Nate Silver discusses how the world of talk radio has hurt conservatism. It’s very true. The right has constructed an alternate reality, and been so succesful at creating this alternate reality that they choose it over reality.
I experienced this myself in conversation with one of my regular conservative readers who argued with me that Barack Obama running ads attacking Sarah Palin over abortion was a sign of weakness… for Obama. The problem is that the Democratic position on abortion – access with restrictions – is far closer to the mainstream of American thought than Sarah Palin’s – the outright banning of abortion. But if you watched Fox News and listened to talk radio you would think just the opposite.
I also noticed it on con blogs and Free Republic when the polls all indicated that Sen. Obama was headed for a significant victory over McCain. It wasn’t that the campaign was being run poorly or that Obama was doing well. Nope, the polls showing Obama in the lead were clearly a sinister plot by the liberal mainstream media to convince the American people to vote for Obama (or, because the pollsters were in blue states their results couldn’t possibly be accurate). That’s crazy talk, and yet it was a mainstream point of view for the right – reinforced by their media. It’s a lot like people in a cult who simply can’t step out of their cult-world and review things objectively.
The upside of this is maybe they’ll go live in their alternate reality where George Bush has a 90% approval rating and John McCain won the election and leave us alone while we clean up their mess.
I know you’d like to pretend the Democratics platform is “access with restritions”, but that’s simply not the case.
The platform ACTUALLY is ” we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. [a safe and legal abortion]“. (pg. 50). If the party’s stance was so in touch with the rest of America’s, Barack would have made a bigger deal of it instead of trying to hide his record on the issue.
His actions speak louder than your words.
If investors had even the slightest inkling of confidence in the liberal alternate reality that the upcoming Obama Administration will clean up the mess we’re in, they wouldn’t be bailing out of the stock market in unprecedented degrees.
Do we need any more evidence of Oliver’s point than the above two comments? I really don’t think so.
If you think conservatives approve of the liberal G.W. or McCain, you must be living in some kind of alternate reality. For some reason liberals seem to think that conservatives and republicans are the same thing. It’s not the 80’s anymore. Wake up. Republicans and Democrats are quickly becoming the same.
1. Start with incestuous crosslinking to ensure inbred ideas.
2. Add a limited or no comment policy so posts aren’t checked and balanced.
Out pops endless variations of “Get A BRAIN! MORANS”
Nothing says family values like Jim Quinn and Bill O’Reilly’s sexual harassment suits
Isn’t that just what the hippies did in the 1960s? They didn’t like reality so they rejected it and substituted their own.
This gave them internal validation, but it also made them a threat to the larger society, a “counter-culture” alienated from the mainstream.
We have to be ready to battle the violent outbursts arising from all this in the mind of what I call the “haties.” I think they make people like William Ayers look like, well, hippies by comparison.
Some of these people are dangerous.
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2008/11/fighting-the-ha.html
Meanwhile, back in real reality:
“Stocks abruptly turned higher this afternoon on reports that President-elect Barack Obama has selected Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.”
I know you’d like to pretend the Democratics platform is “access with restritions”, but that’s simply not the case.
The platform ACTUALLY is ” we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. [a safe and legal abortion]“.
First, despite what you probably thought was an effort to be fair, you still managed to misquote the Democratic platform. They state it as “a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.”
Second, how is the Dem platform incompatible with what OW said? Restrictions supported by Democrats, such as informed consent, don’t weaken or undermine the right to a safe and legal abortion — they strengthen it. Similarly, time, place and manner restrictions on free speech don’t weaken or undermine that right; they allow it to be exercised in a safe and orderly manner. Freedom =/= chaos.
Just to put a link to it: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AK6UT20081121
Dennis, care to comment?
Hard to say at this point, fafaroo. Could be a bottom; there are a lot of cheap stocks out there and a lot of money on the sidelines. Could be a dead-cat bounce, too.
Still, I prefer up 300 to down 300 . Hardly soothing, though.
Second, how is the Dem platform incompatible with what OW said?
Because to the conservatards like farris, anything short of throwing abortion doctors and the dirty whores who patronize them in the slammer for a good long time == mandatory abortions for all 24/7!
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Goddammn, Dennis, do we have to do this every week for you?
If informed consent is a a “restriction supported by Democrats”, then why does Obama promise that the Freedom of Choice Act will be the first thing he does as President, a key component of which is to get rid of ALL restrictions, INCLUDING informed consent?
