Terry Gross, the female Philadelphia-based host of the National Public Radio show Fresh Air, notoriously tangled with Bill O’Reilly in 2003 by asking O'Reilly to respond to Al Franken's attacks on him (two weeks after a giggly interview with Franken himself). A July 1 interview with Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz on the (apparently hopeless) state of the Republican Party caused her to pick up the left-wing bloggers’ attack on Rush Limbaugh as someone who says "extreme wild things" and damages the GOP:
GROSS: You know, I always wonder what Republicans -- and I know you can't really generalize here because every Republican is different -- but what Republicans think of right wing talk radio and TV. Take Rush Limbaugh, for instance. He says some pretty extreme wild things. He's not running for office. He's not taking responsibility for running the country. He's, I mean, he's a talk show host and what he needs is an audience and ratings and saying extreme things is very good for getting audience and ratings.
Let me give you an example of one of the things that he said lately in relation to Mark Sanford's affair. He said, oh, this is almost like, I don't give a damn. And he's talking about what Sanford might be thinking, you know, this is almost like I don't give a damn. Country's going to hell in a hand basket. I just want out of here. He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle and said what the hell, the federal government is taking over. I want to enjoy life. So, he's basically blaming the federal government and President Obama for an affair that started before Obama was even president. I mean, that's just a small example of...
BALZ: Well, it's, I mean...
GROSS: ...what he said, but knowing that it's a talk show host's job to get ratings and not win elections, do you think the Republican Party -- that a lot of people in the Republic Party see Rush Limbaugh and other right wing talk show hosts who say extreme things as being helpful to them or harmful to them?
BALZ: Well, the role of radio talk show host, whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, any number them, has been an essential part of how the Republicans have expanded their voice, their message and their appeal and energized at least a part of the population. I think most Republican office holders see them as they are, which is that they speak to a part of the base. They do it sometimes in ways that are outrageous that elected officials can't get away with. But again, they're not prepared to take them on, they've got to work around them.
Most of the people who want to be leaders of the Republican Party don't want to get into an argument with somebody who has an audience as big as Rush Limbaugh's and we've seen numerous examples of that. On the other hand, most smart Republicans don't think you can get elected president of the United States by speaking the way Rush Limbaugh does. But Rush, you know, the Rush Limbaugh, you know, gives demoralized Republicans, you know, some energy.
Balz didn't give Gross the answer she was looking for: hot conservative talk radio harms the GOP. Limbaugh did stretch on this topic – most Republicans don’t think you can lay the blame for Sanford’s adultery on being politically demoralized in the Age of Obama. But hosts on NPR somehow think that they can lob bombs at conservative talk radio and still be considered the soft-spoken "mainstream." It turns out this isn’t the only time in recent weeks Gross has raised Limbaugh as extreme. On June 18, she welcomed hard-left "hate group" researcher Chip Berlet to assess Rush:
GROSS: Now, Rush Limbaugh blamed the murder of Stephen Johns, the Holocaust Museum guard, he blamed that murder on the left.
BERLET: Right.
GROSS: What logic is he using there?
BERLET: He's using a logic that developed in the 1920s, 1930s, when early analysts looked at Hitler's Nazi movement, which was the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and they recognized, actually true, that both Italian fascism and German Nazism came out of a group of socialist ideas who wedded it to nationalism.
What they neglected to then analyze was that once it formed into a major mass movement, it deleted all of the socialist aspects except for what the right wing would call collectivism, the idea that the state was imposing collective decisions.
That later became known as totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt wrote brilliantly about how it could be seen in both Hitler and Stalin, and what's happened is that these right-wing pundits and a whole lot of right-wing libertarians argue that Hitler, therefore, was a leftist because he was a collectivist and he came out of this socialist grouping.
Now, most major scholars of fascism today look at it and say, okay, there were socialist roots, but it turned into something else. And that when it gained state power or sought state power, it basically worked with the political right.
So you know, what we have here is an attempt to take a very marginal political viewpoint about fascism being a left-wing phenomena, and since Von Brunn was a national socialist, he was a neo-Nazi, therefore it's a leftist outlook. But it simply reduces 50, 60, 70 years of social science and brushes it aside and imposes this very narrow view from the '30s and '40s.
GROSS: Does this explain, in part, why people on the far right have been calling President Obama a fascist and a socialist and almost using the words interchangeably?
