Feds announced a major 3 year RICO investigation here in Vegas with the handing down of dozens of indictments. I think that's the BEST PR the Vegas tourism department could have gotten ... he, he.
****
Regarding radio ...
Interesting. Funny enough my radio exposure has turned to solidly that of the Marchony persuasion. My Sirius subscription expired 6 mos after the purchase of my vehicle and I haven't renewed it. Why? Because of the market I'm in now. I get Rush, Beck (my favorite now), Hannity, Levine, Ingraham, O'Reilly, Savage, Hewitt, Humphries, Medved, Cunningham, Doyle, and even Matt Drudge's once a week program, ALL free. And of course NPR as my left-wing source (All Things Considered and the BBC, which makes NBC look like a Dubya rally).
That being said, I have in fact listened to Rush over the last 24 months up to and including today. I assume your point Titus was to "almost" compliment Rush et al by demonstrating that when compared to their leftist competition they (conservative radio) at least engage in adult conversations and articulate real ideas and commentary in between their "femiNazi" jousts. Just a word about those jousts. They are ALL done tongue-in-cheek. There is no vitriol involved, just good natured ribbing like the kind we all give each other (without the swear words and homosexual inferences that is ... Titus). And yes, they ARE done for the entertainment value (Beck regularly describes his program as "the fusion of entertainment and information" and named his monthly periodical: FUSION MAGAZINE); but I think entertainment commentary is injected in between serious discussion for the listener's emotional state as well. In other words, after 35 continual minutes of deep discussion about what the financial bail out means for the direction of our nation, I almost NEED Glen Beck to play a 30 second parody in which he announces "Comrade Barak's" economic plan over a Mother Russia theme song. It's to comically delight the listener, not necessarily to "attack" the poltical opposition. And from what you've described the opposite is happening on leftist radio. Instead of light hearted, sometimes clever little parodies, they seem to be engaging in pure vitriol ... and you know what? The ratings demonstrate which America prefers. Limbaugh has 22 million listeners a week. Compare that to say Larry King's television program at 3.5 million in that same 5 days. And I wouldn't even hazard to guess the disparage in numbers between Rush and that leftist cat you mentioned. Probabaly on the order of a 1000 to 1, listener for listener.
One other thing - no internal group (on their level) has been more critical of certain Bush policies (especially the bail out) and McCain's failings (McCain/Feingold, illegal immigration etc) then Rush, Beck & Hannitty and Levine. With the possible exception of Savage, who takes Bush's skin off an inch at a time. There is a VERY noticeable shift occurring within the conservative talk radio lexicon. They are fed up with the abandonment of what they see as the "true" course of the GOP - Reagan conservatism. And they are saying so routinely (and knocking the hell out of Bush in the process). And it is a level of intellectual honesty that I appreciate.
****
Sour grapes? We discussed Powell's endorsement when it was unofficial. Now that it is official I stand by my statements as to why he did what he did ... One, I feel this is his version of squaring himself with history via Iraq. HE was the face of the invasion at the UN, and he wants a caveat to follow every time someone says: "Powell was an invasion advocate .... BUT, he DID turn around and endorse Obama." Secondly, I don't think he can pass up - as a history making African American himself - using whatever influence his endorsement can bring to help the first viable African American candidate ascend to the US presidency. I don't think it's any more complicated then those two reasons. I certainly don't think he did it just because he has sour grapes left over from his time in the administration, he's not that petty. I do find it unfortunate that he used the opportunity to go after Palin, the GOP (which MADE his career), and even Mac (his friend for goodness sake). Equally unfortunate was his flimsy reasoning as to the endorsement. "Obama has a steady hand" regarding foreign policy ... PLEASE. And Palin is too inexperienced, while you endorse a first term senator that voted in the last presidential election cycle as a IL state representative? Seriously good sir, how do you keep a straight face? Hell of a poker player this guy must be.
****
One last thing ... Biden made headlines recently by "guaranteeing" Obama would be tested by a "generated crisis meant to test his meddle in the first 6 months." Joe, I don't think you want to close the election with that argument. Particularly disturbing though was what he followed with: " ... and it won't be clear that our response is the RIGHT thing to do at first. So we will need you [the American electorate] to stick with us." What? I can only interpret that to mean that it will be a non traditional response, i.e. WEAK. Well that's just grand coming from a Senator whom opposed war with Iraq ... in 1991 (yes, Biden actually voted against the resolution to defend Kuwait). God help us ... he's the only one that can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment