PoliBlog (TM): A Rough Draft of my Thoughts


RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.php?p=11003

  1. I disagree on Limbaugh’s unlistenableness, though I agree he fronts for the party before we look headed for a blow-out (win, that’d be a blowout win), but I don’t really have a problem with that. He is, after all a political commentator who tries to advance certain ideas and policy goals. The policy goals will not always jibe with the ideas. That’s life, and to me, acceptable.

    What isn’t acceptable is that supposedly impartial broadcasters regularly make similar decisions, and seemd to me to do so way back when when I briefly worked at CBS News in New York City in the 1990s.

    As for Sean Hannity, he seems a nice enough, earnest fellow, but I’ve always preferred Alan Colmes, though his thinking is decidedly odd … not to mention wrong.

    Comment by Honza Prchal — Thursday, November 9, 2006 @ 5:29 pm

  2. I could have said all that by asking whether that was “simplistic partisanship” or consciousness of one’s responsibilities as an adult.

    Comment by Honza Prchal — Thursday, November 9, 2006 @ 5:30 pm

  3. In regards to Limbaugh, clearly there are plenty of people who find him perfectly fine, so my decision to stop listening in a personal one.

    Simplistic partisanship is defending your party even when it doesn’t deserve defending.

    As James Joyner wrote earlier today:

    It’s one thing to be a partisan and quite another to be a partisan hack. If a commentator believes that their party’s leaders are failing to live up to their self-proclaimed values, then it’s incumbent upon him to say so. That’s how you build credibility.

    Nor does pointing out the flaws prevent you from arguing that voting for your party is nonetheless the best alternative available. One can simultaneously say Denny Hastert should be fired and nonetheless prefer him to Nancy Pelosi; that Lincoln Chafee is barely a Republican but better than a Democrat; that Conrad Burns or George Allen have proven themselves to be dolts but that they’ll at least vote your way a lot more often than their opponents.

    And I think that Limbaugh, Hannity and Hewitt are essentially partisan hacks, rather than thoughtful conservative commentators. There is a difference.

    And note: this all came up in the context of Limbaugh basically admitting such (Hewitt as well)-see the previous post.

    I fail to see how any of that has anything to do with “one’s responsibilities as an adult”-perhaps you care to elaborate on that one.

    And I will also say that while one could have a long conversation about the MSM and the nighttime anchors, that really isn’t the issue at the moment.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 9, 2006 @ 7:52 pm

  4. 2006 Elections Hit Lockstep Conservative Talk Hosts’ Credibility

    You can add another casualty to the 2006 elections: the credibility of lockstep conservative talk show radio hosts.

    There’s a difference between …

    Trackback by The Moderate Voice — Friday, November 10, 2006 @ 10:57 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.138 Powered by Wordpress