If he’s willing to find middle ground, hey, I’m all for that. But so far, the only proof that Obama isn’t as-left-as-can-be when it comes to abortion is Oliver’s word. I’m gonna need more proof than that.
Mr. Change creates his Team of Rivals by continuing to go to the Clinton well, even as liberal bubble bloggers hype the Lincoln-FDR- MLK comparisons for his presidency. His advisors are quick to temper expectations, (’No, no, no, he can’t fix everything right away’) again, even as his followers tell Republicans to step aside so they, Superman and his Clinton retreads, can quickly fix this mess. It’s enough to make one’s head spin.
Could it be that he keeps going to the Clinton font of knowledge because that was the last time shit actually worked?
You know, back when we had people working in the government (not always out front, but still) who actually knew their shit?
Nah, that couldn’t be it. Obama’s just “Clinton with a tan”, right?
The right wing noise machine immediately after the election reminded me of a plaintive remark I heard just after Reagan’s election back in 1980 – “I don’t understand how he won – NOBODY I know voted for him!”
This was said by a college student at UC Berkeley.
I’m still dropping in on folks like Malkin, Instapundit and Pam at Atlasshrugged. Some of these people are so far in the bubble, it’s become a Thermos(R), complete with mirrored interior walls.
Could it be that he keeps going to the Clinton font of knowledge because that was the last time shit actually worked?
Maybe that’s the thought process and it’s certainly the path of least resistance, but that’s not what he campaigned on, and it’s not what the voters thought they were voting for. If they were, they would’ve just voted for Hillary amd her Tuzla bullet fabrications.
But after seeing the Ziegler video and the Zogby poll, I’m not quite sure just what they were thinking when they voted.
but that’s not what he campaigned on, and it’s not what the voters thought they were voting for.
Um, yes it was. Obama and Hillary were remarkably similar policy-wise. Obama got the Iraq Invasion right, though, and that was a key difference (among a few non-policy differences).
Could be a bottom; there are a lot of cheap stocks out there and a lot of money on the sidelines. Could be a dead-cat bounce, too.
That’s an insightful point. Just remember, every time we thought the Cheney Administration had hit rock bottom, they got worse. So things could definitely go south from here.
Dennis: Hard to say at this point, fafaroo. Could be a bottom; there are a lot of cheap stocks out there and a lot of money on the sidelines. Could be a dead-cat bounce, too.
Still, I prefer up 300 to down 300 . Hardly soothing, though.
Translation: When it goes down it’s Obama’s fault. When it goes up it’s because things happen in the market.
SaveFarris,
a key component of which is to get rid of ALL restrictions, INCLUDING informed consent
Please cite the section of H.R. 1964/ S. 1173 that mandates getting rid of all restrictions, including informed consent. If you cannot cite such a section, could you at least explain the train of thought that led you to such an unsupported conclusion?
“Hard to say at this point, fafaroo.”
Just. Shoot. Me.
Obama got the Iraq Invasion right, though, and that was a key difference (among a few non-policy differences).
Good reason to make her Sec. of State. Sorry, I must be in a con bubble not to understand that logic.
“But after seeing the Ziegler video and the Zogby poll, I’m not quite sure just what they were thinking when they voted.”
OMFG. Dennis, for the love of christ, what the hell are you talking about?
What exactly did the Ziegler video and the Zogby poll show? What are they evidence of? Please elaborate if you can.
Dennis,
Let me break it down for you. For many Democrats, the choice between Obama and Sen. Clinton was a difficult one and they made it based on preferences regarding each on personality and some close questions. For example, Sen. Clinton’s willingness to pass a flag burning statute, though even Scalia admits that such legislation is unconstitutional, made her a second tier choice for president. For many people, Obama’s greater skepticism on the war was a deciding factor, but that does not mean they believe Sen. Clinton therefore would be a poor choice for Sec.State. You may have heard that it is the president who makes top-level decisions like whether to send troops (Commander in Chief is not a title for Sec.State), and therefore a Sec.State who is slightly more hawkish than the president is, as we have seen, less of a problem than a president (Bush) more hawkish than his Sec.State (Powell).
Your difficulties in seeing such nuances frankly does appear indicative of living in a “con bubble.” Do you know and like and discuss politics with anyone in real life, or is your political interaction with people of different views constrained to being obnoxious to them online? Your comments here are strongly indicative of the latter.
I just want to take this moment to declare my undying love for PG. That is all.
