Savage is repulsive, and I do not know anyone who will admit to agreeing with his rants. But I guess many find him entertaining. Coulter is different story. There are people who actually think of her as a political thinker, as opposed to a jester. Her popularity scares me a lot more than Savage’s.

As for the comments on the Christian/Newsome murders, some people believe that black on white crimes gets less coverage than they should. Personally, I think that yes, we hear less about them. On the other hand, while they are often horrific, the perpetrators usually get what they deserve and there is little of interest, unless one obsesses over gruesome suffering.

“Show us Moore talking about killing conservatives.”

“Show us Moore talking about killing conservatives.”

“Show us Moore talking about killing conservatives.”

“Show us Moore talking about killing conservatives.”

“Show us Moore talking about killing conservatives.”

“Show us Moore talking about killing conservatives.”

That’s pretty much the put-up-or-shut-up meter when it comes to bringing up Moore in this discussion, who is the only comparable figure who has been brought up here. (Baldwin and O’Donnell don’t count for reasons already gone over. They didn’t gain fame and riches for their politics.) Well, there’s Ward Churchill, and if you want to insert those caveats Ron then fine by me. The point is Churchill is in no way comparable to someone having the grassroots support of millions of daily listeners or book sales.

I question how many liberals actually listen to Limbaugh’s show just for things to complain about; if they wanted to do that, just going over to the Media Matters website would save them the time and a lot of collateral outrage. I also question if the fact that Limbaugh’s ‘just an entertainer’ is something he and his most devoted fans really take seriously, rather than simply existing as a copout whenever intellectually challenged (see The Way Things Aren’t, by FAIR). But I guess you do have points there, Ron. How about Coulter’s book sales, though? Given there’s a fair bit of money involved - hardcover books are such a scam - doesn’t that mean there’s very likely some ideological commitment there? Given Coulter’s regular appearances on cable news shows and syndication in many otherwise respectable newspapers, National Enquirer is really a stretch of a comparison.

The point is not to say that conservatism is inextricably linked with mass execution of its dissidents or anything, but rather that there is a palpable anger to modern conservatism that, in the words of Paul Krugman, at best has a faint echo in the anti-globalization left and none whatsoever in mainstream liberalism. (For those who want to parse the word ‘mainstream’, show me how many former Seattle or Genoa organizers get regular screen time on cable talk shows; that’s as good a barometer as any.) Conservatives get defensive about Coulter and the bunch because they don’t appreciate other people psychoanalyzing their movement, which is understandable. But hey, that’s political debate for you, and I think we’ve all seen in the past few years what the alternative to uncomfortable debate is.

Did I say a word about either one of those people?

Ron, that (portion of my) comment was directed at Michael, not at you. Sorry for the mix-up; I’ve bolded the names in that comment to make things clearer.

Regarding the Senate, I was talking about the last three elections combined.

And I do think it’s safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of Savage’s listeners are conservatives. However, if you disagree with that assumption, that’s fair enough too; I have no means of proving it.

Ward Churchill was made famous because he said a number of things to draw attention to himself and that were far from mainstream. To what should have been nobody’s surprsie, he succeeded in getting noticed. Ward Churchill was made famous because of what he did, not because of what someone else did.

Did I say a word about either one of those people? I never listen to or read Rush Limbaugh’s shows or writings, and I don’t know crap about Alec Baldwin other than he’s an actor.

For that matter, so is Rush Limbaugh. He said so himself. He was being interviewed on Nightline years ago and was being questioned for not upholding “journalistic standards”. His reply, which I heard at the time, was “I’m not a journalist. I’m an entertainer.” Which pretty much told me all I needed to know about Rush Limbaugh from the viewpoint of “Should I spend time listening to Rush Limbaugh?”. I pay zero attention to the political opinions of entertainers, regardless of whether they are TV actors, film actors, rock stars, athletes, etc.

(And by the way, the majority of Americans voted for Democrats for the Senate. It’s only because Senate seats are not appointed proportionately to population that the Senate has a near 50/50 split.)

Hah! Got me there. Of course, in any one election only 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for re-election (save the odd death or resignation). Are you talking about the last election, or the last 3 combined?

And I’ll admit fault that I made the mistake of presuming a binary solution set here that doesn’t exist. Everyone is not either “liberal” or “conservative”, and furthermore, while I’d expect people who so describe themselves to vote in the stereotypic fashion, the reverse is not true; everyone who votes Democrat is not a “liberal”, and everyone who votes Republican is not “conservative”. I personally have voted for both Democrats and Republicans in just about every election I have participated in, my first one being 1970. I’ve missed a (very) few primaries since then, but not much else.

However, I think that you are a little free with an assumption about political stances as well. You are assuming that everyone who is listening to this guy is a conservative and someone that buys into his political philosophies. I’ll bet there are a lot of those apathetic people who are listening to his show because he provides entertainment. I’ll bet there are some liberals who listen to him so that they can complain about his latest outrage. From the way you all describe him, he sounds like he’d attract an audience similar to a shock jock or Jerry Springer. Do you really think that everyone who listens to him takes him seriously?

Only a little over half of Americans vote. Some of those are folks who can’t vote, of course, like children and prisoners; but I think it’s not ridiculous to think that many of those who don’t vote (and at least a few of those who do) are pretty much apathetic.

