CNN's Campbell Brown isn't happy with what Rush Limbaugh said about her colleague Ali Velshi Friday, and has invited the conservative radio host to debate him on her program.
As some background, Velshi was on Brown's "No Bias, No Bull" show Thursday and claimed: "This is not the economy that Ronald Reagan ever saw or anybody with the last name Bush ever saw, or Clinton. We have not seen anything like this in our lifetime."
After the fourth quarter Gross Domestic Product numbers were released Friday showing a much lower-than-expected decline, Limbaugh took issue with what Velshi said the night before:
Mr. Velshi, you are incompetent. You are a disservice to your business, except you fit right in at CNN. Disinformation, character assaults. This economy is nowhere near as bad as it was in 1982.
Brown took issue with this Friday evening (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, file photo):
CAMPBELL BROWN, HOST: Last night, on this program, we spent some time talking about Rush Limbaugh and a piece he had in "The Wall Street Journal" arguing there should be more emphasis right now on tax cuts to help the economy.
Our chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi, came on and took issue with some of what Limbaugh said.
Rush then responded with this today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW")
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Mr. Velshi, you are incompetent. You are a disservice to your business, except you fit right in at CNN, disinformation, character assaults. This economy is nowhere near as bad as it was in 1982.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: So, let's stop there.
Now, Mr. Limbaugh, you may well have a legitimate case to make about tax cuts and what they can do for the economy, but the histrionics and the name-calling, they undermine anything constructive you might have to say.
Rush, I would love for you to come on, on this show and debate Ali on the issues. Make a case for your ideas. Our country is in desperate straits right now, and we need ideas. But what we don't need is nasty rhetoric and useless noise. This doesn't help anyone get a job or keep a job or feed their family.
If there were ever a time to put the meanness behind us and focus on real dialogue and real solutions, this is the time.
First off, Campbell, if you want to talk about meanness, maybe you should have a chat with CNN contributor Paul Begala before throwing stones.
Furthermore, this was the full context of the point Limbaugh made Friday:
The GDP number shows that the fourth quarter was down 3.8%, right? Now, for the longest time, we've been hearing that we're in "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." The Great Depression was 1930s. So that's 70 years ago. Now all of a sudden, Obama said this morning that the economy in the fourth quarter GDP number was as bad as it's been in three decades. Now, he said that to confuse his own voters. He shoulda said 30 years. Wait a minute! Thirty years and 70 years is a big difference.
Do you know what the GDP, you know what happened to it in 1982? That was Ronald Reagan's second year in office. The GDP for 1982 was minus six-point-something percent, almost twice what the fourth quarter was in 2008. Not only is this economy right now nowhere near as bad as the Great Depression, it's nowhere near as bad as the recession of 1982 when we were coming out of Obama One, also known as Jimmy Carter.
In fact, NewsBusters reported much the same Friday morning after the GDP numbers came out:
[T]his 3.8 percent decline is only the 13th worst since the Commerce Department began doing quarterly reports in 1947. This means that there's been twelve worse quarters since 1946, and none of them signalled the end of the world nor required the kind of government spending now being discussed in Washington.
For instance, GDP declined by an astounding 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 1982. This followed a 4.9 percent drop in the fourth quarter of 1981. History now shows this to be the worst of that decade's recession, as the economy exploded in 1983 beginning one of its most powerful and long-lasting expansions ever.
A similar situation occurred in 1974 when the third quarter GDP declined by 3.8 percent followed by a 1.6 percent drop in the fourth quarter and a 4.7 percent drop in the first quarter of 1975. Yet, once again, the world didn't come to an end for the following quarters showed growths of 3.0, 6.9, 5.4, and an amazing 9.3 percent.
As such, there have been two recessions in the previous three decades when we experienced far worse economic growth than this most recent quarter without it indicating a depression and without the need for historic increases in deficit spending to get the economy going again.
The point here is that it is indeed absurd at this juncture of the current recession to claim it's worse than anything we've seen since World War II as it's still not as bad as what transpired in 1981-82 or 1974-75.
Might it get that bad? Sure, but we're not really close to seeing those kinds of economic conditions yet.
As a result, I'd love to see Limbaugh debate Velshi, for he'd wipe the floor with this CNNer.
As a sidebar, I've already e-mailed Rush concerning Brown's challenge. As it's Super Bowl weekend, I imagine he's nowhere near a computer. However, if he responds I'll let you know.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is getting great. They
January 31, 2009 - 15:13 ET by Chris NormanThis is getting great. They're really coming out of their shoes now. Any show with the tacky and defensive name "No Bias No Bull" is suspect as far as I'm concerned. Ms. Brown should be on a more blandly liberal show - she's out of depth here.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Wanna debate? Hire pundits who aren't democrats.
January 31, 2009 - 17:16 ET by bpjamWhy isn't there a pundit pretending to be an economist also on Campbell Browns show providing another point of view from this prolific tool who thinks that there are only two economic states: 'worse since the depression' and 'new economy of the 1990s'.
CNN doesn't need Rush Limbaugh to debate this idiot. They should have people already on their payroll who should be able to point out who retarded a statement this guy is making. Was this guy in a coma during the Carter years? Or the entire decade of the 1970s?
Maybe Campbell Brown should just offer to 'debate' Rush Limbaugh herself.
→ Excellent idea
January 31, 2009 - 20:06 ET by Cool ArrowWhy isn't there a pundit pretending to be an economist
I nominate Pop Tech!!
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
TTGMAGC............
February 1, 2009 - 07:07 ET by old croThat thought gave me a good chuckle ;)
PS - your advise on line spacing was tried <cnt><enter>. Did not work. <shift><enter> did though. It must be my "keyboard" :)
Why Should Rush Help Campbells Ratings
January 31, 2009 - 22:20 ET by allanfI don't know why Rush would want to help Campbell get mega ratings? Do she and Al want to come on Rush's show and not be able to air clips later?