BERLET: Exactly. And in fact it goes back, really, in terms of a public accusation, to the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt because, of course, he was, in building a larger government role in American society, which was seen and identified at the time as collectivist - and you had really the earliest coalition of right-wing economic libertarians, like von Mises and others, with a Christian-right movement, which felt that FDR was imposing a kind of collectivism and socialism that was identical to fascism in Italy and Germany, which would strip away from America its manly ability to stand up and be God's country.
Even Gross’s substitute hosts get into the act. On November 10, 2008, regular substitute host Dave Davies talked with New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick:
DAVIES: So the high right, are those in the kind of intellectual think tanks, something like with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and the low right is who, Rush Limbaugh?
KIRKPATRICK: Rush Limbaugh. Yeah. There were -- you know, an easy way to draw the line is Sarah Palin. The low right loves her, and the high right is embarrassed by her.
It’s sad that Rush Limbaugh’s tax dollars are going to NPR so he can be attacked from that subsidized liberal sandbox.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Sarah Palin. The low right
July 10, 2009 - 16:59 ET by nolotrippen"Sarah Palin. The low right loves her, and the high right is embarrassed by her."
I must be the low right. Oh, I know I'm college edjumacated and I still have all my teeth and I run my own business and I don't have a Confederate bumper sticker, but dadgummit, I must be low.
And I suppose the high right is guys like Colin Powell and the Cap and Trade 8.
Give me more low rights any day. As for Limbaugh saying "extereme wild things," he could order a ham sandwich and the NPR crowd would find something racist, sexist, and homophobic about it (especially if he 86'd the mayo).
jessieH
July 10, 2009 - 17:16 ET by jessieHjessieH I'll bet the 'high" right love her too.
This is truly the equivalent
July 10, 2009 - 17:16 ET by d1carterThis is truly the equivalent to Pravda. Why do we keep paying for this tripe?
Rush Limbaugh
July 10, 2009 - 17:21 ET by blytheexI listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. He is a breath of REAL fresh air. I miss him this week. But I digress, I have learned more from Rush Limbaugh about how to be an Independent person in every phase of my life. I learned to make things happen for myself.
I listened to NPR for many years and did not learn anything that I can remember.
It is not a error in polls that they find out that the Rush audience is more informed than most folks. As to the things he says that you think that he does for ratings, that just sounds so rediculous to me. This man HAS the ratings. He HAS people that love him. He doesn't have to make up anything to get them, he just has to be Rush. He is just an honest guy who lets us be part of his life.
I know this must see odd to many people but to me, he is the Best.
I'm wondering when Terry
July 10, 2009 - 17:22 ET by hydrodynDMI'm wondering when Terry Gross will bring up the topic of whether Ed Shultz helps or hurts the Democrat Party.
Yea, I'm guessing never.
Rush Limbaugh Does Not Make "Wild Comments"
July 10, 2009 - 17:30 ET by reasonsjesterAs anyone with any commonsense knows, Rush Limbaugh does not make wild accusations. He uses satire and demonstrating the absurd by being absurd to expose liberals for who they are. The liberal elitists neither understand this mockery by this conservative "rube" nor can they tolerate such mockery on the rare occasions when they do get it. That is why Rush is in their cross-hairs.
pointvcounterpoint.com
Terry, Terry, Terry
July 10, 2009 - 17:54 ET by CaringwhiteguyTerry - you should know better than to start a conversation including mention of Limbaugh's ratings. Someone on the right (probably an extremist knuckle dragging rube, someone on the low right) might think to suggest people compare Limbaugh's ratings with your own.
Democrats---last when it comes to class
July 10, 2009 - 18:01 ET by RousseHigh Right? Low Right? Oh yeah. I keep forgetting that it is the Democrats who are obsessed with "class."
Too bad about Limbaugh, you know. He's not "cultured" enough for the Left. He knows a lot about history and the government, but hey! He's not a politician or a newsman---so his opinion is dangerous.
Too bad about Palin, you know. She's not classy enough for the Left. So they'll keep bashing her and beating up on her, and throwing rocks at her head until they can insist that she's too damaged by all the bad publicity to effectively hold office.
Terry Gross...yuck
July 10, 2009 - 18:10 ET by JnobleThis woman is the poster child for elitist lib snob who's not nearly as smart as she thinks she is. The type that you'd see in Starbucks with a 9 dollar coffee looking down her nose at someone while going on about the importance of purchasing only "green" products or some such trendy BS
How amusing, I've never
July 10, 2009 - 18:17 ET by bigtimerHow amusing, I've never heard of this tax-paid Gross....she can only dream on with what she wishes she had for an audience, along with the rest of the crew in the story, and I am including Balz...
