Sinking to a new low

['93HonoluluCat]

Armed Forces Radio (AFR) is a station that is broadcast to American troops overseas through “over 1,000 outlets in more than 175 countries.” It currently features an hour of programming from right-wing host Rush Limbaugh. There is no comparable progressive program.
<SNIP>

If I may, I'd like to bring some thoughts of a current listener/target audience member.

In my opinion, AFR is like KGLT, but without the "college radio" feel. Each DJ has his/her own music taste, and--much like KGLT--the music played can go from hard core rap to country/western in an hour. All that said, I'm not a listener. When I deploy, I just bring along my iPod for music.

As far as the talk radio goes, I'm not convinced many (if any) troops "in the field" listen to it anyway. My theory is that political talk radio is not entertaining for many folks, and entertainment is what anyone wants to hear on the radio when they're thousands of miles from home.

That's an interesting point, HC. So are you saying that listening to jackasses from either side of political spectrum babble on with no concern for the truth is a luxury that only those of us with very few important things to use our time worrying about can afford? I supposed when put up against life and death situations, the whole concept of talk radio is even more absurd than even we realize.

Pretty much, sarcasm aside. When you're living in a tent in the desert, sleeping with your M9 pistol or M16/M4 carbine and wearing Kevlar everyday, your priorities tend to change a bit.

[SonomaCat]

There was actually no sarcasm intended on that one. I failed to use the emoticons properly, again. I was trying to convey sincerity. What you suggested (and now reinforced) makes perfect sense.

['93HonoluluCat]

There was actually no sarcasm intended on that one. I failed to use the emoticons properly, again. I was trying to convey sincerity. What you suggested (and now reinforced) makes perfect sense.

Gotcha.

[iaafan]

You're right talk radio is absurd, but it's capable of guiding the thinking of a lot of people. I think the fact that most talk radio is conservative speaks volumes in that they wouldn't do it if it wasn't effective. I don't think talk radio is as effective on liberals as it is on conservatives.

[SonomaCat]

It does seem that, to some extent, "liberals" tend to be less likely to take to the rantings of a talk show host and less able to fall in line in one grand group-think. I think the very nature of what leads one to be a liberal (skepticism of authority, exposure to lots of different ideas, a bit of rebelliousness) makes it virtually impossible for them to swallow anyone's koolaid in its entirety. They will definitely agree with some points a host makes, but if the host starts being an obvious shill for a particular politician or party, they will be shouted down. They don't tend to take pride in supporting a political party as much as they support specific issues, and the Dems seem to let them down almost as often as the Reps (but obviously not quite as much).

A segment of the conservatives (many of those who come to the party exclusively by way of religion) have already been molded into a model that often forces them to believe and accept things that can't be proven and shouldn't be questioned when they come from a position of authority. It does seem that this mindset also makes it easier for some of them to wholeheartedly accept whatever a talk show host tells them about the "good guys" and "bad guys" without having a strong desire to logic check what they are being told.

This explains the current state of politics. The conservatives certainly don't outnumber the rest of the voting block, but they do vote more consistently as a block, whereas the rest of the population fragments over a variety of viewpoints. Just look at the current Bush polling numbers. Something like 90% of the people who consider themselves conservatives give him a high approval rating, while the overall population comes in at only about 39%. There is virtually nothing he could do in the eyes of many that would lower their esteem for him (outside of saying something nice about Hillary or nominating a Supreme Court justice who doesn't have an anti-abortion bumper sticker on her truck ... or who could be something less than a family lady), regardless of how poorly he has been executing his job responsiblities. Why? Because the talk show hosts are able to deflect those failures onto others, and those who have faith in the talk show hosts have no reason to believe that anything they say is less than 100% true.