Roaring with laughter
January 31, 2009 - 15:12 ET by bigtimerRoaring with laughter here....glad you posted this ns.
I posted about this regarding Velshi yesterday while it was happeing...Rush was hotter than a pepper sprout on his show, he has had his fill, probably a good thing is taking a week off with what all the msm is attempting to do to him to shut him up (Fairness Doctrine) they fear him, always have but I have never seen anything like this that has been going on recently.
Rush was and is exactly correct.
He cleaned Velshi's clock....and he would wipe it clean permanetly if he ever did debate the likes of Velshi....who by the way, isn't the sharpest tool in the shed....I've watched him on and off for years.
One thing about it....ot would get humongous ratings...I just don't think Rush would bother messing with the small stuff like Velshi.
bt - and the rest of the crew here, IF you want HOT
January 31, 2009 - 20:08 ET by FastEdlisten in to Mark - he can spit nails listening to the demolibs, who as we now know, are almost nearing loud brain farts! They have had it so soft for so long, when there is a disagreeing voice, they have a fit - no matter what the fact are - (forgot, facts are NEVER used as a basis for open mouth)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Bully
January 31, 2009 - 15:14 ET by MES41067They can dish it but they can't take it.
She's just reading the infromation porvided to her
January 31, 2009 - 18:20 ET by Army BratBy the Obama Ministry of Propaganda.
It's necessary to make things seem as dire as possible in order to achieve the goals of the One and his Socialist accomplices as soon as possible.
Note how Obama keeps telling us that the economy is the worst evah! And getting worse fast!
Run! RUN! Panic! PANIC NOW! Let me fix everything NOW! I must have a free hand in order for us to survive! Stop thinking and allow me to act!
They must act quickly before the natural resiliency of the world economy removes the need for their "help".
All we have to fear is fear itself...and Obama is doing his level best to spread it.
He loves America? I don't think so.
No one goes to a hate filled Church for 20 years and comes away loving America.
53% is not a mandate twit.
Happy Trails...
Run away...Run away....Run away......
February 1, 2009 - 07:13 ET by old crohttp://www.youtube.c...
As a result, I'd love to
January 31, 2009 - 15:18 ET by motherbeltAs a result, I'd love to see Limbaugh debate Velshi, for he'd wipe the floor with this CNNer.
Damn skippy, Noel!
Velshi would end up throwing his skirt up over his head, and running away screaming! LOL
Be careful what you wish for, CNN....you just might get it!
This is getting good. I
January 31, 2009 - 15:19 ET by chicagotraumaThis is getting good. I hope Limbaugh takes him on unlike the usual lib who runs away. Howdya like them apples, Matt Damon?
Carbon footprint is bigger, got a GMC truck.
Obviously, chicago
January 31, 2009 - 15:22 ET by BlondeYou read the same article I just posted, below.
Limbaugh vs. Velshi?
January 31, 2009 - 15:21 ET by BlondeOh man, Fox could make a series out of this one.
First out of the debate box we'd have Bill Kristol vs. Matt Damon (fair warning, beverage alert).
Then on to the main show, Velshi served up cold for dessert.
I bet Rush is having a ball with all of this attention. As long as we republicans hang together and stick with Rush, it's going to be win/win.
Love the way Campbell the Twit (sorry Mika) tosses out that challenge for someone else, too. Clueless is too nice of a word for her.
She makes it sound like
January 31, 2009 - 15:47 ET by motherbeltShe makes it sound like she's already cleared this with Velshi.
I wonder if he was listening to her thinking Shut up, Campbell, shut up, shut up shut up!
More like
January 31, 2009 - 15:57 ET by BlondeScreaming at the monitor....Shut up, Campbell, shut up, shut up shut up!
and the monitor replies
January 31, 2009 - 20:14 ET by FastEd"You may run, but we know where you live, and lie, and we know when you lie, when your lips move - and IF you take the bait, think of yourself as a worm on a hook."
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Worst economy since 2008
January 31, 2009 - 15:24 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLooks like CNN is onboard with the Obama fear-mongering with the 'worst economy ever' and 'let's spend our way to prosperity'. What idiots (including Obama), if you remember the Carter years (inflation above 10%, unemployment above 10%, gas lines, gas shortages, gas rationing, loan rates approaching 20%) you know it's not that bad (yet), but give Obama and congress time, they will make it worse.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Isn't it just like a
January 31, 2009 - 15:29 ET by ProssIsn't it just like a liberal to have someone else fight their own battles? Limbaugh insulted Velshi...so why would Campbell Brown challenge Rush on behalf of Velshi?? Sounds like a pretty pu**y thing to me Ali Velshi...
"We will not tire, We will no falter, We will not fail." President George W. Bush, October 26, 2001
You just
January 31, 2009 - 15:39 ET by UpNorthdescribed liberals in general, Pross. Why does Zero let the lame stream media carry his water? He can't do it on his own? Or is he too busy looking for the door into the White House? But he's "too cool" to satirize? Give me a break.
We've seen how Achmewhackoff sees the Zero, I'm sure Putin is taking note of the non-response from the WH. I'm sure Zero is busy turning up the thermostat and giving orders to the WH chef, and can't be bothered to tell Achmewhackoff not to hold his breath waiting for the apology.
Maybe it was like one of
January 31, 2009 - 15:48 ET by Chris NormanMaybe it was like one of those shrewish wives with a meek and weakling husband, who tells some big guy who stepped on her foot, "My husband Herb will kick your butt! Herb, you get over there and give him the what for!" While Herb sweats and says, "Uh, honey pie, let's not be too hasty here...". :)
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
It's Gender
January 31, 2009 - 18:46 ET by CaringwhiteguyShe's just more of a man than Velshi . . . . and certainly more of a "man" than Paul Begala.