They have been trying to shut Rush up since the Clintoon gang took over...they really should wave a white flag, because it is never going to happen.
BALZ: Well, the role of radio talk show host, whether it's Rush
Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, any number them, has been an essential part
of how the Republicans have expanded their voice, their message and
their appeal and energized at least a part of the population. I think
most Republican office holders see them as they are, which is that they
speak to a part of the base. They do it sometimes in ways that are
outrageous that elected officials can't get away with. But again,
they're not prepared to take them on, they've got to work around them.
Yeah, right Dan, this is not true if it's the dems, they can get away with it all the time...as to the majority of the repubs, they need to grow a spine if the want to win, let alone get a point across without being wussified by the msm talking heads.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Where are Terry's ratings?
July 10, 2009 - 18:29 ET by Arminius"He's, I mean, he's a talk show host and what he needs is an audience and ratings and saying extreme things is very good for getting audience and ratings."
Gross says far more extreme things than Limbaugh, yet if not for a government subsidy, she would be unemployed as a talk show hostess.
Maybe she is pissed, because
July 10, 2009 - 18:31 ET by kangarooMaybe she is pissed, because Rush is on loan from God, and is right 99.1% of the time. Lovable little fuzzball that he is.
Absolutely false statement
July 10, 2009 - 18:32 ET by Arminius"What they neglected to then analyze was that once it formed into a major mass movement, it deleted all of the socialist aspects except for what the right wing would call collectivism, the idea that the state was imposing collective decisions."
Not true. See Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism."
Interestingly enough, isn't
July 10, 2009 - 19:24 ET by ThatDudeInterestingly enough, isn't collectivism the most basic form of leftist ideology? Similarly, right wing ideology is most basically summed up as individualism. I dont understand the argument here. Collectivism is the root of socialism which in turn relies on fascism in order to retain control. Far right wing would be anarchy (though human nature would turn that to totalitarianism or the likes). At some point I would like to have an honest debate with a liberal over what each side truly stands for (ignoring the parties that only vaguely resemble the core ideologies.)
No Right/Left
July 10, 2009 - 18:47 ET by Ten7s"
Bingo! He should have quit while he was ahead.
Wrong! Socialism IS a type of collectivism. Nazism is National Socialism. Communism is like Nazism, but for its global focus.
To argue over Left and Right Collectivisms is to fret over a false dichotomy; essentially all collectivisms lead to the same place. American Conservatives reject ALL Collectivisms.
There aren't any "right-wing pundits" to speak of b/c there isn't a "right-wing", except for people like this cretin who killed someone at the holocaust museam. And those people are very much like Liberals, and have absolutely nothing in common with American Conservatives, falsely label "right-wing".
That's patently absurd. You can't have Collectivism w/o State power. Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, whatever you choose to call your Collectivism cannot exist w/o State power.
No, some of Obama's policies are fascistic, like taking over auto companies. Some are socialistic, like that curse also known as "the Stimulus Package".
Now, most major scholars of
July 10, 2009 - 19:48 ET by RR GOPNow, most major scholars of fascism today look at it and say, okay,
there were socialist roots, but it turned into something else. And that
when it gained state power or sought state power, it basically worked
with the political right.
How much you wanna bet that those 'scholars of fascism' are themselves Communists?
I've learned to be very suspicious and critical when reading historical accounts especially when dealing with early Twentieth Century Europe.
Note that we were allied with the Communists and not the Fascists. My take on it is that the PTB in America were already leaning mostly to the left and besides, Hitler and Mussolini had no place in the NWO and had to be taken out. These movements were offshoots of Marxism and the philosophies that preceeded Marx. The Leftists didn't like them for a number of reasons but if one compares them to the Soviet model especially the Muscovite/Russian racist aspects they actually had a lot in common. The Soviets did a better PR job of convincing Liberal suckers that they were against racism and were down for the common Man.
Fortunately, Stalin's activities did much to disillusion and damage Communism over here and in other democracies. In fact, even Hitler admired Stalin.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Yes, I found that odd too - scholars of fascism - oh do shut up.
July 11, 2009 - 06:16 ET by JWFI am not a scholar of fascism. I have picked most of it up on my own.
Here is what I have learned. The political scale is about the amount of governmental control. At the far left is total government in all aspects of life >>> 100% government. At the far right is as little government as possible without breaking into anarchy >>> 1% government. Anarchy is the complete absence of government - no politicians, no politics, no political scale. Anarchy cannot be on the political scale. Besides, only teenage boys and the sex pistols are calling for anarchy.
At the far left of the scale, we have all the nasty types of government that wield huge amounts of control - Communism. Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Statism, Totalitarianism, Despotism, Authoritarian, Dictatorship, and Absolute Monarchy.
Somewhere in the middle to right, we have Democracy (rule of many), Republicanism (rule of law). We are a democratic republic. We have the rule of law (constitution) and we elect our leaders.
On the far right, we have Libertarianism, and the old wild west of moviedom.
Capitalism is not a form of government. Capitalism is about individiduals controlling trade and industry rather than the state. There would be no capitalism under governments that control all as the entire economy would be state run. So capitalism is by nature a creature of the right.
The entire world was enthralled with marxism/socialism at the turn of the 20th century. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Fairness for all. It seemed like a good idea and it had not yet failed. I like RR GOP's take. Hitler was militantly expansionist and had to be taken out for that reason, Mussolini picked the wrong side. We allied reluctantly with Stalin. I think no one really liked him. But we had our hands full trying to take on Hitler and Japan at the same time. We were right not to trust Stalin as he was expansionist too.
But the middle of the 20th century, the shine started to fall of marxism and it's offshoots. It allows a very few to gain immense power. The productive lose incentive to produce as all of the fruits of their labor is taken away. The nonproductive have no incentive to produce as they already get a free check.
By the end of the 20th century, the mask of marxism had completely fallen off. Socialist states were collapsing everywhere and results of socialism were shown to be catastrophic. The only success of communism was the propaganda. That pill will be around a long time. Yes, Liberal suckers still gobble up the soviet baby gerber food that was soviet propaganda and come to spew it here.
Here is what is absolutely bizarre -
What. Wait. What. Huh? Hitler came with the NAZI party, a socialist party with socialist points in its socialist charter. Socialism wields total control over the economy (see above). So they are saying he gained power, (through a rein of terror once he gained chancellor) dissolved the parliament, shot all the communists, outlawed pretty much every freedom guaranteed by our 1st ten amendments, outlawed any party but the Nazi party, set up concentration camps, got an emergency decree that gave him law making powers, sprang all his nazi thugs from jail, and then had himself made dictator under the new parliament.
After all this, all of it, we are now to believe Hitler made a big sudden jump to the right where the constitution lies? Give me a friggin' break. Horsepoo. Propagandistic horsepoo. Do you think we are that friggin stupid?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Anyone want to compare.
July 10, 2009 - 20:00 ET by pbthinkerI would put anything and everything Rush Limbaugh says against anything and everything that Randy Rhodes and Al Franken said, when they were Air America hosts. The trouble with all of this, NPR never, ever, thought to call this stuff hate speech. They never once thought to talk about how disruptive this was to the country. No, NPR is just another part of the media wing of the Democratic Party.
I hope Republicans are taking notes. After the 2010 elections, they can go in there and make the laws they wanted to make before but were too afraid of being called extremists, etc. These Democrats and Liberals are just going wild, trying to consolidate their power, and I'd just love to see the Republicans do something just a little crazy, when they take over. Call up the Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and demand that he put some Conservative voices on the air. Start telling those Democrats they have no input on bills, even though their was a large percentage of the population that voted for them.
Just like the liberal press, the Democrats and Obama feel they don't need the 48 percent of the people that didn't vote for them. Let them eat cake after 2010.
Republicans, get your acts together and take notes, it's almost time to govern. If you do it right, this time, you'll be in office for a long time. If you do it, like you did for 6 years of the Bush Administration, you'll be in exile once again.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
NPR is grossly misleading
July 10, 2009 - 21:17 ET by TN MomGROSS: You know, I always wonder what Republicans -- and I know you can't really generalize here because every Republican is different -- but what Republicans think of right wing talk radio and TV. Take Rush Limbaugh, for instance. He says some pretty extreme wild things. He's not running for office. He's not taking responsibility for running the country
Extreme Liberals Who Say Extreme Things for Ratings/Money:
Up next, NPR's Gross will ridicule Jerimiah Wright, TERRORIST Bill Ayers, Al Gore, Chris Matthews (MSNBC), ACORN, Al Sharpton, ACLU, Media Matters....