[Hell's Bells]

It does seem that, to some extent, "liberals" tend to be less likely to take to the rantings of a talk show host and less able to fall in line in one grand group-think. I think the very nature of what leads one to be a liberal (skepticism of authority, exposure to lots of different ideas, a bit of rebelliousness) makes it virtually impossible for them to swallow anyone's koolaid in its entirety. They will definitely agree with some points a host makes, but if the host starts being an obvious shill for a particular politician or party, they will be shouted down. They don't tend to take pride in supporting a political party as much as they support specific issues, and the Dems seem to let them down almost as often as the Reps (but obviously not quite as much).

everybody can get into group think. liberalism has gone from what it once was, how you have described it, to dan rather using falsified documents to try and slam bush on a slanderous charge...in other words yes martha even liberalism has its share of group think people, just like concervatives do.

just that liberals have cbs, nbc, abc....

A segment of the conservatives (many of those who come to the party exclusively by way of religion)

are you sure? there is plenty of people who are concervative and not religious brad...

have already been molded into a model that often forces them to believe and accept things that can't be proven and shouldn't be questioned when they come from a position of authority. It does seem that this mindset also makes it easier for some of them to wholeheartedly accept whatever a talk show host tells them about the "good guys" and "bad guys" without having a strong desire to logic check what they are being told.

whats wrong with good guys and bad guys....morality has no grey area

This explains the current state of politics. The conservatives certainly don't outnumber the rest of the voting block, but they do vote more consistently as a block, whereas the rest of the population fragments over a variety of viewpoints. Just look at the current Bush polling numbers. Something like 90% of the people who consider themselves conservatives give him a high approval rating, while the overall population comes in at only about 39%. There is virtually nothing he could do in the eyes of many that would lower their esteem for him (outside of saying something nice about Hillary or nominating a Supreme Court justice who doesn't have an anti-abortion bumper sticker on her truck ... or who could be something less than a family lady), regardless of how poorly he has been executing his job responsiblities. Why? Because the talk show hosts are able to deflect those failures onto others, and those who have faith in the talk show hosts have no reason to believe that anything they say is less than 100% true.

can you show from the last census that this last paragraph is correct
somthing like 90% of all concervites....if that were true then wouldnt bush's approval numbers be more around 45-50 percent? and to use the flip of that i wonder how many liberals think our good president is doing a good job - and if it is possible to poll a minus percent...

[SonomaCat]

Those numbers were from the last poll, Hell's. There aren't that many people who consider themselves "conservatives" in this country as a % of the total population (it's not near 50%, as you seem to be assuming), so even though they are still behind the President by a 90% margin, his overall ratings were still only less than 40%. In other words, their support is about the only support he had ... that was my point.

And I am well aware that there are many conservatives that aren't religious -- that's why I was wrote what I wrote as specifically as I did. I was speaking specifically of that particular segment of the conservative base, as the part you quoted stresses.

And if anyone continues to believe that the "mainstream media" (ABC, CBS and NBC) is inherently liberal in a partisan manner, then they actually do belong to the group-think mentality of which I was speaking. There are those on the far left who are equally blinded by their own partisanship who believe those same networks speak for the corporate interests only and are inherently conservative. When both extremes think you represent the other side, then you must be doing things about right.

The "good guys" and "bad guys" I was referencing had nothing to do with morals (quite the opposite, actually). I was speaking in those terms as that is how they speak of their political friends (their party cronies) and enemies (people who dare think for themselves) in their mindless partisan rants.

And it's true, there are no gray areas in morality -- there are just a lot of gray people with lots of different sets of black and white morals.

So just for balance, when are you going to drop the Dan Rather thing and take up the Judith Miller bashing? After all, she repeatedly passed off as true unsubstantiated bogus WMD information fed to her by political operatives (that happened to be in the White House) that actually led to a war. Doesn't she deserve at least as much scorn as Rather does for his poor reporting (even though he was probably right as to the message, just wrong on his execution while she was just wrong on all counts)? That damn New York Times, nothing more than a shill for the pro-war crowd.