PG,
Let me break it down for you. Obama convinced people who have no idea who controls Congress or without the foggiest of notions who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are, to vote for him for his superior judgment in lieu of his lack of experience. Bill Clinton tried unsuccessfully to convince people that Hillary’s vote for the war should not be held against her, but Obama convinced people that it should, with success.
So maybe this is a conspiracy by Barack Obama and his Clinton advisors to keep guys like me in a con bubble by confounding us all by essentially saying, ‘Vote for me because I had the superior judgment and supreme fortitude to declare in a speech one time to my Hyde Park, Trinity Baptist Church and 60606 zip code constituents that we shouldn’t go to war, whereas Hillary, having to actually vote on it and stand by that vote, was dead wrong. She’s good enough to be Secretary of State I suppose, but President of the United States, are you f’ing kidding me?’
I guess I am having difficulties with such nuances. I guess when I checked in here last spring and early summer and read some of the vitriol expressed for Hillary for some of the things she said in her opposition to Barack Obama and her not bowing out of the race when the author here and his followers thought he should, that maybe I got the wrong impression that she might still make a very good Secretary of State even though I don’t remember that notion being thrown out here. Far from it, to put it quite mildly.
Nuance confused? Yes, when I read liberal bloggers and their commenters and try to understand their reasoning, I am. Quite.
Really? OW said that Sen. Clinton should not be a candidate for Sec. State in an Obama Administration? Would you be able to link to where he, or even any of the liberal commenters in this thread, says that?
She’s good enough to be Secretary of State I suppose, but President of the United States, are you f’ing kidding me
This seems comparable to many sensible Republicans’ view of Sarah Palin: Kathleen Parker, Chris Buckley, Davids Frum and Brooks, et al. don’t dispute that Palin is good enough to be governor of Alaska, or perhaps even hold the Sec.Energy position, but their attitude toward her being McCain’s missed heartbeat away from the presidency essentially was “are you f’ing kidding me.”
And yes, you clearly don’t understand the difference between whether someone is eligible to hold office as President of the United States, “The Decider,” as Bush puts it, and whether someone is eligible to serve in such a person’s Cabinet. By your reasoning, Democrats must deem Biden, Richardson and anyone else who failed to obtain the Democratic nomination for the presidency to be unfit to be in the executive branch at all. Given this lack of understanding regarding the massive difference between the president and his host of advisors, you must be very confused indeed.
Dennis: I guess I am having difficulties with such nuances.
The Dennis (at al) mindset in a nutshell.
“Obama = bad. Everything I have heard that supports that is true, no matter how outlandish or how conclusively disproved. Everything I hear that contradicts that is false, no matter how well supported.”
Take your fingers out of your ears, stop saying “nah nah nah can’t hear you” and try to engage your brain. Do you ever think for yourself or only ever parrot “this is what I’ve been told.”? Do you think Hillary would make a decent Sec State or not? And if not, can you give any reason for your view other than saying “other people’s views last summer were that they didn’t like her”?
Interesting point in re: Pelosi. The voters who actually send her to the House (and have been doing so for a while) also voted overwhelmingly for BHO.
Regarding the whole ’should Democrats think that Senator Clinton would be a good pick for SecState if they didn’t pick her for POTUS?’ quasi-meme: the qualities I look for in a POTUS are not congruent with the qualities I’d like to see in a SecState. A certain ferocity and uncompromising tenacity (which I see in Senator Clinton) lend themselves well to the latter position, whereas I don’t see them as being as positive in the former.
Really? OW said that Sen. Clinton should not be a candidate for Sec. State in an Obama Administration? Would you be able to link to where he, or even any of the liberal commenters in this thread, says that?
PG
She is fracking crazy.
Family duties beckon, PG, or I could do this all night long and rather enjoy it. I didn’t say anyone said directly that Hillary should not be a candidate for Sec. of State, I just said I didn’t get the impression many here would want her to be. If someone says she is fracking crazy and then supports her for Sec. of State, then yes, I find that as confusing. Then again, I’m locked in a con bubble, so it’s hard for me to comprehend liberal nuance.
What she said was crazy, but if I thought she was qualified to be president, then its probably safe that I think she’s qualified to be SOS. It’s mostly my love of verbal combat that gets me responding to you guys, but honestly I have a hard time having serious conversations with people who watch and listen to Rush, Hannity, etc. and take it seriously.
Let me break it down for you. Obama convinced people who have no idea who controls Congress or without the foggiest of notions who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are, to vote for him for his superior judgment in lieu of his lack of experience.
