Originally Posted By jonvn Why shouldn't they try to turn a tragedy that has happened in their lives into something they feel is worthwhile and good for the country? That way, their loved ones did not die in vain. That is no reason to then go and try and rub salt in their wounds. You may disagree with what they are doing or saying, but to then go on and say what was said here is simply inexcusable, really. It's not even a joking matter. I don't even make jokes about 9/11. And I am a vicious sociopath. Just ask anyone.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I am not sure I would compare these two. Coulter sets herself up as a journalist, even though she says outrageously provocative things that entertain her core audience. Franken sets himself up as an entertainer, whose core audience (and in recent years that includes himself) seems to really believe he is a legitimate pundit. In terms of who is "worse," that entirely depends upon one's point of view, I suppose. I don't find anything particularly admirable about either of them. I wasn't a big fan of Franken's work on SNL. His original forays into political humor were, to me, flatfooted and dull. My liberal friends would talk about his sharp, satirical wit, but I didn't see it. In recent years, though, there is more a perception that he really is starting to believe his own act. And as he has become puffed up with self importance, his material has become shrill and predictable. Coulter, to me, is just a part of that far right pack that tosses red meat to the fringe and supplies fodder for liberal fund raisers. I know that some men (both right and left) think she's a hottie. Personally, I am not attracted to lean, predatory blondes. But, that's just my opinion. In terms of basic information, I am unaware that she is guilty of getting her facts wrong. But in terms of presenting her facts in a straightforward, dipassionate manner, she's a train wreck. Perhaps she recognizes that her material wouldn't be nearly as appealing without all the bomb throwing.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Talk radio is COMPLETELY dominated by the right...<< In my opinion, talk radio is the conservative ghetto. For years conservatives could hardly get arrested in the main stream media. They turned talk radio into the "powerful" media tool it is today, simply because there was no other place where their voice could be heard regularly. But in terms of the entire mechanism of communication, parity has still not been achieved.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Is that because liberals don't listen to the radio? Their causes aren't sexy for the radio? What is the reason for the disparity?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In my opinion, talk radio is the conservative ghetto.<< In every sense. It's too bad, because there are articulate conservative writers and pundits that don't stoop to the shock jock antics of Coulter, Hannity, Savage. But, they have a stake in driving a huge wedge between the voters, as do their counterparts on the left. Meanwhile, where the majority of America exists: the sensible center, just rolls their eyes at the shriekers.
Originally Posted By jonvn There has always been conservative talk radio. The thing is that the conservatives have gotten more extreme over the years. What people are calling conservatives now used to be called extremists and such. The domain of the late Wally George. Ray Briem was (maybe still is, I don't live in LA anymore) the long time conservative on KABC. He at least was intellectually honest, fair, and had good solid reasoning behind what he said. I don't see that happening today.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Is that because liberals don't listen to the radio? Their causes aren't sexy for the radio? What is the reason for the disparity?>> Yes, liberals listen to radio. Just somehow we don't seem to get the charge out of political trash talk that the far right conservatives do. I think the reason for the difference is that liberals, as part of the nature of being liberal, are more likely to accept that people have the right to hold opinions different from theirs. I think we are also more comfortable with the intellectual correctness of our view-point and don’t have the inferiority complex that the conservatives do.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I disagree with all of the above. I know enough liberals to know there are as many "close-minded" liberals as there are "close-minded" conservatives.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You can be close minded no matter what you believe in. >> That's probably true. Part of it is we can be rather smug at time and consider ourselves "above" trash talk radio. McNeil/Lehrer is more our style. ;-)
Originally Posted By friendofdd To paraphrase roadtrip: I think the reason for the difference is that conservatives, as part of the nature of being conservative, are more likely to accept that people have the right to hold opinions different from theirs. I think we are also more comfortable with the intellectual correctness of our view-point and don’t have the inferiority complex that the liberals do. I would love to see the day come when people on both sides of the spectrum give more that lip service to the notion that it is ok for folks to have ideas different than ours, instead of thinking of themselves as morally/intellectually/socially superior.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I've just re-read that post and want to clarify that I am not talking about roadtrip, but just using his words to show that conversatives say the same of liberals. Sorry if it came across the wrong way, roadtrip.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's fine to have a different idea. Reasonable people can sincerely disagree on what is the best thing to do. But when one side starts labeling the other, or says extremely offensive things like some of these pundits do, they accomplish nothing and make everyone angry and upset over the entire nation. There is no use for it, and people who do engage in this sort of thing are the ones who should be marginalized, like they used to be, so the vast bulk of the rest of us can move on and actually solve the problems that face us.
Originally Posted By DlandDug What friendofdd said. (He just got there first!) The extremists on both ends of the spectrum cannot tolerate opposition to their views. Conservatives burn books in the name of social stability; liberals burn books in the name of political correctness. In the end, books get burned.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Not until the two parties decide that their extremes are not as important as they think they are. -OR- When a third party of mostly mainstream America stands up and demands to be heard.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Will it ever get any better?" No. A third party has been kicking around since Teddy Roosevelt. It's not going to happen. What did happen was that a third party, the AIP, basically got absorbed into the Republican party.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper A third party won the Governor's office in Minnesota so I'll never say never. It would take a strong personality but I do think it could be done. I refuse to give up hope because I have about given up on the donkey and the elephant. They are all snakes.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>Will it ever get any better?<<< Historically, the animosity has always had it's ups and downs. It seems now to be the worst in my lifetime and perhaps it will get better. However, communications have changed dramatically, especially with the internet. Before that al caida leader was cold, there were bloggers posting that the president had done a wonderful or horrible thing. Such instant communication may mean that things will be very slow in improving.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon It amuses me to hear the Dems and the Left flipping out over Ann Coulter, who is a mere private citizen never given any special privileges by the Republican Party, yet they are the ones who give Michael Moore choice seats at the Democratic Convention and go to the premiere of his piece of filth documentary filled with lies about President Bush. And frankly, all Ann has done is make a blunt point that these 9/11 widows, who have made some disgusting remarks of their own about the President and then wrapped themseleves up in their victim status to exempt their remarks from criticism, are not entitled to the levels of media fawning and kid-glove treatment if they want to inject themselves into the national dialogue over policy matters. Besides, I think the Left is just too envious of the fact that the conservative women activists like Ann, Michele Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley are the good looking ones while they're stuck with the likes of Molly Ivins, Maureen Dowd and (ahem) Eleanor Clift.