[Hell's Bells]

i would bash judith miller if we could get a straight story out of the white house. seems like a different story for a different week now cheney and scotter libby got the name of a cia spy from a reporter...and then there are several people who wonder if they knew that she was a spy/was undercover which she wasnt/worked for the cia/knew there was a law against nameing people who are undercover...

which poll was it that you cited that said that there was more liberals then concervatives. Brad, if there was one then you would have pasted a link to it for all to see I still think that there is a equal number of the right wingers and left wingers. you will have to be hoenst and say that polls are not 100 percent accurate to say the least, depends on where you poll, who you end up polling, how many people you end up polling as a hole. example...most people i know here in Mt and in Mn are republicans...now will it be a far reach for me to say that *99 percent of all americans are republicans* even though only like 3 of my friends are liberal? i am not saying that the pollsters were doing that all i am calling into doubt is the scope of the poll

which leads me to this point...with gas going down thankfully *sighs*
i spend 34 bucks filling up my 1998 grandam with premium gas...last time i filled up it was more along the 40 dollar line on the cheap stuff....i am courious how much it would cost to convert my car to diesel?? ok now that is not a serious thought but with how exausted i am it is a entertaining proposal

[SonomaCat]

which poll was it that you cited that said that there was more liberals then concervatives. Brad, if there was one then you would have pasted a link to it for all to see I still think that there is a equal number of the right wingers and left wingers. you will have to be hoenst and say that polls are not 100 percent accurate to say the least, depends on where you poll, who you end up polling, how many people you end up polling as a hole. example...most people i know here in Mt and in Mn are republicans...now will it be a far reach for me to say that *99 percent of all americans are republicans* even though only like 3 of my friends are liberal? i am not saying that the pollsters were doing that all i am calling into doubt is the scope of the poll

I think we have just stumbled across some of that gray area that you don't like to see. Never did I say that "there was more liberals than concervatives [sic]"

What I DID say was that the % of people who consider themselves "conservatives" in this country (as per the poll I had read) was far less than 50%, which seems to be the numbers you were assuming to come to the numbers that you recreated.

THERE ARE NOT TWO SIMPLE SCHOOLS OF THOUGH IN THIS COUNTRY, LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS AND CONSERVATIVES/REPUBLICANS. There a lots of moderates/independents thrown in there, and there are some other subgroups as well. The world is not just black and white in terms of anything, political philosophies included. So when people are given a list of things to describe themselves for a poll, a group of them choose conservative and/or Republican. A similar amount consider themselves liberals and/or Democrats, and the rest of us hang out in some variation or another disavowing both of them.

In the recent polls, the conservatives still support the President at very high levels, and no other segment (liberals, moderates, etc.) does.

I am guessing that most of these pollsters have at least a basic understanding of statistics and draw a large enough sample size to reduce to the margin of error within a small (+/- 3%) range, and as they have no reason to be biased either way, are probably at least relatively close in their polling results, especially since there are a number of polls that are coming back with similar approval rating results. If this was an instant poll on a website, then I would agree that we should place no reliance on them.

Here is an article (from a conservative source, I believe) that backs up what I am saying. I can't find the original article I read that had the details of the poll, but this one gives similar numbers as what I quoted and backs up the point I was making about the support from the different segments of the political spectrum (and it doesn't say it in the text, but one can back into the fact that a large chunk of those polled identified themselves as neither Republican nor Democrat).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498843/posts

[SonomaCat]

i would bash judith miller if we could get a straight story out of the white house. seems like a different story for a different week now cheney and scotter libby got the name of a cia spy from a reporter...and then there are several people who wonder if they knew that she was a spy/was undercover which she wasnt/worked for the cia/knew there was a law against nameing people who are undercover...

Yeah, you are now talking about the OTHER issue relating to her. That's the Karl Rove treason thing. That wasn't what I was talking about, but that is another thing we should be mindful of, so thanks for bringing it up as well. I was talking about her WMD reporting that was flawed/bogus as a comparison to the Dan Rather thing that gets brought up repeatedly whenever a "liberal press" reference is needed.

Strangely, the fact that the mainstream press played right along with the Bush WMD propoganda pitch without doing any kind of skeptical investigating gets overlooked. It appears that were it not for the shoddy and complicit work of the "liberal press," Bush wouldn't have gotten the war he craved. And Judith Miller was the poster child for that campaign.

But now we've learned our lessons, and we as a country are a bit wiser and a bit less trustful of politicians when they tell us to "just trust them" (see polls).

[Hell's Bells]

Bush Approval Bounce?

President’s job approval hits 45%; Voters optimistic about Iraq after Constitution passage—New Zogby America Poll


President Bush, his job approval rating beleaguered by poor marks in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, rebounded from historic lows this summer to 45% in Zogby International’s latest poll, with job approval numbers bumping back up into the range where they have hovered for most of his second term.

The survey also found that, while voters do not give the President passing marks on his handling of the Iraq War, half (50%) believe the recently-passed Iraqi constitution is a major step in the right direction for the strife-torn nation that will lead to peace and democracy. Meanwhile, 37% believe Iraq is on the brink of a civil war. The Zogby America telephone poll of 1005 likely voters, conducted from October 19 through 21, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points.

While the President’s overall job approval is up, and a 52% majority of voters hold a favorable opinion of him, his handling of any number of issues continues to score negative marks—including his handling of the War on Terror, which is now disapproved by 53% in the survey; this is typically President Bush’s strongest area in the survey.

Bush’s bounce appears to be tied to overall perception of the nation’s direction; three weeks ago, just 40% said the nation was on the right track. This number now stands at 45%.

President Bush’s Job Approval Failing to Gain Traction

President Bush’s 45% rating represents the second straight up-tick in his job approval since bottoming out in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina amid questions about government’s handling of the crisis.


Optimism About Nation’s Direction on the Upswing

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1031

[Ponycat]

[quote="Bay Area Cat"]It does seem that, to some extent, "liberals" tend to be less likely to take to the rantings of a talk show host and less able to fall in line in one grand group-think. I think the very nature of what leads one to be a liberal (skepticism of authority, exposure to lots of different ideas, a bit of rebelliousness) makes it virtually impossible for them to swallow anyone's koolaid in its entirety. They will definitely agree with some points a host makes, but if the host starts being an obvious shill for a particular politician or party, they will be shouted down. They don't tend to take pride in supporting a political party as much as they support specific issues,

A segment of the conservatives (many of those who come to the party exclusively by way of religion) have already been molded into a model that often forces them to believe and accept things that can't be proven and shouldn't be questioned when they come from a position of authority. It does seem that this mindset also makes it easier for some of them to wholeheartedly accept whatever a talk show host tells them about the "good guys" and "bad guys" without having a strong desire to logic check what they are being told.[quote]



Sounds like someone is drinking that delicious Bay area koolaid

[SonomaCat]

Sounds like someone is drinking that delicious Bay area koolaid

Or perhaps being on the outside looking in (and opposed to the inside looking out, as I once was) is the only way to see the things I talked about above.

Independence has benefits.

[Hell's Bells]

Sounds like someone is drinking that delicious Bay area koolaid

Or perhaps being on the outside looking in (and opposed to the inside looking out, as I once was) is the only way to see the things I talked about above.

Independence has benefits.

me thinks BAC should move back to montana to save his sanity

[SonomaCat]

Another poll with similar results that I just saw -- posted below. 80% support from Republicans, next to nothing from the rest of the country, netting to a 37% approval rating.

This was never meant as a criticism, but merely as an observation -- the conservatives/Republicans are very loyal, and that wins elections. The arguable downside is that a Republican could end up sacrificing truth for loyalty and end up supporting dogs simply because of the (R). Or do they just know something that the rest of the country (including the large block of independents) don't?

Dems, on the other hand, seem much less loyal on average. This costs them elections, causes them to continually in-fight, and prevents them from taking power except when the Republicans really blow it.

