Possible Republican Nominees

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Folks,

The Palin thread sort of got side-tracked, but I wanted to respond to the notion that Palin is basically the only option for the Republican Party regarding possible presidential candidates.

Here are a couple of possibilities:

1. Bobby Jindal. He is the governor of the state of Louisiana and seems to have a lot of good ideas, though I'm not that sure about his views. I did hear him give the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address and I thought he did an excellent job -- though he was immediately and predictably panned by late night talk show hosts. As a governor, he has a natural platform from which to run. He has said he doesn't want to run, but you never know.

2. Hugh Hewitt. He is about as far right and religious as Palin but he is much more knowledgeable about law, politics and foreign policy. He is also very pragmatic so I don't think he would push religion on people. He is currently a talk show host, but he previously served in the Reagan Administration and is a Professor of Law at Chapman University. As the host of a radio talk show, he would have an automatic base from which to launch a run. Hewitt has also said he doesn't want to run, but it might be possible to recruit him.

Any other suggestions? Any criticism?

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrell,

Just a fine point. I don't think Sarah Palin is the only option. I think she is the only viable option.

What viable means, in addition to her obvious public exposure, is that she can campaign for a bunch of politicians in 2010 and cash in the chips in 2012.

I don't see anyone else with that magnitude of exposure and campaign draw on the conservative side right now.

Michael

[Selene]

Darrell:

Of course there will be criticisms (constructive) and lots of suggestions.

Palin may not go that path, but she is keeping her options on the table.

I like Hewitt a lot, but I have not heard him make any statements about seeking office. I listen to him on the internet once or twice a week - smart man. I just do not think that his current profession would translate well. Mark Levin was also in the Reagan administration and he got elected to his local school board in Pennsylvania at the age of 19, but his health and loathing of politics and Jewishness would be serious

factors preventing him.

Jindal is the enigma. He is doing wondrous work in Louisiana, which is based on French law and just about the most corrupt state in the union, sorry Illinois, but they are at least your equal. However, he had that oops speech in answer to O'Biwan's State of the Union. However, as the

son of Indian immigrants, he has access to lots of money and a good personal story and he is a "darkee" so we could pass him off as a brother in certain election districts.

Personally, with a whole bunch of experience in this area, much to early to even make rankings.

However, in the mix are:

Giuliani and or Pitaki in the Northeast, the dolt Governor from Florida who gave us John McCain, Perry the Governor of Texas, the Congressman from Virginia who was on Chris Wallace this Sunday, Ex Congressman John Kasich [who I would work for tomorrow - I supported his run for the Presidency in 2000] and who is running for Governor of Ohio and I think there was this good looking model type guy who used to be Governor of Massachusetts, no marital problems, oodles of money and a built in field force and for the kinky crowd, strange underwear!

Adam

[blackhorse]

Mike Pence is, in my opinion, the best GOP candidate of the current possible field of candidates for President in 2012. http://www.mikepence.com/main.htm

[Selene]

blackhorse:

Good man. I forgot about him. Indiana's not a good base. Fascinating how Rush brought an entire medium AM radio back to a powerful economic sector and now, apparently, political sector also. Can he raise money?

Adam

[Darrell Hougen]

Michael, when I say option, I mean viable option. I mean, I'd vote for you, but I don't think you're viable. Palin may be the current front runner, but I don't know that she is the only viable option. It is a bit early to start speculating though.

Thanks Adam and Erik for your suggestions. I was checking out Pence's website and I have to say that he seems sort of boring, but I do like his views -- at least what I've seen so far.

I was also watching Reagan's '64 Republican convention speech (on Pence's website). It's an awesome speech, though not everything he worried about came true. It's hard to believe we're veering back towards socialism again. Those who don't know history ... It should be required viewing for all high school students.

Darrell

[Chris Grieb]

Michael, when I say option, I mean viable option. I mean, I'd vote for you, but I don't think you're viable. Palin may be the current front runner, but I don't know that she is the only viable option. It is a bit early to start speculating though.

Thanks Adam and Erik for your suggestions. I was checking out Pence's website and I have to say that he seems sort of boring, but I do like his views -- at least what I've seen so far.

I was also watching Reagan's '64 Republican convention speech (on Pence's website). It's an awesome speech, though not everything he worried about came true. It's hard to believe we're veering back towards socialism again. Those who don't know history ... It should be required viewing for all high school students.

