Medved: McCain’s and Huckabee’s rise proves the impotence of conservative talk radio
posted at 7:28 pm on January 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An intriguing point, I think. Huckabee’s insulated in a sense in that most of his supporters answer to an authority higher than Rush, and even so it’s safe to say that the constant attacks from the conservative punditocracy have helped chip away at his early frontrunner status. But how to explain McCain? Rush, Levin, Ingraham et al. have been giving him the kiss of death and he’s still got two primary wins and a lead in Florida under his belt. Is his good fortune a testament to Mitt’s and Fred’s comparative weakness or is this new evidence that talk radio has — horrors — not vastly more influence than the right-wing blogosphere?
The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight…
McCain and Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives –and so, for that matter, are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter… Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates each of whom, in his own way, represents different aspects of the Reagan legacy?
Exit question: Isn’t the real litmus test in Florida, where Dems and independents can’t vote and Maverick has to live or die by the whim of people who actually listen to conservative talk radio?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Goldwater’s campaign launched Reagan’s political career. Much of Reagan’s thinking was grounded in Goldwater’s libertarian approach to modern conservatism. By 1980 Reagan had added the social cons to the small government, anti-communist, Burkean conservatives.
The GOP needs the libertarian voters to remain viable. Based on their founding efforts in the 1950’s Buckley and Goldwater would probably support most of Muyoso’s points.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Methinks scotsman richly deserves banning.
packsoldier on January 22, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Yeah, real popular guy you have there, you Medved shills.
You wanna know how popular he is? Well I’ll tell you.
An example is in order:
When Laura Ingraham or Dennis Praeger come through San Antonio their presence in town fills up a large Auditorium really fast. I mean you have to get a ticket el pronto if you want in.
But when St. Medved Douche comes through, do you know where they put him?
Take a guess…..
Tick tock tick tock….
I’m waiting..
…du de du di du di du di du du .. du….du
go ahead try again………
Yeah, he’s so popular that they put him in a little electronics store on their promotional day….. I kid you not!
Right. Real popular.
If they did that with Laura or Dennis the listeners would be pissed because there’d be no room for them….the driveway would be clogged.
’nuff said.
Mcguyver on January 22, 2008 at 10:12 PM
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Seams I remember that train of thought from a Buckley column or an appearance somewhere years and years ago.
Is that true?
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 10:17 PM
McGuyver
It doesn’t matter which talk show host is most popular. I listen to the one who makes the most sense…and the one who actually allows opposing views to be heard. I understand Michael Savage is one of the most popular hosts out there, at least in terms of ratings. He’s also a frothing moronic fruitcake.
I don’t check Billboard’s Top 40 to see which songs I should listen to either.
packsoldier on January 22, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Medved is a joke. Nobody listens to him, so he writes stuff like this to get people to go to his web site.
JustTruth101 on January 22, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Certainly could be. I’m basing it on reading National Review and watching his talks over the course of 30 years.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Right.
And Medved does what again?
He doesn’t allow those with a different viewpoint to even finish their sentence.
How’s that for allowing opposing viewpoints?
Not.
If you’re a Medved shill than I don’t even want to have a discussion with you here.
Period.
How does that feel? Kinda like I don’t allow opposing viewpoints? Touche!
So, to be Medved or a shill of his, your intelligence has to be that of barnyard fly. How do you like that? Feel good yet?
I’m just practicing what Medved does. Why? Is that bad?
Now go back into your troll suit.
Mcguyver on January 22, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Every time I think that McCain actually might get the nomination, I have to reach for a fresh Prilosec.
The only reason I can think of for McCain’s numbers is that most of the people don’t really pay attention – he’s been around long enough for automatic name recognition, and they either haven’t been keeping track of his more nuanced positions along the way, or caught him on one of the Sunday shows mealy mouthing and undercutting any semblance of a conservative position on a variety of issues. Add to that the mantle of ‘war hero’ (look how far it got Kerry), and voila.
As for Medved – he immediately forfeits any credibility whatsoever by rationalizing that the (remaining) candidates are ‘decent, principled conservatives’. Sorry, but that doesn’t apply to Huckabee, very well to McCain, and there’s quite a few gaps in Mitt and Rudy’s records on that score as well.
As for Medved’s claim to the lack of sway for conservative talk radio – well, the actual percentage of people that actively follow politics (just my impression) is rather small, and given that active followers of politics are the likely demographic for political talk radio, the actual percentage is likely actually fairly low – so, based on sheer mathematics, he’s probably got somewhat of a point.
As such, the tragedy is not the lack of reach of talk radio due to talk radio, but due to the apathy of America in general.
Wind Rider on January 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I think you’re lost Herr Doktor. Stormfront is that way… =>=>
Lehosh on January 22, 2008 at 10:30 PM
No, he is a Conservative! He endorsed no candidate.
Gatordoug on January 22, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I don’t disagree that the GOP needs libertarians, and Goldwater/Buckley might very well support her positions, but they are not shaping popular opinion now, are they?