Which is better and which is worse? That's too big of a question for me to answer beyond my own personal preferences.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/ ... index.html

[ChiOCat]

[quote="Bay Area Cat]What I DID say was that the % of people who consider themselves "conservatives" in this country (as per the poll I had read) was far less than 50%, which seems to be the numbers you were assuming to come to the numbers that you recreated.

[/quote]

I have lived in three rural states now in my fairly short life, and have found myself surrounded by like minded conservatives in all three. Yes, there is a mix of both (like my IL's ) but I would wage greater than 50% conservative in all three places we lived.

Yes, in the metropolatin states, like where you live, it's well known that there are far more liberals than not. But you cannot base it on your state or sphere alone. The Republicans would not have such a high count in the Senate or House, and a returning President in the White House if you were correct.

And I have been neither molded, brainwashed, or swayed because of my religion. I was rather undecided despite my VERY republican step dad until I graduated and started watching how much of my paycheck was gone before I received it.

[SonomaCat]

I just go by the voter registration and polling numbers ... people who consider themselves to be either Republicans or Conservatives are NOT a majority in this country. There are about an equal number of D/L and R/C, and the rest are moderates/Independents.

I wasn't basing the numbers on my own surroundings or on the places I have lived (which includes uber-rural Montana, semi-urban Montana, urban Oregon, suburban CT, suburban CA, and urban CA). All of those places varied dramatically from each other, but none individually represented the country as a whole. Only the country as a whole represents the country as a whole.

As to why the Republicans are in power, that may well go to my point of party loyalty. They certainly do not have a majority among the voters and/or citizens of the country, however. If they did, there would never be a Democrat elected President (and they probably would have managed to pull a majority of the voters in the 2000 election).

I don't know the exact figures (and nobody does), but I would estimate that roughly 30% of Americans classify themselves as independents. Maybe higher....

[ChiOCat]

The few Independants I have known have really struggled with how to vote. Fear they are throwing their vote away by voting for the Indy candidate, as well as detracting from who their choice would be from the main two.

Like Perot. Who knows how different the '92 Election would have been had he either stayed the course, or just dropped out for good.

[SonomaCat]

The few Independants I have known have really struggled with how to vote. Fear they are throwing their vote away by voting for the Indy candidate, as well as detracting from who their choice would be from the main two.

Like Perot. Who knows how different the '92 Election would have been had he either stayed the course, or just dropped out for good.

Very true. Every year, the effect that third party candidates have had on the elections have been huge (except for this most recent one).

Nader arguably cost Gore the election by peeling all of the (true) liberals away from the Democratic ticket, and Perot likely gave Clinton the election prior to that.

Most importantly, though, you'll notice how both candidates move to the center (compassionate conservativism, no conflicts without exit stategies, and all of the other campaign promises) during an election year as both parties are trying to capture the larger chunk of the independent voters.

They can generally count on their own party to vote for them (although I have been making the point that Reps seem better at instilling loyalty and voter turnout than Dems), but they need some help from the middle to win an election.

[El_Gato]

I just hope that before I die, I will once again find myself actually voting FOR a candidate, regardless of the postition/office.

I'm so sick of voting AGAINST a particular candidate just because I fear how much damage they'll do if elected. To me, this mentality is summed up by the fact that NONE of our current elected officials are LEADERS. No one stands in front of the microphone anymore and actually offers us ideals, programs, and commitments that make me feel like FOLLOWING them; no one I've seen in 20+ years has made me feel like I truly wanted to vote for them. Actually, only 1 politician in my lifetime has actually WON my vote because I believed in his message and his view of America: Ronald Reagan.

Say what you want about Reagan, but as a 20-something college student I never really knew that I was a conservative until I started listening to and considering his message. At the very least, I felt he had a clear, concise message & it struck many chords with me; he was the last man I actually voted FOR.

Has politics become such a joke that true LEADERS no longer seek to pursue it as a vocation? Or is it perhaps that those who truly COULD lead this city/state/nation realize that it's too late to accomplish anything truly substantive?