Darrell

Just a small correction. Reagan did not speak at the '64 GOP convention. The speech you are referring to was given later in the campaign. Reagan had been perfecting over the several years when he was working for General Electric. It should be heard again by everyone. Ayn Rand said it was the best thing in the Goldwater campaign. Edited July 15, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

Just a small correction. Reagan did not speak at the '64 GOP convention. The speech you are referring to was given later in the campaign. Reagan had been perfecting over the several years when he was working for General Electric. It should be heard again by everyone. Ayn Rand said it was the best thing in the Goldwater campaign.

I remember hearing those speeches back in the early 60s. I was just beginning to clear my eyes (in a manner of speaking) of left wing pinko stinko socialist commie liberal grime. I was very impressed with Reagan's performances. I remember thinking that if he kept that up he might be President some day. Little did I know.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[blackhorse]

Selene, good question. I think Mike Pence can raise the money, which is why he is already putting his "feelers" out there, problem is there are too many Romney's in the GOP right now, ie RINO's. My two personal favorites to run would be Rep. Jeff Flake or Senator Jim DeMint. I'm not too fond of Palin, though I think she was scores better than McCain. The GOP is in a bit of a dilema (self induced, of course) in order to win elections they are going to have to pretty much adopt 96% of the Libertarian Party's platform. What happens if Cap and Trade and Obama-care become law? Will any of the GOP presidential candidates have the integrity and courage to state implicitly that once they are elected they will abolish those government programs?-doubtful. But, you never know, this is a very precarious time for the Republic. Keep an eye on Texas...

[Selene]

Selene, good question. I think Mike Pence can raise the money, which is why he is already putting his "feelers" out there, problem is there are too many Romney's in the GOP right now, ie RINO's. My two personal favorites to run would be Rep. Jeff Flake or Senator Jim DeMint. I'm not too fond of Palin, though I think she was scores better than McCain. The GOP is in a bit of a dilema (self induced, of course) in order to win elections they are going to have to pretty much adopt 96% of the Libertarian Party's platform. What happens if Cap and Trade and Obama-care become law? Will any of the GOP presidential candidates have the integrity and courage to state implicitly that once they are elected they will abolish those government programs?-doubtful. But, you never know, this is a very precarious time for the Republic. Keep an eye on Texas...

As in the State that does have the right to secede as part of it being merged into the Union?

I always kept my eye on Texas, as a Goldwater organizer it was hard not to! Also, I am a supporter of the Kinkster as in Kinky Friedman and his Texas Jew Boy Band!

Yeah ha!

[Selene]

Folks: This is a beautiful song it has to bring tears to you.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Selene

[Michelle]

Hell if I'm going to support any of these wacko fundamentalists that would relish seeing a Christian form of Sharia forced on the United States.

Can't really support the liberals either, as they seem to be rather intent on ruining the economy at the moment.

I suppose ol' Ron 'Tin-foil hat' Paul is the best bet at the moment. Although he's too principled to be anything but a gadfly to the pro-economic-intervention Republicans right now.

*sigh*

Good to see the poor little ol' Objectivist candidate (what was his name?) is getting so much help from the Objectivist community at the moment.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R

[Darrell Hougen]

Hell if I'm going to support any of these wacko fundamentalists that would relish seeing a Christian form of Sharia forced on the United States.

What wacko fundamentalists are you talking about and what the heck is the Christian form of Sharia? If you're talking about the abortion issue, I would agree that some conservatives are too absolutist in their opposition, and I understand why that issue is important to women, but, in my view, it doesn't trump all others. It's crazy to say you'd be willing to give up all of your other rights, just to preserve that one. And, as I recall you're not really a pro-choice absolutist anyway (at least after the first few months) so I don't understand what your big objection is to the current crop of possible Republican candidates.

Darrell

[Michelle]

Hell if I'm going to support any of these wacko fundamentalists that would relish seeing a Christian form of Sharia forced on the United States.

What wacko fundamentalists are you talking about and what the heck is the Christian form of Sharia? If you're talking about the abortion issue, I would agree that some conservatives are too absolutist in their opposition, and I understand why that issue is important to women, but, in my view, it doesn't trump all others. It's crazy to say you'd be willing to give up all of your other rights, just to preserve that one. And, as I recall you're not really a pro-choice absolutist anyway (at least after the first few months) so I don't understand what your big objection is to the current crop of possible Republican candidates.