...La Raza....Eric Holder,
July 10, 2009 - 21:25 ET by bigtimer...La Raza....Eric Holder, Carol Browner...
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt
July 10, 2009 - 21:35 ET by TN MomWe forgot about Barack Obama...
The federal government's most secure prison has determined that two books written by President Barack Obama contain material "potentially detrimental to national security" and rejected an inmate's request to read them.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is serving a 30-year sentence at the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colo., for joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate then-President George W. Bush. Last year, Abu Ali requested two books written by Obama: "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope."
But prison officials, citing guidance from the FBI, determined that passages in both books contain information that could damage national security.
(jammiewearingfool.com)
For Children Only
July 10, 2009 - 21:38 ET by TN MomOh, and, didn't Barack Obama sign a deal with a publisher (2 days before innuaguration) to make one of his books into a Children's Book??!!?!?
Look for the FBI to show up at Christmas to raid the kids gifts looking for the book...
Hey T-Mom... That is very
July 10, 2009 - 21:40 ET by bigtimerHey T-Mom...
That is very interesting info.....well heck, at least they can still get Malcolm X I suppose.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt
July 10, 2009 - 21:55 ET by TN MomWell, the good news is the little children will be ok. With our public education (epic fail), they can't read anyway.
Just look at California: Highest paid teachers in the country; students rank 2nd (test scores) from bottom. Obama & Dems killed all hope (funding) of getting these students in a Voucher Program.
Is it just me???
July 10, 2009 - 21:53 ET by DoktorFrankenOr does this Gross person make no sense at all when she speaks?
Example:
''Let me give you an example of one of the things that he said lately in relation to Mark Sanford's affair. He said, oh, this is almost like, I don't give a damn. And he's talking about what Sanford might be thinking, you know, this is almost like I don't give a damn. Country's going to hell in a hand basket. I just want out of here. He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle and said what the hell, the federal government is taking over. I want to enjoy life. So, he's basically blaming the federal government and President Obama for an affair that started before Obama was even president. I mean, that's
just a small example of...''
A small example of - rambling insanity??? Take your meds, hon, with plenty of alchohol.
If there was ever proof
July 10, 2009 - 23:42 ET by IamTinmanIf there was ever proof that saying extreme wild things does NOT get an audience and high ratings, Terry Cross is it!
Her low rated show on a station in deep trouble would come in third in a two way race.
Rush gets his ratings because people want to hear what he has to say.
Jealous!!
July 11, 2009 - 03:01 ET by sic721Every liberal radio talk show host, while keeping in mind Rush's ratings and salary: "Awww, who needs 'em, those grapes are probably sour, anyway."
'Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' —George Orwell
so how can you consider a
July 11, 2009 - 03:24 ET by GeronLso how can you consider a socialist, collectivist, centralized power, anti-Christian bigot like Hitler to be on the "right"??
Never answered that
it deleted all of the
July 11, 2009 - 06:35 ET by Jack BauerOh sure they deleted all socialist aspects EXCEPT... collectivism, the idea that the state was imposing collective decisions.
Which is like saying Dracula deleted all vampirist aspects EXCEPT for drinking blood and killing people.
Memo to BERLET -- once you have the state imposing collective decisions YOU HAVE IT ALL.
You inevitably get a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot. And some arcane dissertation of the political differences of how you get to the labor camps, the liquidation of your opponents, et al is frackin' irreleavnt in the grandiose scheme of things.
And it happens real fast too. 1933-1939 --just six years to World War and the extermination of the Jews. Pol Pot to the killing fields in two years.
These crazy leftists really think the rest of us are DUMB.
These people don't listen to themselves.
July 11, 2009 - 06:53 ET by JWFI think they start with this noble (for them) idea that the collective decisions coming from the state will be fair and just for all - a unicorn in every barn, buttered puppies in every basket, free candy for the little 'uns, skittles falling from the sky like rain.
I listed some of the nastiness Hitler threw out there once he became chancellor in a post above. I have yet to hear of one german talking about the buttered puppies among Hitlers proclamations when he made his collective decisions.
Oh, by the way, I see posts here in a article about Hitler. Rational posts. Why is that? No more Uncle Jer.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Liberal tolerance on
July 11, 2009 - 14:00 ET by wiwfLiberal tolerance on parade.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy