was irrevocably doomed for the '08 election cycle. Oh and a large minority of Americans would not vote for a guy who's been married three times. Dressing up like a pretty lady probably doesn't help him either.
Mitt Romney
Romney's an interesting cat. He, like Giuliani is sort of a "new brand" of Republican. He's socially liberal (although rapidly trying to backpedal on just about all of his former positions), economically conservative, and he's got the presidential look. His major liability is that a good number of Americans wouldn't vote for a Mormon. So if the base can swallow Mormonism and a less than perfect record on social issues, Romney would be a good pick. If the base wants pretty, he's also their Ken.
John McCain
What can be said about the Arizona senator? He's managed to piss off so many people that his campaign is sinking faster than the Titanic. He was once the presumed presidential nominee for 2008. Republicans always pick the guy who waits his turn like a good boy, but McCain is getting the shaft. His strong pushes for government accountability and to limit the influence of big money on elections as well as his less than perfect conservative track record have raised the ire of just about every segment of the Republican base except the Billy Joe Mills types. Add to this the fact that Americans don't like old people, it's pretty safe to write his candidacy off.
Fred Thompson
A lot of moderate conservatives love Fred Thompson. I mean c'mon, he played a lawyer on TV! What good Republican doesn't love lawyers and TV (read Hollywood). He's also been a lobbyist (we love the beltway culture) and apparently a lackluster senator. Many tell me that he's John McCain without the baggage, but I think he's going to run into trouble for his lobbying career and late entry into the field. But at least he's conservative.
Newt Gingrich
The leader of the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994. Newt Gingrich curiously sat on the sidelines during the impeachment proceedings of then president Bill Clinton. Well, it's not so curious, he's also been married three times and was doing the no no bad thing with a staffer at the time. Gingrich is a hardcore conservative on most issues though. Unfortunately he's not the most deft politician as evidenced by his taking the blame for the government shutdown of 1996 when Clinton made him look like a petulant child who was throwing a tantrum over not getting his spending cuts (despite the fact that it was Clinton who shut the government down). He's still a force to be reckoned with, but hasn't taken any serious steps toward a presidential bid as of yet.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul's a funny guy. People I know on the hill call him "Dr. No" because they say he votes no on almost every single piece of legislation and the Republicans don't count on him in anything really. That, and the fact that he has little appeal outside of the hardcore libertarian wing of the party, means that his candidacy is not exactly soaring on the updrafts. I have to give him credit for being honest and more realistic than the other candidates especially on national security matters.
There are several other candidates that are to the right of all of these gentlemen, but the right seems to be somewhat dormant in this year's selection process and this post is getting too long, so I'll just stop the list here. The only hope Republicans have in 08 is that their relatively moderate candidate field will attract centrist voters, but the primaries will likely get really ugly because each of the major candidates has a good deal of baggage that people aren't going to want to have on their candidate. It looks like 2008 will be a good year for Democrats...
Labels: Brandon, bunnies, conservatives, crazy people, politics, Republicans
Probably Fair, but Vaguely Imbalanced
45 Comments Published by Lally on Thursday, June 21 at 11:27 AM.
The Center for American Progress has released an unsurprising study about the structural imbalance of talk radio. To my chagrin, it turns out that the VAST MAJORITY of talk radio is conservative-oriented. Nay, it seems the entire format is conducive either solely or largely to conservative hosts and topics.
It certainly can't be said that the following divisions, lifted from a summary of the report, represent the actual statistical political divisions of a) radio listeners (at least I don't think) or b) people in the U.S. in general. The last time I checked, national presidential elections were as close to 50/50 as they can get in terms of the popular vote.
I recall a drive back from the movie theatre with my dad which involved listening to Michael Savage, host of Savage Nation, most likely for purposes of entertainment on my father's part. This particular episode of the show talked about corporal punishment of children and involved, frighteningly, Michael Savage listening and responding to callers' stories of abuse from their childhood. Clearly in favor of corporal punishment, Savage would ignite in glee when a caller would, for example, recall how his mother would make him kneel on cheese graters when he interfered with her business in the kitchen. Savage laughs maniacally, makes a note to write that down as a good punishment, and takes the next call.
So, I would listen to that for two reasons:
1. Ammunition against insane conservatives like Savage (also a Jew! We're motley) who hold inconsistent beliefs about abortion, capital punishment, and child abuse.
2. Sick entertainment value.
Is that why these shows are all over the place in the market? Because they drive people to yell and scream, creating a spectacle, and because they are callous and absurd?
I'm glad progressive talk radio just can't bring itself to sink to the 7th level of ideological and/or superficial, ratings-oriented ridiculousness.
ADDENDUM: Joe notes that "do you realize bill o'reilly thinks that michael savage is crazy" and yes, I do, but he is popular and has a show and represents the fringe but nevertheless is a popular radio show host. I was citing him as an obvious insane example.
It certainly can't be said that the following divisions, lifted from a summary of the report, represent the actual statistical political divisions of a) radio listeners (at least I don't think) or b) people in the U.S. in general. The last time I checked, national presidential elections were as close to 50/50 as they can get in terms of the popular vote.
So what is it about talk radio that makes it efficient, lucrative, and popular when it is conservative?
- Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
- Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
- A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.
I recall a drive back from the movie theatre with my dad which involved listening to Michael Savage, host of Savage Nation, most likely for purposes of entertainment on my father's part. This particular episode of the show talked about corporal punishment of children and involved, frighteningly, Michael Savage listening and responding to callers' stories of abuse from their childhood. Clearly in favor of corporal punishment, Savage would ignite in glee when a caller would, for example, recall how his mother would make him kneel on cheese graters when he interfered with her business in the kitchen. Savage laughs maniacally, makes a note to write that down as a good punishment, and takes the next call.
So, I would listen to that for two reasons:
1. Ammunition against insane conservatives like Savage (also a Jew! We're motley) who hold inconsistent beliefs about abortion, capital punishment, and child abuse.
2. Sick entertainment value.
Is that why these shows are all over the place in the market? Because they drive people to yell and scream, creating a spectacle, and because they are callous and absurd?
I'm glad progressive talk radio just can't bring itself to sink to the 7th level of ideological and/or superficial, ratings-oriented ridiculousness.
ADDENDUM: Joe notes that "do you realize bill o'reilly thinks that michael savage is crazy" and yes, I do, but he is popular and has a show and represents the fringe but nevertheless is a popular radio show host. I was citing him as an obvious insane example.
Labels: conservatives, Lally, radio, think tanks
