Petreausgate

[Kristie]

Yep, like I said, funny. I don't recall ever saying there weren't idiots rooting for Palin, did I? Or, are you so idiotic that you think laughing at Obama fans means I think Palin fans are wonderful?

Good thing I never liked or advocated anything to do with Palin's fans. You can't say the same thing about the Obama groupies. They're your peeps.

Obama groupies are

If a politician gets you moist, seek therapy.

You can think someone is without thinking they are

[Gerald McGrew]

Yep, like I said, funny. I don't recall ever saying there weren't idiots rooting for Palin, did I? Or, are you so idiotic that you think laughing at Obama fans means I think Palin fans are wonderful?

Good thing I never liked or advocated anything to do with Palin's fans. You can't say the same thing about the Obama groupies. They're your peeps.

Translation: Old angry white dude pissed off that people get excited to see black Democrat POTUS.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pissed off? Not at all. I'm amused that people get all wigged out by pop stars. It makes me chortle harder when they cream over a politician. It makes me laugh just as hard to see Palin groupies. However, she hasn't been relevant since 2008.

Not everyone is racist like you are. It has nothing to do with Obama being black, not to me anyway.

[Warren Dew]

Here is the 2012 Congressional District map of Ohio: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/r ... -House.pdf Nothing looks overtly "gerrymandered" -- as you know, that term is a portmanteau of the last name of Eldridge Gerry who was Governor Massachussetts when they overtly tried to redistrict the state in weird salamander-like looking districts to preserve antifederalist majority in the state way back in the early 19th century. The Ohio districts don't look all that odd.

Ironically, last time I checked the Massachusetts districts, they were much more convoluted than the original "gerrymander" district.

Take the state legislatures out of the process entirely I say, whether R or D. Give map-drawing to non-poartisan commissions in every state. Send out task force teams from the Census Bureau for all I care. But we've got to do something. Gerrymandering is a major root cause of the hyper-partisanship and gridlock plaguing Uncle Sam today.

Given Coito's examples of California districts, it's clear that the 'non-partisan" commission you mentioned is actually favors Democrats - as would your other examples.

I doubt gerrymandering has any relation to partisanship, though. Pity, since anything that promotes governmental gridlock is a good thing.

[Gerald McGrew]

Heard on right-wing talk radio this weekend that the Petreaus scandal was really Obama's "shot across the bow" to generals who were plotting a coup if Obama won re-election.

Of course, they were just asking questions.

[Ian]

Of course, they were just asking questions.

You mean questions like... "Based on the travel patterns of Senator Jim DeMint over the last few years, isn't it possible that he's the connection behind a handful of dead teenage prostitutes that have turned up in the DC and South Carolina areas? I mean, we're not accusing him or anything like that, but given how he travels back and forth and when these girls were known to disappear, don't you think this possibility deserves some reasonable attention?"

But left wing radio does not pose questions like that, because 1) left-wing radio does not exist, and 2) if it did, it would be far more in touch with reality than anything we keep hearing on the right.

[Coito ergo sum]

1. The questions asked on this thread were nothing like either of the questions referenced in Ian or Gerald's posts above.

2. Of course there is left wing radio. Like Mike Malloy, who called Republicans "Domestic Terrorists." Ed Schultz, who calls conservative women "right wing sluts" and "talk sluts." Stephanie Miller. Thom Hartmann. Bill Press.

Is there a reason avowed left leaning folks don't listen to talk radio? Maybe it has something to do with the number who get their news from the comedic The Daily Show....

[Gerald McGrew]

Is there a reason avowed left leaning folks don't listen to talk radio? Maybe it has something to do with the number who get their news from the comedic The Daily Show....

Over the couple of years that left talk radio was available here, it became pretty obvious to me why it isn't as popular as right-wing talk (and it's not one singular answer, but a mix of things).

1) A lot of left radio is boring. I liked Thom Hartman's show, but if I were asked to market it, I would run away quickly. His programs were mostly data, figures, statistics, and qualified experts as guests. Compare that to Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, or Levin. It's, "45% of self-identified independents believe that..." vs. "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, MUSLIM!! HE'S PLOTTING TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY FROM WITHIN TO APPEASE HIS COMMUNIST CO-REVOLUTIONARIES!!!" Yeah sure, the latter is nuts, but it's far more entertaining that the former. Heck, it's why I listen. Angry nuttery sells much better than sober analysis.

2) As has been covered here before, conservatives are a much more loyal bunch of people than liberals. As a result, once a program is established within the conservative identity, it will develop a loyal group of listeners. "Dittoheads" for Rush for example. No matter how racist, misogynist, or just plain stupid he gets, his loyal legions will tune in. Liberalism, and by extension liberal talk radio, doesn't lend itself to that dynamic.

3) Ownership of media outlets. It's not surprising that in areas (like where I live) where conservative corporations own almost all the radio stations, they play right-wing talk radio. Starting at 12:30, I can listen to Sean Hannity on 4 different local AM stations at the same time. Is the market here really that demanding of 4 separate, simultaneous broadcasts of Hannity?

[MrJonno]

I'm assuming 'left wing' radio would tend to be highbrow, intellectual and probably pretty boring to most people.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I could find a left leaning -- or right leaning -- talk radio show that could be defined as high brow, or that bore any relationship to these "qualified experts" and "data, figures and statistics" suggested by Gerald, I would love to listen to it. But to suggest that Thom Hartman's show is mostly that stuff is, well, laughable.

Glen Beck, I certainly agree is conspiratorial, and Hannity, and Limbaugh are GOP homers. But, Savage? Savage rips the Republicans almost as much as the Democrats. Mark Levin's show is unlistenable, IMHO. But, these guys are no more homers and shills than the left wing folks like Ed Schultz et al.

And, we have to differentiate liberal and left. They aren't the same thing at all, and they're being intermingled here as if they are the same.

[amused]

... And, we have to differentiate liberal and left. They aren't the same thing at all, and they're being intermingled here as if they are the same.

I've heard people say this before and never really understood the difference. I happily consider myself either or both. Honest question here - Can you explain why you think they are different?

I enjoyed Air America Radio when it was on, especially Al Franken's show. Janeane Garofolo was hit or miss, and of course it's where Rachel Maddow made her big splash.

[Gerald McGrew]

If I could find a left leaning -- or right leaning -- talk radio show that could be defined as high brow, or that bore any relationship to these "qualified experts" and "data, figures and statistics" suggested by Gerald, I would love to listen to it. But to suggest that Thom Hartman's show is mostly that stuff is, well, laughable.

In the short time he was on the air here, I found his show to be fairly boring and uneventful. Don't think I ever heard him raise his voice once.

Glen Beck, I certainly agree is conspiratorial, and Hannity, and Limbaugh are GOP homers. But, Savage? Savage rips the Republicans almost as much as the Democrats. Mark Levin's show is unlistenable, IMHO. But, these guys are no more homers and shills than the left wing folks like Ed Schultz et al.

Could you list more than just Schultz? I agree that he's a blowhard, but IMO he's a shallow attempt at a left version of Limbaugh. He doesn't pull it off very well either.

So yeah, conservatives can point to Schultz as a hyper-partisan airhorn, but beyond that, who else fits that bill?

And, we have to differentiate liberal and left. They aren't the same thing at all, and they're being intermingled here as if they are the same.

How so?