Darrell

I'm not talking about abortion.

And as you already know, I am opposed to abortion as a rule, and would favor laws making it illegal after the first few months of pregnancy.

Let's use abortion as an example, though.

Concretely, I agree more with the pro-lifers than the pro-choicers on this issue. But how about the principles leading up to their opposition toward abortion? If you follow that logical train long enough, you will see that the same logic could be applied to some areas of scientific research (note how they are already screaming about the stem cell thing). Do this with most other issues that are important to Christians, and you'll see the magnitude of the damage they could cause. I won't support anti-abortion legislation primarily because the pro-life movement is inextricably tied to the Christian Nationalist movement. Why give power to the people who want to enslave me?

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R

[Darrell Hougen]

Concretely, I agree more with the pro-lifers than the pro-choicers on this issue. But how about the principles leading up to their opposition toward abortion? If you follow that logical train long enough, you will see that the same logic could be applied to some areas of scientific research (note how they are already screaming about the stem cell thing). Do this with most other issues that are important to Christians, and you'll see the magnitude of the damage they could cause. I won't support anti-abortion legislation primarily because the pro-life movement is inextricably tied to the Christian Nationalist movement. Why give power to the people who want to enslave me?

That sounds like a slippery slope argument, but I have seen very little evidence that Republicans, whether Christian or not, would actually go down that path if given the chance. They certainly didn't do it when Bush was in office and they had a majority in Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats are actively enslaving you and me and all of us at this very moment with health care "reform" and "cap and trade" among other things.

You haven't said you would vote for a Democrat, but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat. In fact, the only problem with many Republicans is that they're not conservative enough. Most real conservatives are staunch defenders of freedom in every area except, perhaps, abortion. The squishy Republicans are the ones willing to sell us down the river because they're really closet liberals.

BTW, I've never heard of the "Christian National" movement. Is that a real movement or some epithet made up by the lefties?

Darrell

[Michelle]

Concretely, I agree more with the pro-lifers than the pro-choicers on this issue. But how about the principles leading up to their opposition toward abortion? If you follow that logical train long enough, you will see that the same logic could be applied to some areas of scientific research (note how they are already screaming about the stem cell thing). Do this with most other issues that are important to Christians, and you'll see the magnitude of the damage they could cause. I won't support anti-abortion legislation primarily because the pro-life movement is inextricably tied to the Christian Nationalist movement. Why give power to the people who want to enslave me?

That sounds like a slippery slope argument, but I have seen very little evidence that Republicans, whether Christian or not, would actually go down that path if given the chance. They certainly didn't do it when Bush was in office and they had a majority in Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats are actively enslaving you and me and all of us at this very moment with health care "reform" and "cap and trade" among other things.

You haven't said you would vote for a Democrat, but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat. In fact, the only problem with many Republicans is that they're not conservative enough. Most real conservatives are staunch defenders of freedom in every area except, perhaps, abortion. The squishy Republicans are the ones willing to sell us down the river because they're really closet liberals.

BTW, I've never heard of the "Christian National" movement. Is that a real movement or some epithet made up by the lefties?

Darrell

More specifically, a 'prevent the slope from becoming slippery' argument, but I see your objection.

Now, you said: "but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat." Really? Call Bill Clinton what you like, but federal spending actually grew less under him than under either of the Bushes. What does it say when a "tax-and-spend" liberal is doing better for the country than a Republican? It points to the fact that the Republicans gave up defending freedom years ago. They kept the rhetoric, but the records say otherwise. We haven't had a good "viable" Republican candidate since Reagan.

I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican because they're a Democrat or a Republican. I'll vote for the one who has the superior record of defending freedom (or who will do the least amount of damage to freedom). You can play these partisan games if you like. I won't.

Christian Nationalism is a label invented by opponents to describe real tendencies and small movements in the Christian community. Not all opponents of mysticism are "lefties," you know.

PS: Real "conservatives" are unprincipled. To be a conservative is to support the status quo. A conservative in a communist country would be a communist.

That said, you mean real defenders of capitalism and freedom. Most of them seem to have become libertarians.

I would like to help reform the GOP and make right the political right. But we can have no illusions about what the Republicans have become.

Hell, the only reason the left has gotten its collective foot in the door recently is because so many Republicans have helped to destroy our economy and have gotten involved in so many scandals that people don't trust them any more.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

OK, let's start getting into specifics.

Bobby Jindal. Why would anyone who values their freedom possibly vote for him? The guy, on almost every major social issue, supports the anti-freedom position. He even wants the PATRIOT Act to remain permanent and voted for the Real ID Act. Palin is a saint compared to this guy.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Folks:

If you like to keep up on one good polling site - Rasmussen is pretty much the better of the big ones - higher % right and polls actual voters.

There is a big issue that has been developing in the polling industry. I referred to it during the election of the marxist dictator O'Biwan the Exalted. Voters with only a cell phone.

At any rate, you will get a daily e-mail which is well laid out and tight in terms of information. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ signing up for the daily e-mails is gratis.

Election 2010: Texas Republican Primary

2010 Texas GOP Governor Primary: Perry 46%, Hutchison 36%

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis

Advertisement

Can this add 10-20 years of healthy life?

Incumbent Governor Rick Perry has jumped to a 10-point lead over Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in an early look at next year’s Republican Primary gubernatorial contest in Texas.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Perry ahead of Hutchison 46% to 36%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and 14% remain undecided.

In early May, the two candidates were separated by just four points, with Perry ahead 42% to 38%.

Perry is seeking an unprecedented third term as governor. Hutchison, a U.S. senator from Texas for 16 years, has formed a committee to explore a possible run for governor but has not yet formally announced her challenge.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Perry has a 17-point lead among male voters, but the two candidates are virtually tied among women.

Party moderates and liberals prefer Hutchison, while Perry takes the lead among conservatives.

Both candidates have high and similar favorables among primary voters. These numbers are virtually unchanged from May.

Seventy-six percent (76%) have a favorable opinion of the incumbent governor, with 27% very favorable. Just 23% view him unfavorably, including nine percent (9%) very unfavorable.

Hutchison is seen favorably by 72% of GOP primary voters, including 27% very favorable, and unfavorably by only 25%, with seven percent (7%) who have a very unfavorable opinion of her.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of likely GOP Primary voters now approve of Perry’s job performance as governor, with 25% who strongly approve. Twenty-five percent (25%) disapprove, including nine percent (9%) who strongly disapprove.

Perry won reelection in 2006 with 39% of the overall vote. Democrat Chris Bell earned 30%, followed by independent candidates Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Richard 'Kinky' Friedman with 18% and 12% support respectively.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of the likely primary voters have a favorable opinion of the tea parties held around Texas. Just 7% believe the economic stimulus plan has helped the economy while 61% believe it has hurt. They oppose the health care plan working its way through Congress by an 83% to 12% margin.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines.

Adam

[Michelle]

Darrell, there is one thing you've said in this thread that I must agree with absolutely. You said: "Most real conservatives are staunch defenders of freedom in every area except, perhaps, abortion. The squishy Republicans are the ones willing to sell us down the river because they're really closet liberals." Now, despite my distaste for partisan rhetoric, this pretty accurately describes my disgust for these "conservatives" who talk about the "evils" of "Big Business." It's so irritating. They romanticize "small business," but apparently once you begin making real profits you've lost their support. Just another concession to the anti-business mindset plaguing American politics recently.

[Darrell Hougen]

More specifically, a 'prevent the slope from becoming slippery' argument, but I see your objection.

Now, you said: "but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat." Really? Call Bill Clinton what you like, but federal spending actually grew less under him than under either of the Bushes. What does it say when a "tax-and-spend" liberal is doing better for the country than a Republican? It points to the fact that the Republicans gave up defending freedom years ago. They kept the rhetoric, but the records say otherwise. We haven't had a good "viable" Republican candidate since Reagan.

I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican because they're a Democrat or a Republican. I'll vote for the one who has the superior record of defending freedom (or who will do the least amount of damage to freedom). You can play these partisan games if you like. I won't.

Christian Nationalism is a label invented by opponents to describe real tendencies and small movements in the Christian community. Not all opponents of mysticism are "lefties," you know.

PS: Real "conservatives" are unprincipled. To be a conservative is to support the status quo. A conservative in a communist country would be a communist.

That said, you mean real defenders of capitalism and freedom. Most of them seem to have become libertarians.

I would like to help reform the GOP and make right the political right. But we can have no illusions about what the Republicans have become.

Hell, the only reason the left has gotten its collective foot in the door recently is because so many Republicans have helped to destroy our economy and have gotten involved in so many scandals that people don't trust them any more.

Supporting the status quo is one definition of "conservative," but the conservative movement in this country is identified with a generally pro-freedom stance. People like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Mark Steyn, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, etc., are explicitly pro-freedom in their philosophy. Many of them call themselves "Reagan" conservatives. I guess that's what I'm talking about. I'm also talking about organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and National Review, for example. Of course, I prefer people and organizations that are more explicitly pro-freedom, but I can live with the modern conservative movement. Have you ever visited townhall.com? Not all defenders of freedom are libertarians you know.

The problem with being non-partisan is that the party governs. The individual doesn't. Yes, you can have the Congress and White House controlled by different parties, but within the Congress, if the Democrats are in charge, you get Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc., whether you want them or not.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, there is one thing you've said in this thread that I must agree with absolutely. You said: "Most real conservatives are staunch defenders of freedom in every area except, perhaps, abortion. The squishy Republicans are the ones willing to sell us down the river because they're really closet liberals." Now, despite my distaste for partisan rhetoric, this pretty accurately describes my disgust for these "conservatives" who talk about the "evils" of "Big Business." It's so irritating. They romanticize "small business," but apparently once you begin making real profits you've lost their support. Just another concession to the anti-business mindset plaguing American politics recently.

I absolutely agree. We need some Republicans/conservatives that are willing to stick up for big business. Only industrial scale capitalism will provide us the comforts we want and need -- not to mention the right of business people to grow their small businesses into big businesses.

Darrell

[Michelle]

More specifically, a 'prevent the slope from becoming slippery' argument, but I see your objection.

Now, you said: "but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat." Really? Call Bill Clinton what you like, but federal spending actually grew less under him than under either of the Bushes. What does it say when a "tax-and-spend" liberal is doing better for the country than a Republican? It points to the fact that the Republicans gave up defending freedom years ago. They kept the rhetoric, but the records say otherwise. We haven't had a good "viable" Republican candidate since Reagan.

I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican because they're a Democrat or a Republican. I'll vote for the one who has the superior record of defending freedom (or who will do the least amount of damage to freedom). You can play these partisan games if you like. I won't.

Christian Nationalism is a label invented by opponents to describe real tendencies and small movements in the Christian community. Not all opponents of mysticism are "lefties," you know.

PS: Real "conservatives" are unprincipled. To be a conservative is to support the status quo. A conservative in a communist country would be a communist.

That said, you mean real defenders of capitalism and freedom. Most of them seem to have become libertarians.

I would like to help reform the GOP and make right the political right. But we can have no illusions about what the Republicans have become.

Hell, the only reason the left has gotten its collective foot in the door recently is because so many Republicans have helped to destroy our economy and have gotten involved in so many scandals that people don't trust them any more.

Supporting the status quo is one definition of "conservative," but the conservative movement in this country is identified with a generally pro-freedom stance. People like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Mark Steyn, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, etc., are explicitly pro-freedom in their philosophy. Many of them call themselves "Reagan" conservatives. I guess that's what I'm talking about. I'm also talking about organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and National Review, for example. Of course, I prefer people and organizations that are more explicitly pro-freedom, but I can live with the modern conservative movement. Have you ever visited townhall.com? Not all defenders of freedom are libertarians you know.

The problem with being non-partisan is that the party governs. The individual doesn't. Yes, you can have the Congress and White House controlled by different parties, but within the Congress, if the Democrats are in charge, you get Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc., whether you want them or not.

Darrell

Well, yes, they are called conservatives here. It is funny: the libertarians took the name in the seventies because liberal had already been hijacked by the left. Go to Europe, however, and the meanings are reversed: libertarians are "democratic socialists" (isn't that an oxymoron?) and liberals are proponents of freedom.

Generally a good list. I can't possibly imagine what you could see in Hannity or Limbaugh, though. I would add Larry Elder and Walter E. Williams to that list.