Limbaugh points out that
January 31, 2009 - 15:42 ET by fitzfongLimbaugh points out that Ali Velshi is an economic illiterate whose ignorance has no place on the platform he has (but, as it's CNN, economic illiterates are promoted as "experts"). And like a typical left-wing parasite, Campbell Brown wants free use of Limbaugh's image and notoriety to boost her show's ratings. Who benefits? Limbaugh? What victory is there in rhetorically flogging an imbecile? Velshi? How is getting publicly caned by someone you view as a "shock jock" on your home turf (in front of your own audience) going to improve your reputation? The audience? How do they benefit from watching a staged event rigged to make CNN's employee look good...when CNN will do everything in its power to prevent an actual debate from taking place because it has to protect its employee on its network? The network? Would CNN really benefit from having its "expert" slapped around by someone the network has so little regard for? Campbell Brown? Using the image of a valuable commodity as free promotion for her "No Bias? Bull****" show? Uh, yeah.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Exactly
January 31, 2009 - 17:01 ET by KC MulvilleThe "challenge" was issued by someone who just spent the past few minutes trashing Limbaugh, not to mention a network that encourages their people to insult Limbaugh constantly (Begala, Cafferty) while the "objective" hosts stand by quietly.
Does anyone think that CNN is going to give Limbaugh a fair hearing? There's no chance of Limbaugh getting a fair hearing. And you never play a devil's game against the devil.
That said ... and I know this will disturb some people ... I can't get behind Limbaugh 100%, precisely because he never debates anyone. Now, I understand why he shies away from it. He's been beytrayed before. He doesn't like exposing himself to cheap shots. Personally, my guess is that Rush is, in reality, a very shy person. He's afraid of placing his trust in people. That's certainly my own amatuer psychological speculation, and I'd be happy to be wrong. But I do think that it prevents Rush from being more influential than he is.
Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. I think his heart is as honest as anyone. He cares about this country, and his instincts are gold. But he's not a debater. He doesn't engage other points of view. And that means he's never going to be anything more than a bombthrower.
shy Rush..You are so right
January 31, 2009 - 18:23 ET by PaarlHello
I have been listening to Rush...everyday...every minute since I arrived in the USA from Africa and he has admitted to some of the traits you have ascribed to him...shyness...fear of betrayal. Also of course..he has his own forum and control of the message....but he is more than a bombthrower...he is cogent and remarkably consistent over the years.
Paarl of rHODESIA
First of all, Limbaugh
January 31, 2009 - 19:26 ET by fitzfongFirst of all, Limbaugh isn't afraid of debates. He engages liberal callers on his show all the time. He went on CNBC the other day to discuss his stimulus idea and received hostile treatment from the host. Besides, debates are stupid. Very little substance is discussed...it's all about who looks good on television and (since that windbag Lloyd Bentsen started the trend) who delivers the most memorable soundbites. After the debate is over, the networks bring in experts to spin over who "won"...and, inevitably, Stephanopolous declares Obama, Biden, Kerry or name your liberal the "winner".
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Must disagree
February 1, 2009 - 00:27 ET by KC MulvilleTelevision debates are, indeed, stupid. But there are a lot more debates going on out there than just the half-baked ones on TV. I'm not even talking about formal debates, because it's a lost art, even at most colleges. I'm also including things like forums, panel discussions, think-tank presentations, etc. (Can you tell I watch C-Span a lot?)
Fair is fair. I've often criticized MSNBC for not having people in their show with opposing points of view. Olbermann never confronts an opposing point of view, and his only guests are cronies who nod and confirm that Keith is a genius - otherwise they don't get on Keith's show. Well, Rush rarely has them on, either. He has liberal callers on, who are either too angry or too nervous to make a point. They almost always disintegrate on air.
But let me add one extra point: Rush could handle himself if he tried. I just think he's afraid to. It's not his element, and he doens't like being out of his element. And I also think that Rush knows this, and he's decided that he'd rather stay where he is. Remember when he did TV, and had his own show on Fox? He hated it, and you can tell from the way he talks about it. Rush decided, long ago, that he found his niche and that he doesn't want to come out of it. He has his own style, which is great, but it isn't leadership. Rush isn't a leader-type.
On the other extreme, look at Ann Coulter. She'll confront anyone. Then again, when she engages liberals, all she does is bring out their venom. It quickly deteriorates into personal attack. She has her own style, but it isn't leadership.
Conservatives used to have two giants as leaders: Reagan and Buckley. Those two guys never backed away from a confrontation, but it was never with bile or vitriol. The liberals then were just as squirmy and deceitful as anyone now ... but Reagan and Buckley knew how to handle them.
That's why, for as much as I enjoy Rush, I can't get behind him. He's not a leader. I can't think of anyone around today who is really in Reagan's or Buckley's league. Maybe we were just damned spoiled by them, but I regret that we have no one of that ... caliber ... anywhere in conservatism these days.
Rush is a "leader" in his own way.......
February 1, 2009 - 07:27 ET by old croHis radio audience are the "followers". I wouldn't call him "shy", but IMHO he does what he does (a tiger is a tiger) with the tools he is most comfortable with, as we all do. He does not care who gets credit for improving this country and uses a very powerful tool (sarcasm) in dealing with the left. I am not "debating" you KC (my clock is clean enough :) - just saying.
Changing my mind
February 1, 2009 - 15:07 ET by KC MulvilleYou give me too much credit, old cro.
You make a point that causes me to reconsider. I'll go so far as to say this. Rush does have followers, and so he is, by definition, a leader. But he's not my leader.
Funny - today's gospel included the line about the people being amazed that Jesus "spoke with authority." I was once a Jesuit with a vow of obedience. My ideas about authority and leadership are shaped by years of reflection (even after leaving the Jesuits) on the topic. And one telling difference with Rush is that I'm not willing to change my mind at his word. I don't pause my conclusion until I see what Rush thinks. I don't see Rush as an authority. But I can't deny that plenty of people do see Limbaugh as an authority. They do follow him.
So maybe I'll just leave it at that ... he is a leader, but not mine.