Stunning political analysis, Denny. You sure are good at filling in the blanks about people you don’t know.
Dennis: I guess I am having difficulties. Period.
Fixed.
Obama convinced people who have no idea who controls Congress or without the foggiest of notions who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are, to vote for him for his superior judgment in lieu of his lack of experience.
So the voters in Pelosi’s district and Reid’s state, who DO know who they are, wouldn’t vote for Obama.
Except that they did. Please fit this datum into your theory.
Because shut up, that’s why!
Let me break it down for you. Obama convinced people who have no idea who controls Congress or without the foggiest of notions who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are, to vote for him for his superior judgment in lieu of his lack of experience.
Dennis, this is the root of your problem– you are convinced that what you said was true and that what you said comprises a compelling argument demonstrating your correctness. In fact, you have no idea what you’re talking about and statements such as this from you and your ilk are the ones that convinced many Americans that right-wingers had no idea what they were talking about and, in any case, was an ideology that needed to be smacked down, preferably by electing someone who was not connected to the deviant culture of cat-fights with right-wing talking points purveyors incensed about Vietnam. You seem extraordinarily disconnected from everyday reality and present concerns, as did many of the GOP candidates and their surrogates, which is why voters rejected them. The reason right-wingers became so disconnected is because they exist in an echo chamber comprised of extraordinarily ignorant people who feel no obligation to deal with facts and reality.
You spent the past 8-12 years without any political concerns of importance and ranting and raving about trivialities you were instructed to be angry about. When important things came up, you remained silent. By 2008, voters were hearing what people like you had to say and realized that you were unconcerned and unable to grapple with modern problems and issues being confronted by the united states and rejected conservatives all over the country.
It is likely that many people around you who don’t really care much about the right-winger culture regard you as some kind of ignorant relic confined to a different reality than the one that most people have to deal with.
“Dennis, this is the root of your problem– you are convinced that what you said was true …”
I think the real root of Dennis’ problem is why he is convinced that what he said was true and it goes back to Oliver/Nate Silver’s original argument.
Dennis is convinced that what he says is true and significant not because he thought about it or weighed the evidence or in anyway processed the information as it was presented to him.
He is convinced what he said was true simply because of who presented it to him, that is, right wing talk show hosts and Fox news.
They did all his thinking for him. He didn’t have to do anything with the information he received except repeat it. That’s it. And simply repeating it should be, in Dennis’ mind, enough to convince others. Why? Because simply having it repeated to him was all it took for him to believe it.
For Dennis truth is determined by whether or not a statement is repeated by certain people or sources. That’s it. What he doesn’t understand is that these people are not necessarily interested in the truth. They are interested in entertainment and ratings.
Since most people do not find thinking or grappling with detail or nuance entertaining, right wing talk show hosts denigrate both. They actually attack subtlety as a bad thing. They actually attack education and certain kinds of thought and knowledge.
What these radio hosts and Fox News champion, on the other hand, is received wisdom, often known as “common sense.” They champion the passive reception of information that is deemed truthful precisely because it doesn’t need to be pondered, thought over. It simply has to be received and repeated because it simply makes sense inherently. It is, in other words, it’s own proof.
This is the essence of “common sense” or received wisdom and ties in neatly with the conservative faith in the traditional. Received wisdom and common sense are good because they are “tried and true.” There is no need to think about their validity because they are their own proof, they are their own validity.
Received wisdom is the lifeblood of talk radio because it sounds edifying while requiring absolutely no thought whatsoever. Like a diet plan that says you can eat all you want while losing weight, talk radio says you can be smart without doing the hard work of thinking, all you have to do it just listen to and repeat whatever we say.
I do not think it is coincidence that the advertisers on most AM talk radio are selling things just like that diet plan, or herbal supplements or get rich quick schemes or low interest, no cost mortgages. These products and talk radio hosts target the same kind of personalities who are prone to want easy solutions and answers to life.
Dennis,
Really, you can’t distinguish between saying it’s crazy for someone to stay in the race on the justification that it’s saving her opponent from assassination, and saying this person is unfit to serve in that opponent’s Cabinet?
I think you ought to spend more time on your family duties and less time as a representative of conservative views. Every time I discuss something with you, I feel a knee-jerk sense of how stupid Republicans must be, that only gets dissipated by spending time with smart ones. I can only imagine how much you’re distorting the views of conservatives that liberals who don’t know smart Republicans have. In contrast, I’m sure your family appreciates your time very much.
Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!
It must work ‘cuz they say it so much!