Where Muyoso is totally off base is her portrayal of me as some sort of Fundamentalist character straight out of Inherit the Wind. I guarantee you that that could not be further from the truth, but it’s amazing how Hollywood stereotypes live on. Usually it is Moonbats who eagerly embrace these distorted stereotypes, and I’m quite sure that some Libertarians, like Neal Boortz, would not get things so hopelessly wrong.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 10:33 PM
mcains and hucksters rise just proves the msm isn’t as dead as we all hoped for. I used to like medved alot but he has become unlistenable since the shamnesty battle. I’ve only been able to listen a couple of times since and it’s almost like listening to air america.
peacenprosperity on January 22, 2008 at 10:37 PM
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Yes, I do believe.
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Since he hasn’t won even among evangelicals outside of iowa, would the higher authority you were alluding to be the msm or the dnc?
peacenprosperity on January 22, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Goldwater is dead and Buckley is 82 and semi-retired. But if you look back to Reagan for the roots of conservatism you might as well look to Barry & Bill who laid much of the philosophical framework for Reagan.
Here’s a quote from Buckley that seems consistent with my views.
Is it Conservative? It was in 1959.
I’m glad to hear you’re not a fundamentalist. You seem very nice. :-)
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 10:46 PM
It seems like you people are forgetting that Ronald Reagan’s evangelism was the defining aspect of his presidency. That was what inspired everyone and united this country!
You’re forgetting that the majority of Reagan democrats were formerly Christian democrats!
Mike Huckabee(like Reagan) was an outsider and villified by the republican establishment and MSM.
Huckabee is a lot more like Reagan than the MSM will let on.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home
HaraldHardrada on January 22, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Hokeybee is a pro-life Lib! He campaigns like a used-car salesman. You want to believe his baloney go ahead! He AIN’T EVEN CLOSE TO REAGAN!
Gatordoug on January 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Maybe your right, Huckabee reminds me more of Abraham Lincoln actually!
HaraldHardrada on January 22, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Talk Radio doesn’t even know who Talk Radio likes.
SoulGlo on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM
packsoldier on January 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM
So, let me get this strait…having said what you said…
Do you think everyone at the Eagle Forum is a nut case?
roam this page.
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Hey Michael, are you including yourself in the ‘loser’ category? How about waiting for a state like Florida that does not allow Independents to vote for the GOP nominee before making your analysis. That will be the first test to see if the ‘Maverick’ can distract voters from his liberal record…just like Leslie Nielson in the “Naked Gun” standing in front of an exploding fireworks factory telling the crowd, “Keep moving…nothing to see here!”
dandy on January 22, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Who cares? Medved isn’t a conservative anyway, so who the hell cares what he thinks about conservative talk radio.
The only good thing Medved has ever done.
2Brave2Bscared on January 22, 2008 at 11:18 PM
That’s a first! Many regulars here have reached the opposite conclusion.
As for Goldwater, in those days the Democrat Party was not the Leftist cesspool it is now. JFK could almost be a Republican (although his brother Ted is another story altogether) so it’s kind of strange to see Goldwater so angry in that paragraph you cited. I don’t know that much about him, but he was probably talking about Joe McCarthy’s Communists, not your average Democrat. That would explain the defiance, and dare I say, rage, in his tone – which is something I can’t relate to, at least not vis a vis General Motors. Replace GM with “commie bastards” or “Islamofascists” and I might it :-)
Didn’t Goldwater become more and more of a libertarian as he got older? Liberals think he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread now, but they sure hated him way back then. Things have shifted quite a bit since that time, but Reagan probably took the best of it and discarded the worst.
Good night. If you want to respond, I’ll check in in the morning.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Wasn’t Michael McDeadHead once a movie critic or something?
I suspect his real problem is that he is jealous of Neal, Sean and Rush, as their success has left him in the dust.
Dave R. on January 23, 2008 at 12:35 AM
By the time Goldwater ran in 1964, the Democrats were beginning to see the federal government as the panacea to an increasing number of social problems. I’d argue that the Johnson administration was far more ambitious (and worse) than the Clinton administration in expanding the role of government. After Reagan was elected in 1980, Goldwater became uncomfortable with the social conservatives (specifically Fallwell) and felt that the GOP was heading away from his core beliefs. The paragraph I quoted above is from Buckley, not Goldwater–though undoubtedly Goldwater would have agreed.
To have a government with the military strength to protect our rights, one that ensures the honest operations of our market places, but one restrained enough to allow us to perfect ourselves in our own way according to our beliefs and family values rather than in cooperation with public policy, that is a flavor of conservative thought I can abide by.
dedalus on January 23, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Medved just loses his way somtimes.
tazmebro on January 23, 2008 at 4:14 AM
No, people were very upset. But, Reagan got it through because no one really cares about the opinions of people who have to pay for the cost of amnesty. Reagan also promised enforcement of the laws but it never materialized and I doubt he ever intended for them to be implemented.
Blake on January 23, 2008 at 6:33 AM
Allah
Tell me your exit question is tongue in cheek or are you just that uninformed?
Florida is the other Dem Penalty Box state, they are not even allowing campaigning here, only fund raisers (which strangely are getting a little on the large size for classic fundraisers).
Since we are in the dog house with the Dems all the game playing rules from Michigan are on the table.
Also Florida has a history of like since there was dirt of uncommitted and opposite party people crossing over for registration during the primaries to support or throw monkey wrenches into the game and then switching back for the general election.
This time with the penalty box in effect will only make that worse.
Polls are being scammed if you look at historic voter patterns here. What they gonna do arrest you for giving false information to a pollster?
The test will be election day and close reading of the exit polls when that is done.
Until then its just spinning wheels and shiny toys.
CommentGuy on January 23, 2008 at 6:41 AM
Medved was totally in the tank for amnesty and McCain and Kennedy were joined at the hip on this one.
At least McCain has said he heard everyone when the bipartisan flood of rejection hit DC from all political stripes demanding defeat of the stealth comprehensive reform bill.
As BikerKen pointed out, this is just a temper tantrum by Medved that means nothing at all.
Read the exit polls people, they actually will tell you a whole lot if you follow the trends.
CommentGuy on January 23, 2008 at 7:14 AM
If talk radio were dead this would not be a post.
JellyToast on January 23, 2008 at 7:18 AM
Talk Radio is more at risk of becoming less relevant due to the hubris of its “superstar” broadcasters than from the Fairness doctrine.
Going from presenting the issues to encouraging abandoning the party is only understandable from a marketing perspective.
Simply put, if the Republicans win talk radio loses listeners since the goal is achieved. Limbaugh used to have a television program but after the 94 elections it didn’t last long.
Talk radio fans like to go on about the “sheeple” but defending the hubris of these guys and gals is the very hallmark of one of the herd.
Bradky on January 23, 2008 at 8:03 AM
As for Goldwater, in those days the Democrat Party was not the Leftist cesspool it is now. JFK could almost be a Republican (although his brother Ted is another story altogether) so it’s kind of strange to see Goldwater so angry in that paragraph you cited.
Well that quote is Buckley not Goldwater. And it is not angry…in all the years of watching Firing Line he didn’t get emotional. Taught me one of the most important lessons of debating. Never. Get. Angry. Get sardonic, sarcastic, and use humor to destroy your opponents.
Basically what is called Conservative these days is nothing of the kind. Bush is no conservative neither is McCain. Conservative isn’t a bunch of positions scrabbled together but a principled stand for freedom, life and liberty.
PierreLegrand on January 23, 2008 at 8:39 AM
A conservative defaults to positions that shrink government, respect life, with a deep understanding that government is not the master but the servant.
PierreLegrand on January 23, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Gotcha.
Johnson was a disaster and we’re still trying to undo his Great Society programs. (Which is one more reason why we cannot forget that elections matter). Who knows what Clinton would have done if the Republican Congress had not been there to rein him in, particularly with the influence of his wife as part of the co-presidency none of us voted for. Certainly HillaryCare was a Big Brother nightmare.
I don’t share your strict libertarian views, but I respect them.
You’re right. Sorry. However, I don’t see humor in it. I’m not denying that Buckley had a wonderful, sardonic sense of humor – just don’t see it in that particular paragraph.
Buy Danish on January 23, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Medved’s gone off the reservation if he thinks Huck is a “decent and principled conservative” who “represents [an aspect] of the Reagan legacy” in any way shape or form.
JamesP on January 23, 2008 at 9:38 AM
What it proves is that conservatives make up their own mind. A revelation among liberals…they no not what I speak.
right2bright on January 23, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Medved is wrong but what his comments do demonstrate, as if any more proof needed, is that a serious conservative crack-up is underway. Sad. This sort of discussion was unthinkable a only year ago, let alone two. Some here have mentioned Goldwater and Buckley in relation to Reagan of which two are long passed and the third in dotage. We are in winter now. Let the old order pass. Baby boomers won’t do. Our eyes must turn to the future and to the young of our movenment to pick up the tourch.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Thanks Danish,
You are up early.
I haven’t thought of myself as a strict libertarian. I don’t attend services or anything. Nor have I been a subscriber to the Ron Paul newsletter. I probably see more practical uses for government in terms of infrastructure, efficiency, safety and security than most libertarians do.
My conservative views seem better reflected by what Buckley and Goldwater were saying in the 60’s than some of what is being focused on today. I favor a country with a strong defense that secures our rights, allows individuals to care for their families, and choose their churches and communities. People rather than the elected government should be the vessel for nurturing and passing along values.
dedalus on January 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I stopped listening to Medved when he camo out so strongly in favor of Amnesty…His plan was for illigals to pay $2000 and get instant US Citizenship.
pseudonominus on January 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM
If Talk Radio was Impotent, Shamnesty would now be law. I don’t listen to talk radio to get my marching orders, I listen to talk radio to be informed.
Ingraham 9am-11am
Rush 11am-2pm
Savage 10pm-12pm
Medved 12am-2am
Who has the bigger audience?
PappaMac on January 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2