Why must you complicate the
February 1, 2009 - 16:34 ET by fitzfongWhy must you complicate the issue by trying to define whether or not he is a "leader"? He is a radio talk show host who presents his opinions in such a way that the presentation is marketable. Many people share his views and find his presentation interesting. His views are somewhat representative of the views of a significant portion of the population and his show is entertaining and informative...if not, he'd have no audience and no show. But someone else would fill the gap because there's a demand for entertaining, informative, conservative radio talk. He presents his opinions, people wish to hear them. To the extent that his opinions are reflective of a significant portion of the population, legislators are well advised to take that into consideration when making political decisions. It's really just as simple as that. If he was looking to be viewed as a "leader", he would run for office. Besides, we should be our own leaders.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Distinctions are not complicated
February 1, 2009 - 17:27 ET by KC MulvilleI was making a distinction about Limbaugh. Whereas I enjoy his show, and I think his gut instincts are solid, I dislike the fact that he's a bombthrower. I criticize Olbermann and Maddow, for instance, for never confronting an opposing guest. But to be fair, Limbaugh doesn't do it, either. As much as I dislike Olbermann for throwing bombs when the victims have no chance to respond, I don't like it when Rush does the same.
That doesn't "complicate" anything. I don't see anyone as perfect, so my respect for someone doesn't have to be all or nothing. I can respect Limbaugh, but note what I don't like. It just so happened that the thing I dislike about Limbaugh was germane to the topic of Noel's original post.
With all due respect, I
February 1, 2009 - 23:31 ET by fitzfongWith all due respect, I believe the term "bombthrower" is a wild mischaracterization of what Rush Limbaugh is. What do you mean by "bombthrower"? Perhaps it would help if you can give me an example of Rush Limbaugh's "bombthrowing". He has a show that allows him to speak his mind. You can listen to it or not (same with Olbermann and Maddow), he's under no obligation to present both sides. But I disagree with your assertion that he doesn't give anyone the chance to respond. He often indulges people with opposing viewpoints...even the more hostile types. But why should he? If people want to hear other sides presented, they have virtually unlimited opportunities to do so through other media.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Where can you find an honest debate?
February 2, 2009 - 10:04 ET by KC MulvilleFitz, you’re right. I do bring some assumptions to this discussion that others may not share. Most important, I believe in adversarial discussion. Public issues must be debated between adversaries, because there’s no other honest way for the full picture to come out. I wish that Rush would engage in that kind of discussion, and I regret that he doesn’t.
Topics that rise to the level of national discussion always have a good side and a bad side. Consider Iraq; a great victory, but at enormous cost. We shouldn’t overlook the cost. Troops have to go through excessive rotations, with less time at home. Even if we stick to a policy, all things considered, we have an obligation to consider all things. But that’s hard. Nobody likes to admit bad news. Unless you have an adversarial discussion, human beings will skip the bad news. That’s why it isn’t enough to have ideas, even if they’re good. You have to go through the cleansing process of engaging other arguments. That’s how you stay honest. When a critic argues that Iraq is draining the troops, they have a legitimate point. Honesty demands that we answer it.
Why is that important? We believe in a marketplace of ideas, where we put ideas in competition with each other. (Marketplace is a bad analogy, because the picture is a bunch of isolated shops that have no relation to one another.) The real virtue of the market is competition. Without competition, it’s just a bunch of group-think tanks. Each tank’s influence is enclosed in its own circle, and they only notice opponents to ridicule them, for the delight of the sycophants within their own circle.
Rush doesn’t engage. Sure he has callers from liberals … but they don’t get on air until after he’s screened them. He controls what he wants to discuss. That’s like a courtroom where the judge allows the defense attorney to describe the facts and the prosecution’s theory … but won’t let the prosecutor speak for himself. Of course the case will be slanted. That’s why I don’t count his callers. Now if he had guests, it would be different. They could defend and speak for themselves.
Now, fitz, I gather that you don’t mind that ideas are expressed without competition. You say that they can go to other media if they want competition. Like where? Tell me someplace where we can find a reasonable discussion where ideas are respectfully engaged? I don’t think there are any. That’s why the bias of the liberal media is so corrosive. It thwarts honest debate, or honest competition of ideas. FoxNews? That’s a TV network, where segments last about four minutes apiece, and no arguments can be developed. They wind up shouting at another. The Senate was supposed to be that place, but the national parties have long ago turned senatorial debate into a partisan sham. No one is in the senate when they debate, and no one listens to anyone else.
Remember, fitz, I said that I agree with, respect, and enjoy Rush Limbaugh. But I regret that he doesn’t engage others in competition. If this was a football game, Rush would be one of the analysts in the stands, but the game is on the field. I think Rush should be on the field - especially since conservatism these days lacks anyone else!
KC, I respect your
February 2, 2009 - 15:52 ET by fitzfongKC,
I respect your position, but I also believe that it is more than a tad idealistic to believe that somehow the truth of an issue is somehow going to emerge simply because two opposing sides engage in an adversarial discussion. The value of such a forum is subjective and is highly dependent on the parameters of the forum. Typically, a third party establishes the "rules of the road" and moderates the debate...but these factors are also subject to the assorted biases of said moderator (not to mention the time limitations and the willingness of either or both adversary to break certain established rules).
Were the televised debates particularly valuable in establishing the virtues and vices of both sides of issues? I don't think we learned anything of great significance from any of the four meetings. You had moderators with clear biases, pre-established time limits that were more suggestive than required, important questions that were left out, meaningless questions that were left in.
The mother of all adversarial debate is trial court...how often has that format been perverted due to what the judge determined the jury was/wasn't allowed to hear? Or what some sleazy lawyer managed to sneak in the back door? Or how some jury member made his or her mind up before the case was heard and ignored all evidence that was at odds with his or her point-of-view? Or which side got the last word? Or which side presented the most memorable soundbites?
What I am saying is that the notion of a purely fair adversarial forum where both sides get equal time in a civilized point-counterpoint discussion is fantasy. It doesn't and cannot happen. And even if it could, there's no market for it. This is the part of free market capitalism that bothers some people...it trusts individuals to decide what they want to hear, as much or as little as they want to hear when they want to hear it. Fairness is essentially self-regulating. When people are given the freedom to decide for themselves, they will choose what they want to hear to the exclusion of what they don't. That means that some people are going to want to listen to Rush Limbaugh exclusively, while others will only watch Olbermann and/or Maddow. Others, like you, have the opportunity to listen to both sides of an issue in any number of forums...news channels, internet, even a wilfull decision to listen to Limbaugh and Ed Schultz. But there isn't a market demand for the format you allude to...otherwise that format would exist to your satisfaction. And I, for one, don't think there's anything wrong with that.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Fitz
February 2, 2009 - 19:53 ET by KC MulvilleI agree with your facts but not your conclusion. It doesn't exist now, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.
You see, I have an ace in the hole in this argument: Firing Line. For decades, Buckley did exactly what I asked. He offered a forum where a thinker could present his argument, find himself challenged but not attacked, and everyone walked away wiser. Also, when Buckley wrote an op-ed, he was frequently invited to debate the argument with some prominent liberal - an invitation he rarely turned down.
So, I deny that there is no market for what I'm looking for, because there was one. I enjoyed it and I miss it. But such a forum requires a Buckley; i.e., a graceful person who is willing to give the other side a fair hearing, and a fair challenge. I don't see any more Buckleys out there today.
I respectfully object to your notion that we're intellectually capitalist, because that's a slogan without a substance. That's borrowing the emotive approval of the word "capitalist" and exploiting it where it doesn't belong. There's no such thing as intellectual capitalism. What you're promoting is shielded ignorance and labeling it the result of the "free market." It sounds catchy but it's wrong.
After all, you're doing right now exactly what I want in the public conversation. I want the kind of engagement that you're doing right now. You read my argument, and you objected. Then you offered a counter-argument with reasons ... without shouting, without grandstanding ... and I'll testify that it offered more interesting conversation than if we both tried to flip off snarky comments. It forced me to be clearer, and to reflect on my own thoughts, for fear of saying something that you'd rip to shreds.
Why don't you want the public conversation to do the same?
KC,I don't recall saying
February 2, 2009 - 22:25 ET by fitzfongKC,
I don't recall saying that I didn't want public conversation to do the same. If I'm not mistaken, though, Firing Line was on PBS...taxpayer subsidized television does not equate to market demand. And while I have no doubts that it was a very informative program, I have to disagree that there was a significant market for it. Your anecdotal evidence aside, if there was a significant market for that kind of program, another vehicle besides public television would have been found for it. As one who grew up with PBS (including Firing Line) in the background, I am well aware how the programming was positioned as "quality television" or "high culture"...this positioning used the threat that such valuable programming was in imminent danger of going away as leverage during pledge drives and Congressional Budget negotiations. There was a constant drumbeat predicting something akin to the decline of Western Civilization if PBS didn't get its funding each year...as if the sun would stop coming up because we were deprived of watching Masterpiece Theatre, Ken Burns' documentaries or another Mark Russell "comedy" hour. The truth is that none of these programs, Firing Line included, would ever have survived in a free market (without the Keynesian pump priming, they may never have existed in the first place). Now, one may argue that they should exist, but that would require either a) a metamorphosis of popular thought leading to natural market demand or b) the general public having the fruits of their labor confiscated to subidize the tastes of a very limited audience. Should my priorities be such that I will endure Firing Line as a substitute to Rush Limbaugh? Maybe. But it's a hell of a lot easier to tax me to support the elevated forum that I won't watch than to attempt to change my personal tastes so that I will naturally gravitate to that elevated forum...and, in turn, make the elevated forum market relevant. So guess which route the government takes? This is the same logic that requires me to support Planned Parenthood and the National Endowment for the Arts (because the world can't live without "Piss Christ").
At the end of the day, there's a common misconception about what Rush Limbaugh's function is. Many seem to be under the impression that people seek Rush Limbaugh's program to gather information and form opinions...and that somehow he has an obligation to present "both sides" (and when you consider that there were a lot of Black and Hispanic liberals who voted for Obama and Prop 8, "both sides" becomes a bit of an elusive term). For the most part, people seek Rush Limbaugh not to form opinions, but to reinforce already established ones. Call it a support group for some, if you will. People listen to Rush Limbaugh because they have already formed opinions about a whole host of issues, they believe that their points-of-view are not properly reflected in other media and they want to hear an entertaining presentation from someone who shares significant aspects of their ideologies. And if Limbaugh makes some in Washington squirm (including those in his own party) by shedding light on some inconvenient truths, all the better.
And, by the way, I don't believe Michael Kinsley ever walked away from any discussion possessing more wisdom.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
You make a good case, fitz
February 3, 2009 - 00:58 ET by KC MulvilleSome people want Rush to put into words what they believe. OK, I'll buy that. After all, I listen 3 days a week or so - I enjoy when he does that, and he does it better than anyone. Rush isn't required to present both sides, but I don't know anywhere that does - and I wish someone would. If not Rush, someone else.
As for Firing Line ... yes it was public television, and I usually hate public television, but this was an exception.
On the other hand, let's be careful, fitz. You can't reason backward from what the media offers to prove what the public wants. That assumes that the media adequately reflects the people, and as NewsBusters will tell you, that's just not true. So when the media fails to offer reasonable conversation, that doesn't mean that people don't want it. Just because you have a supply doesn't prove that there's a demand.
The media gives us shows where snarky teenagers angst their way through life by wisecracking one-liners. Is that what America really wants? Or is that all that Hollywood can offer? The media sends us Ted Baxter newscasters who bloviate constantly. Is that what we really want, or is that all they can come up with? Sometimes the menu is determined by what the cook can cook than what the patrons really want to eat.
Wow, KC and Fitz.........
February 3, 2009 - 02:30 ET by old croThank you for showing how debate is done in the real world, without all the rancor and name calling demonstrated by the current MSM.
Thanks, OC. That means a
February 3, 2009 - 09:23 ET by fitzfongThanks, OC. That means a lot. :-)
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
KC, The "down side" to
February 3, 2009 - 09:19 ET by fitzfongKC,
The "down side" to free market capitalism is that when you trust individuals to make decisions for themselves, you have to accept that many aren't going to make the smart choices. If given the choice between wants and needs, many are naturally inclined to choose wants. As I see it, in understanding that natural tendency, the liberal is inclined to require a safety net to protect individuals who make bad choices from facing the full consequences of those choices...and that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide that safety net. This is why they push for universal health care, subsidies to the National Endowment for the Arts, abortion, "healthy" food in schools and fast food joints and, of course, PBS. Under those same circumstances, the conservative is inclined to allow individuals to make the bad choices and to absorb the full consequences of those choices, meanwhile those who make good choices are naturally rewarded...so that over time, individuals learn on their own to make the right choices (and if they don't learn, they will continue enduring the consequences).
While the downside to free market capitalism means that mindless rubbish often outlasts well written shows on television, given the right promotional vehicles, quality television has a natural market (if not mass appeal). For example, my wife and I are currently watching the show "Freaks & Geeks" via Netflix. I had always heard good things about the program, but I don't believe it made it for a full season. No doubt it was an expensive show to produce with an ensemble cast, music rights, etc. And NBC decided to cancel it after something like 18 episodes. Meanwhile, they promoted the hell out of Friends, which was also expensive to produce. Friends was a lousy, but popular show that enabled the producers to recoup much of their outlay with promotional tie-ins and to profit from the high ratings through expensive advertising. In all probability, there was a better distribution vehicle for Freaks & Geeks than NBC...perhaps a cable channel geared towards that audience (maybe a VH-1 Classic, A&E or something like that). Maybe they would have had to cut back on the production budget a little bit, but the show may very well have survived and thrived in that atmosphere when it didn't on NBC. And because cable/satellite television have added so many channels to the tier, there are virtually unlimited market segments to be catered to...meaning there probably is a natural market for a Firing Line. In essence, what the expansion of cable and satellite television has illustrated is that, in a relatively free market, individuals will voluntarily pay a premium to enable quality programming to be produced and aired...so you have the History Channel, A&E, the Discovery Channel, National Geographic and even some dramas and comedies on HBO. Somewhere in the free market, there's a place for Firing Line, you just might have to work a little harder (or pay a bit more) to find it. The audience won't be huge, but it will be concentrated...and your money won't be confiscated to produce and distribute what you don't want.
As an aside, I, too, know from the Jesuits. I attended a Jesuit college. :-)
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
I certainly agree
February 3, 2009 - 10:36 ET by KC MulvilleI certainly agree with your description of how liberals believe it's an obligation to prevent people from bad choices. That's a topic on which we could all write volumes. And I, for one, don't want a nanny.
I'd like to "revise and extend my remarks," as the politicians say. There is a lot of public discussion going on, but ironically, the public doesn't know about. It rarely gets on TV, except on C-Span. You usually have to go to the websites and watch a podcast to find it. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative outlet, and the Brookings Institution is a liberal counterpart. (For instance, the Brookings Institution has a debate coming up entitled, appropriately enough, "Does the Free Market Corrode Moral Character?" sometime in February. After it happens, I'm looking forward to see the video or transcript.) A couple years ago, Tim Russert hosted a debate at The Cooper Union between Mario Cuomo and Newt Gingrich. These programs are usually for college kids, policy wonks, and nutcases like me who enjoy this kind of thing. But they don't get an audience because they present them like classical music ... something that only stuffy people like.
So, that kind of public discussion is out there. There's an audience, but not on the networks or major media. It's in the small media. I guess I just don't see the value of having reasonable debate in the small media, but in the major media we have Olbermann and Larry King? It's like a party where the appetizers are beef and chicken, but the main course is potato chips and Cheetos.
If Rush Limbaugh participated in a fair debate with liberals, it would elevate reasonable discussion to the major media.
Only credit where credit is due, KC.......
February 2, 2009 - 03:31 ET by old croI've read you in action before. I myself, try to use humor in all parts of my life. It keeps me balanced and everything in perspective. I was tempted to reply with a monty python clip when you mentioned above of being an ex-Jesuit, but my respect for their training and learning culture overrode my first impulse. I do not "follow" Rush, but respect his intellect and I am greatly amused at most of his antics :)
Jesuit humor
February 2, 2009 - 10:11 ET by KC MulvilleNobody makes fun of Jesuits ... better than the Jesuits themselves, believe me. As for Rush, you said it perfectly. I enjoy him and respect him also, but I don't "follow" him.
Vapid news Bimbo
January 31, 2009 - 15:43 ET by SlyrrPlus, this vapid news bimbo must have felt 'safe' issuing this challenge.
1) She did it fresh off the heels of Rush announcing that he was taking a week's vacation and probably wouldn't respond to her 'challenge'.
2) She did it after Rush's show was over and after he had left, making doubly sure that Rush probably wouldn't respond to her 'challenge'.
3) She seems to have done it without Velshi's knowledge or input.
Now it's one thing for a person themselves to issue a 'challenge'. It's quite another for someone to issue a challenge in behalf of someone else. Note that this Brown Bimbo didn't have the courage, or the guts or the brains to offer to debate Rush HERSELF. But she feels perfectly comfortable propping up someone else and saying HE will do this 'debate'.
Yet more evidence (as if any were needed) that CNN has indeed jumped the shark. They are no longer a news organization. They're apologists for Obama. Spin doctors, propagandists, shills, all kinds of insulting and perfectly true terms apply to this once-respected channel which has become an international joke that just isn't funny.
It must have been Rush, who as usual can cut to the bone with a single sentence, saying this which caused Brown to run cowering behind her straw man 'economist'... 'You fit right in at CNN - disinformation, character assaults.'
Quoth Han Solo: 'It tell you, I must have hit pretty near the mark to get you hopping like this.'
The truth hurts Brown - you REALLY want to bring a shining beacon of it into your dank studios by having Rush actually show up? Have some guts woman - try debating him yourself instead of issuing 'challenges' in the name of other people.
Sly.... Amen to every
January 31, 2009 - 15:49 ET by bigtimerSly....
Amen to every wonderful word you posted.
Thanks. In tough economic
January 31, 2009 - 17:12 ET by SlyrrThanks. In tough economic times it's hard to wish for another business to fail. But I don't think anyone who truly loves this country will shed a tear to see CNN or MSNBC or NYT (or any of the others) go the way of the dinosaur.
This game is called "Let's
January 31, 2009 - 17:22 ET by motherbeltThis game is called "Let's you and him fight."
Noel, If Rush isn't
January 31, 2009 - 16:04 ET by R D HelmNoel,
If Rush isn't available, maybe you could go on CNN and debate this clown. After all, you have excellent command of the subject matter, and you can think on your feet.
Velshi and his DNC-generated mindless Obamaganda nonsense wouldn't stand a chance. :-)
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
I'd enjoy seeing Noel take on...
January 31, 2009 - 18:37 ET by JPR1Al Gore. Come on Noel throw down the glove. :-)
JPR1
February 1, 2009 - 02:07 ET by thebutlerdiditWhile he is no Noel, how about this guy? He trashed old Algore, and wasn't shy about it!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a18bbb18df8422d8340c4db2e8eb4388.1131&show_article=1&catnum=0
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Ali
January 31, 2009 - 16:32 ET by iveseenitallRush is right. Ali Velshi fits right in with the "jounalists" in the MSM. No research, no facts, no logic, no truth --- pure emotion! Ignorant "liberalism" is bliss.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Velshi is nothing more than
January 31, 2009 - 16:27 ET by d1carterVelshi is nothing more than a made-for-tv (CNN) personality who knows nothing about business. Why would a PHD want to debate a third grader on some debutante's little tv show?
Debate?
January 31, 2009 - 16:45 ET by blazermaniac"You may get what you wish for". If Campbell Brown wants these two gentlemen to debate, Mr. Velshi will get what is coming to him. And that is a lesson where one man (Rush) knows what is talking about and the other (Velshi) whom has no business being in the same area code as Rush Limbaugh. Mtr. Velshi would be totally out of his league. Rush is a "Major Leaguer". Mr. Velshi is a "Minor Leaguer".
"But what we don't need is
January 31, 2009 - 16:32 ET by ckc1227"But what we don't need is nasty rhetoric and useless noise. This
doesn't help anyone get a job or keep a job or feed their family."
Maybe not, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than wasting a $trillion dollars, which won't help anyone get a job either.
And by the way, Campbell, in regards to nasty rhetoric and useless noise....were you living in a cave the past 8 years? Or is it more likely you're a partisan hack posing as a journalist?
Speaking of nasty rhetoric
January 31, 2009 - 16:45 ET by MichelleCSpeaking of nasty rhetoric and useless noise, I suppose it hasn't occurred to Campbell the irony of saying this to Rush when people on her own station and others have called Rush a drug addict and made fun of his size (which isn't that big anyway).
And she gets upset because Rush says Velshi is incompetent? Sounds like a fact and not name-calling to me.
Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July. Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan
Amazing ck
January 31, 2009 - 16:59 ET by exLibGreat Point,
Amazing that for 8 years the left threw out every possible ad homenem attack on Bush and they didn't bat an eye.
Along comes their hero and he gets challenged his first week in office and it's CNN that has to come to his rescue?
Of course, as mentioned above, as long as Begala is employed by CNN no one on that station ccan complain about nasty rhetoric or useless noise.
Exactly, exL. The hypocrisy
January 31, 2009 - 18:30 ET by ckc1227Exactly, exL. The hypocrisy is astounding.
No bias no bull
January 31, 2009 - 16:32 ET by 10ksnookerJust jive talk.
Thats rich!
January 31, 2009 - 18:05 ET by charlietexasNo name calling coming form CNN...are you kidding me??? This woman is nuts. Theyve been calling Bush names for 8 years. What name did Rush call Ali???What does Dan Senor see in this woman??? I give up
MOM
Why thanks Campbell...
January 31, 2009 - 18:31 ET by JPR1"...but the histrionics and the name-calling, they undermine anything constructive you might have to say."
That explains why it's been so difficult these past eight years to find anything constructive in the liberal blather.
Funny thing is I didn't hear Rush call Velshi any names and I guess histronics must be in the eye of the beholder.
CAMPBELL SOUP
January 31, 2009 - 18:35 ET by FC DOBBSI HOPE RUSH TAKES UP THE CHALLENGE,
AND IF CAMPBELL INSISTS ON SITTING
IN THEN RUSH SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE
OF EITHER ANN COULTER OR GLENN BECK
TO BE IN HIS CORNER. NOT THAT HE
NEEDS ANYONE. I JUST WOULD LOVE SEEING
CAMPBELL'S PUSS.
"NOBODY PUTS ONE OVER ON FRED C DOBBS"
B.TRAVEN
I JUST WOULD LOVE SEEING CAMPBELL'S PUSS.
January 31, 2009 - 19:11 ET by R D HelmThat's just gross!
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Here is what a Democratic majority gets you
January 31, 2009 - 19:50 ET by AndanteRe:..."This is not the economy that Ronald Reagan ever saw or anybody with the last name Bush ever saw..."...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
A very special thank you to the MSM for getting this info out to the voters before the election.
God help America.
Yo Cambell
January 31, 2009 - 19:50 ET by GoodieBring it.....
O's Last Day 1-20-2013
Well before the challenge
January 31, 2009 - 19:54 ET by BuffNBoneWell before the challenge was issued, Rush announced (possibly last Wednesday) he would be on a golf outing all of the coming week. We need the record to note this before Campbell and CNN crew intimate he's a no show.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?
January 31, 2009 - 20:05 ET by Lord ErondIncredible, the sheer factual distortion going on from the MSM simply because they HAVE to lie for the annointed one. Anything to make the smallest improvement look wonderful. God I hate these liars.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
I find this amusing. How
January 31, 2009 - 20:13 ET by Clear thinkerI find this amusing.
How to win an argument #631.
Challenge someone you don't like to a debate. With someone else of course.
The Great American Con-Job
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I still can't see how those
January 31, 2009 - 21:47 ET by rbosqueI still can't see how those CNN morons can cheer for the Porculus given its idiotic contents. How can they be taken seriously by anyone? Who are they trying to fool besides the dopes that elected them?
One thing that really
January 31, 2009 - 23:00 ET by alamojbOne thing that really bothers me about the media reports on the economy is they seem to paint it in broad strokes. This thing varies a lot from State to State.
Wasn't it Reagan who said
January 31, 2009 - 23:06 ET by alamojbWasn't it Reagan who said something about 'Fifty experiments in Democracy"? so what is it looking like? who is better off than who?
Why should Rush Limbaugh
February 1, 2009 - 00:40 ET by maggieqpublicWhy should Rush Limbaugh debate on an outlet that would provide him the same courtesy that the ‘nets’ provided Sarah Palin?
(I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't even know that Campbell Brown has her own show if it weren't for Newsbusters.)
A more interesting question
February 1, 2009 - 00:50 ET by nwahsA more interesting question is would Rush debate under ANY circumstances or conditions. The answer is "no" because he's an act, not a mind.
I find it interesting that the mainstream media has given him so much attention in the the last year and a half. My gut feeling is they're hoping he collapses under the weight of his popularity.
nwahs
February 1, 2009 - 00:55 ET by RESTLESS 1"My gut feeling is they're hoping he collapses under the weight of his popularity."
Yeah, they've been hoping for that for 20+ years now.
"That one" is feeling like he has big balls now, and is going after Limbaugh. BIG mistake. Just like with Bush, you guys keep underestimating him, the whole while he is crushing you beneath your own ignorance.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Mega dittos
February 1, 2009 - 01:04 ET by nwahsMega dittos to ya
Nice,
February 1, 2009 - 01:53 ET by RESTLESS 1Got anything of value to add?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Its like championship wrestling
February 1, 2009 - 20:10 ET by nwahsI don't argue with avid Championship Wrestling fans either. If they think its real, hey, mega dittos to them.
I don't expect the mainstream media or the GOP leaders to think Championship Wrestling and Rush Limbaugh are anything more than a talented act.
Watch your leg, shawn
February 1, 2009 - 20:13 ET by choselife3xRestless is a boy, he's got better aim than I do. ;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
So...
February 1, 2009 - 20:14 ET by nwahsSo its NOT raining?
Sorry, dude
February 1, 2009 - 20:24 ET by choselife3xRain ain't warm in the winter time.
The only way to get through here unscathed is to strip and streak, shrieking like a banshee. You're gone before they get over the shock.
Good luck, grasshopper.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Gota admit
February 1, 2009 - 20:32 ET by nwahsHmmm, have to admit its been years since I've dont that :D
'Faint heart never won fair maiden'
February 1, 2009 - 20:37 ET by choselife3x;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
No guts no glory
February 1, 2009 - 20:53 ET by nwahsBut idiocy can be a turn off too! :) (I'm an expert)
Actually I didn't shriek, but bellowed in a manly way :*
Manly bellow, huh?
February 1, 2009 - 21:00 ET by choselife3xThrow in a chest thump and crush a beer can on your forehead, and BuxomAnnieMacGregor is all yours.
I'd throw Queen Mum in there too, but I like you.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Rush would do this if he
February 1, 2009 - 03:55 ET by NL207Rush would do this if he thought there was something in it for him.
As for debating this clown from CNN, compare the two minds. Rush will mop the floor with this jerk on any neutral ground, but be sure CNN would not permit the venue to be neutral. Ergo, no such debate will ever take place.
Why can't the GOP get
February 1, 2009 - 03:50 ET by mostlymoderateWhy can't the GOP get right-thinking individuals like Rush Limbaugh to guide the party? I certainly hope this new guy, Steele, has some of Limbaugh's qualities. If not, then I see the GOP dying a slow death. And for Pete's sake, NO MORE McCAIN-TYPE-POLITICIANS! To this day, I STILL think Romney could have beat Obama.
Honest to God, does
February 1, 2009 - 07:35 ET by RagnarDanneskjoldHonest to God, does anyone really watch cnn, and that dumb broad in particular, at all anymore?
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
As a sidebar, I've already
February 1, 2009 - 07:37 ET by Jack BauerIt could be organized by the MRC, and moderated by Bo Snurdley, just to be fair. Though I suspect Mr Velshi will have prior engagements till 2020.
Campbell must not really
February 1, 2009 - 14:47 ET by wiwfCampbell must not really listen to Rush. Anybody who listens to him knows he debates people every day on his show.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Velshi doesn't care about facts
February 1, 2009 - 20:43 ET by JGsezSending him an email does nothing even when you give him links so he can see why his statements are wrong . I had to do this post to stop his stupid statements about farmers substituting corn for wheat.
Velshi doesn't care about facts
February 1, 2009 - 20:43 ET by JGsezSending him an email does nothing even when you give him links so he can see why his statements are wrong . I had to do this post to stop his stupid statements about farmers substituting corn for wheat.
Bimbo Alert
February 2, 2009 - 09:37 ET by sguild2Ahh...Campbell Brown...No Bias, No Bull, No Brains. She just wants Rush to provide her miserable show with enough ratings to register on the Nielsen scale.