Of those who vote, I was figuring that about a third were conservative, a third were liberal, and a third were inbetweens of various flavors (independents, conservative democrats, liberal republicans, fence-sitters, etc). That was a totally seat-of-the-pants guess, I admit, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

According to the statistics in HF’s link, in 2000, there were around 44.8 million registered Republicans in the USA. (Thanks, HF!) And I frankly doubt that 100% of Republicans are conservatives, any more than 100% of Democrats are liberals. So my guess of 50 million conservatives seems, if anything, generous.

(And by the way, the majority of Americans voted for Democrats for the Senate. It’s only because Senate seats are not appointed proportionately to population that the Senate has a near 50/50 split.)

Michael, it seems self-evident that someone who rises to great popularity as a political pundit is saying things about politics that many people want to hear. In contrast, if someone (Alec Balwin, say) rises to fame as an actor and then says political things, it would be illogical to attribute his fame to his political statements. If he made the same political statements but had never acted, no one would pay attention or even know who he is.

Political pundits are political actors. It’s no more absurd to think that what one of the most popular political pundits in the entire conservative movement says is of significant political interest — more so than what actors say — than it is to think that a professional and successful politician’s political statements are of more interest, politically, than what some actors say.

What is absurd is your apparent belief that there is no difference at all in the place held in our political culture by Rush L., compared to that held by Alec B. You might as well say there’s no difference between a full-time animal trainer and someone who occasionally tells his dog to “sit.”

Oops . The comment I found ridiculous was this one.

Sewere Writes:
April 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pm Amp,

I was referring to Bernadett and Michael’s race-baiting through hijacking the thread to draw the conversation to the race of the perpetrators.

I find the whole finger pointing on both sides concerning individuals of some notoriety absurd. Pointing out the distinctions between each famous individual doesn’t change the fact that they speak for a certain faction. Whether it’s Rosie O’Donnel or Al Franken , or Dennis Miller or Rush ,or Hannity or Randi Rhodes they own their own words.

I don’t see much difference when a comedian engages in politics as opposed to when a political pundit tries to engage in comedy. More often than not the listener form an opinion based on bias. For instance, many on the left went ballistic over Coulter’s remark about poisoning a supreme court justice. But when ALC Baldwin makes a similar remark involving Dick Cheney they wonder at all the fuss over a bad joke.

Robert, if I found a random Alec Baldwin fan, would she be able to tell me what the farg you’re talking about?

Hm. I’d like to see some sourcing for those numbers. To say that there are only 50 million conservatives in the U.S. is, I think, stretching it. Consider that the votes for Bush vs. Gore was virtually 50:50, as is the Democrat/Republican split in the Senate. The House is pretty close to 50:50 as well. So if Democrat/Republican correlates to liberal/conservative, I’d say that your figures are off. Not to mention the “half are apolitical or apathetic”.

Ahhh! A LEAGUE of their own. I should have had that one right. Thanks!

I don’t take Coulter or Savage seriously; ask me who is the mainstream of conservative thought and I’m going to point you to the NRO axis and the Weekly Standard crowd. That attitude probably does free them up to be more outrageous than they would be otherwise, but I’m not going to put hateful people in my mainstream on the hope that status will make them be less hateful.

I was referring to Bernadett and Michael’s race-baiting through hijacking the thread to draw the conversation to the race of the perpetrators.

Back to the first elephant, I was having a conversation with a bunch of friends in 2003, and one of them mentioned that he felt that democrats should pull out their own “pundits” to counter the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh and Savage… and I asked him why anyone would need to sink to the level of hate and fear-mongering to appeal to more voters? He didn’t have a response.

The only conservative pundit I’ve heard make an attempt to condemn the hate speech (but not outrightly so) was Andrew Sullivan….

But do they take him seriously? (I don’t but I don’t consider myself a conservative). I thought he, and the others, are demagogues that said outrageous things to entertain and get a reaction. In other words does he shape and form opinion or does he dance for the amusement of others?

Ron, of those close to 300 million people in the USA, about half are apolitical or apathetic, and at most a third of the remaining 150 million are conservatives. 8 million of 50 million is about 16%. That seems to me to make the claim that Savage is a part of the mainstream of the conservative movement, not the fringe, fairly reasonable.

I think the tendency of decent conservatives (as we’ve seen in this thread) to deny that folks like Savage are central to their movement is one reason Savage and his ilk (Ann C., etc) are so free to be hateful.

What’s the expiration date on “movie star”, anyway? When and how (besides death) does one transition from “is a movie star” to “was a movie star”? I thought she was great in “A Field of their Own”, but if she’s made a movie since then I’m not aware of it off the top of my head. I’m not a big movie fan, so maybe she’s made a few, but I can’t recall one of impact. In fact, what movie can you think of that people would have said, “Oh, Rosie O’Donnell is in that, let’s go see it,” which I would think is close to the operational definition of “movie star”, vs. “movie actor/actress”.

Stand up comic? Rosie O’Donnell is a stand-up comic? She has gained a degree of notoriety for this? I am behind the times, eh?

In comparing numbers of listeners, etc., how many people went to see Michael Moore’s films? He’s sold a few tickets for them, I think. Hard to compare the impact of a film vs. a TV or radio show or a book, though.