Yes, non-partisan activism and voting is a huge problem for me, for the exact reason you mention. I cannot, in good conscience, call myself an independent. I'm not. I'm a supporter of capitalism. I have principles. But I just can't, in good conscience, call myself a Republican either. I disagree with party-line Republicans on almost every social issue, and I feel their economic views are usually not free market enough. I cannot call myself a libertarian, either, because I do not share their paranoid distrust of government and dreams of anarchism. Government is good and proper when it is properly controlled.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

Darrell, there is one thing you've said in this thread that I must agree with absolutely. You said: "Most real conservatives are staunch defenders of freedom in every area except, perhaps, abortion. The squishy Republicans are the ones willing to sell us down the river because they're really closet liberals." Now, despite my distaste for partisan rhetoric, this pretty accurately describes my disgust for these "conservatives" who talk about the "evils" of "Big Business." It's so irritating. They romanticize "small business," but apparently once you begin making real profits you've lost their support. Just another concession to the anti-business mindset plaguing American politics recently.

I absolutely agree. We need some Republicans/conservatives that are willing to stick up for big business. Only industrial scale capitalism will provide us the comforts we want and need -- not to mention the right of business people to grow their small businesses into big businesses.

Darrell

It has almost become a sin to sympathize with anything "big." Free trade? Apologist for Big Oil. Capitalism? Apologist for Big Business. We don't like Big things in the Soviet States of America. We like little things. Little people. God bless the little people and their little businesses and their little lives. How dare anyone think of reaching beyond the little people.

[Darrell Hougen]

Generally a good list. I can't possibly imagine what you could see in Hannity or Limbaugh, though. I would add Larry Elder and Walter E. Williams to that list.

Your additions are good ones. I would have added Walter Williams, but his name escaped me when I was writing my post. Larry Elder is another good addition.

I don't listen to Hannity that much any more. He sometimes grates on my nerves. He is sort of like a used car salesman.

Listening to Limbaugh is sort of like discussing politics with your plumber. But he is really a good exponent of freedom when he gets serious. He knows Rand and he "gets it" when it comes to freedom. Of course, he's not much of an intellectual and he is sometimes purposefully a jerk. I think he likes "tweaking" the liberals and that is why many of his listeners listen. But, he also does a lot of research on the day's news, so he knows what issues are hot and who is doing what behind the scenes. That is what interests me. Even Objectivism gets boring if all you do is read the same philosophical points over and over again. I like news about what people are doing, not just what their opinions are, and he provides that.

Some other talk show hosts sometimes provide news and content too. Hugh Hewitt often has a full slate of interviews of politicians and pundits and I like listening to them first hand, rather than reading a story about what they said later.

Darrell

[Michelle]

Generally a good list. I can't possibly imagine what you could see in Hannity or Limbaugh, though. I would add Larry Elder and Walter E. Williams to that list.

Your additions are good ones. I would have added Walter Williams, but his name escaped me when I was writing my post. Larry Elder is another good addition.

I don't listen to Hannity that much any more. He sometimes grates on my nerves. He is sort of like a used car salesman.

Listening to Limbaugh is sort of like discussing politics with your plumber. But he is really a good exponent of freedom when he gets serious. He knows Rand and he "gets it" when it comes to freedom. Of course, he's not much of an intellectual and he is sometimes purposefully a jerk. I think he likes "tweaking" the liberals and that is why many of his listeners listen. But, he also does a lot of research on the day's news, so he knows what issues are hot and who is doing what behind the scenes. That is what interests me. Even Objectivism gets boring if all you do is read the same philosophical points over and over again. I like news about what people are doing, not just what their opinions are, and he provides that.

Some other talk show hosts sometimes provide news and content too. Hugh Hewitt often has a full slate of interviews of politicians and pundits and I like listening to them first hand, rather than reading a story about what they said later.

Darrell

You ever watch a movie where they've hired a model to play a role, and he parrots the lines, but you can see that no gears are turning in his head as he speaks?

Hannity is like that. He seems to parrot lines he knows a Republican is supposed to say, and does it smoothly, but I'm not sure if he actually understands what he is saying. He seems like nothing more than pretty face to me.

As to Limbaugh, your comparison is accurate. However, I can sympathize with a plumber and not with Limbaugh and his fans for a few reasons:

1) A plumber does hard and dirty work (my uncle is one) and can be excused a few tacky jokes or comments. Limbaugh makes tacky jokes AND comments all of the time while sitting around talking into a headset.

2) A plumber is not paid a multi-million dollar contract to make those tacky comments.

3) When people hear a plumber make a tacky joke or comment, they laugh politely and brush it off. They don't hail him as their spiritual leader.

4) A plumber's job is to fix pipes and such, not to sit around making tacky comments.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R