The “Limbaugh effect” on the MSM
[Posted by Karl]
National Review’s Jim Geraghty recently noted that some on the right are too quick to jump on the establishment media’s bias as “an excuse for when their preferred candidates and advocates just don’t get the job done and fail to win over persuadable voters.” After all, media bias is rarely the decisive factor between victory and defeat, the establishment media is not quite as powerful as it was in decades past, and complaints about media bias give off a whiff of victimhood unlikely to move voters in the mushy middle. It is a useful reminder, but it increasingly seems like it is the establishment media that needs a similar reminder.
If you are a news junkie, scarcely a week goes by without seeing those in the establishment media — in anything from an Andrew Sullivan screed to a tweet from Associated Press national politics and elections reporter Phil Elliott — suggesting that the yokels in flyover country are soaking up misinformation from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and conservative pundits generally. It would be a convenient excuse for the Democrats’ midterm losses, but it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.
The reality is that the establishment media still reaches a much larger audience than conservative media does. Moreover, according to the Pew Research Center for People & the Press, Rush Limbaugh’s audience is among the most well-informed of any media outlet, and Fox News viewers are slightly better informed than those of its competitors on cable and broadcast television. However, it is notable that the same Pew data shows that the conservative media audience is overwhelmingly conservative. The establishment media’s audience is not only larger, but also much more politically diverse.
If conservative media had the influence many in the establishment media believe it does, how did Republicans lose Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008? Limbaugh and FNC were both on the air throughout the period. They would be considered a constant in the equation. Thus, the failing fortunes of the Obama administration and Congressional Dems must be largely attributable to other factors.
If a majority of Americans think Obama’s policies are moving the country toward socialism, it’s not just because Rush Limbaugh says so, let alone Jonah Goldberg or Stanley Kurtz. Indeed, columnists like Janet Daley and Anne Applebaum have recently noted that the Obama administration has been pushing this country in the direction of Euro-socialism (esp. on healthcare) at the same time that Europe is being forced away from it — but I doubt they are merely parroting Limbaugh and FNC, any more than the average bar patron in Ohio is regularly reading Daley or Applebaum. Rather, people in the mushy middle are still largely making their political decisions based on their personal observations of the world around them and the information they get from the establishment media.
The “Limbaugh effect,” if any, is not primarily observed among the benighted proles in the vast wasteland between the progresive meccas of America’s coasts. Instead, it can be seen in a fairly broad swath of the establishment media, which has leapt on claims of media bias with a sudden vengeance, despite the conservative media being less powerful and influential than the establishment media. As such, the whiff of victimhood from the establishment media proves even more malodorous.
–Karl
Karl
Seems like they chickens are coming home to roost – what little hold they (the MSM) had on the middle earth of TV viewers is getting caught up in the inferno of populist conservativism (fiscally anyway) that swept and is still sweeping their core viewers that frequent their advertisers
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/3/2010 @ 2:42 pmSorry, seems like the chickens are coming home to roost
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/3/2010 @ 2:43 pmThank god Karl is back. Nice article.
Torquemada (15521c) — 12/3/2010 @ 2:45 pmIt’s interesting how the same people say that socialism is not the same as communism, but rather just European style government, and then freak when people note that Obama is that sort of socialist.
Thanks for another exhaustive post, Karl.
I wish the ‘establishment’ MSM was of no consequence anymore, but I guess that’s wishful thinking. the democrats aren’t losing power because America agrees with Rush Limbaugh, but rather because the government’s performance sucks and more and more people are miserable.
These people who elected Obama by the tens of millions would do it again if he performed (which I realize, is difficult given his promises being impossible in some cases).
But this is a bit of a warning to conservatives not to overplay their hand. I’d love it if my country came to her senses on limited government, but that’s not exactly the case yet.
Dustin (Actual) (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 3:00 pmWhat I dislike is how many people react to the name “Rush Limbaugh” or to “Fox News” who have never bothered to listen or watch. I don’t know how the fact that Limbaugh’s audience is the most well informed could be communicated to the public at large, as I don’t think you’ll find that in the NYT or MSNBC, etc.
The first time I stumbled upon Rush was when he was running an extended clip of a Senate debate. As usual, the limited clip in the MSM led to the opposite conclusion than what was accurate when listening to the extended clip. Self-imposed propaganda from the MSM.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/3/2010 @ 3:04 pmYou are correct MD in Philly…..the media has slanted many AMericans to dislike Rush anytime his name is mentioned.
Must read a book out about Americans taking a stand against media control & corrupt politicians cause it’s about each of us. I recommend it cause it’s a powerful read about taking a stand.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
It’s a perfect example of how our media continues it’s mind control (a phrase I didn’t used to believe in but it’s real) on American. Good article. Thanks
WhiteSnow (85dc17) — 12/3/2010 @ 3:46 pmI think it’s time to stop the lies.
Tman (9df40f) — 12/3/2010 @ 3:49 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyCHV3DSQZE
tman, public sector unions are an offense to our way of life.
Dustin (Actual) (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 3:51 pmI first noticed the discrepancy between the actual event and the media representation of that event in the Army – McCarthy Hearings. I was in high school and the “A” students were allowed to go home and watch the hearings. In return, we were to produce a paper for our two afternoon classes – History and English. What I watched for a bit over three hours a day was not what I saw on the nightly news or read in the New York Times the following day. With the internet and bloggers, the MSM cannot get away with what they routinely pulled since the 1950’s. Although, they still try.
Longwalker (996c34) — 12/3/2010 @ 3:57 pmHow many times do you make a reasoned comment in a thread somewhere, and the comeback is “You are brainwashed by Fox,” or “You dittoheads …” or the like? It’s extremely common. It’s a kneejerk reaction from lefties who don’t want to engage your argument. They don’t really care about how you came to your points, it’s just a thoughtless insincere ad hominem attack.
Then they berate the pols and the citizens alike for “refusing to work together,” “divisiveness,” and “partisanship.”
gp (a7eb74) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:00 pmThe Limbaugh effect is well known.
Tman (9df40f) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:02 pmhttp://www.apj.us/index.php?Itemid=2&task=view&option=com_content&id=1614
I don’t watch the Fox News or listen to the Rush Limbaugh and I think our little country has become a shamefully oppressive dirty socialist backwater.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:04 pmSo is the SEIU effect, Tman.
Dustin (Actual) (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:04 pmMost people I know do not listen to people like Rush or Olbermann either one.
And to be honest, while I often agree with Rush and I do think he can be very funny, a little bit goes a long way. The same is true with Hannity and Beck..so I think those guys tend to preach to the choir and the same is true with their counterparts on the left.
Average people do not want to spend hours a day listening to political discourse, and they often times do not believe a lot of what they hear when they do listen.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:13 pm#
I first noticed the discrepancy between the actual event and the media representation of that event in the Army – McCarthy Hearings. I was in high school and the “A” students were allowed to go home and watch the hearings. In return, we were to produce a paper for our two afternoon classes – History and English. What I watched for a bit over three hours a day was not what I saw on the nightly news or read in the New York Times the following day. With the internet and bloggers, the MSM cannot get away with what they routinely pulled since the 1950′s. Although, they still try.
Comment by Longwalker — 12/3/2010 @ 3:57 pm
I first noticed it back during the 80s during the farm crisis when I was farming. I would listen to these nimrods on the news yak about agriculture and I thought to myself If they are as stupid about everything else as they are farming then there is no point in taking them serious.
I think this is why a lot of people seem uninformed, they are in fact cynical and disinterested. And even Fox has a bias, it would be silly not to see it.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:16 pmYou don’t really have a choice in it, it’s in the papers, in the television, the Minitrue bulletin
narciso (9d0688) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:19 pmeven in the middle of a Rush episode, at least Rush is more honest, about what he’s trying to do, and of course, said memes never make it to this humble
abode
And, I still haven’t met anyone who voted for Richard Nixon in ’72.
Pauline Kael (b8ab92) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:19 pm@Terrye I catch Rush maybe once a month when I happen to be in the car. I’d tell him (not that he has any good reason to listen) first to dial down the mock pomposity shtick, because it is offputting to folks who don’t “get it,” and maybe that loses him some influence outside the choir. Second, I’d suggest doing only one or two hours a day instead of three hours, because lately he seems to be disorganized and unprepared, often at a loss for something to say. Shorter programs would allow better prep.
But he is indisputably THE talk radio expert, and I’m just talking out my ass.
gp (a7eb74) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:34 pmExactly.
A Rush listener does not delude himself into pretending Rush is objective about matters that are strictly subjective.
When Maddow says ‘we’re a news organization’ she is attempting to deceive people. When people accept the talking heads on NBC as objective, because they pretend they are, they are being fools.
Not so for the Rush listener or the typical blog reader.
Terrye’s right that most folks have other things to concern themselves with than politics, day in and day out, though I think all Americans should be pretty interested in the urgency of getting our government under control. Just cause I want something doesn’t make it so.
I have to laugh at blatant propaganda attempts from bitterly partisan outfits like Tman’s union video. Anyone else catch the carlust discussion of the Vega? These people can’t be trusted to build a car without sabotaging it, let alone trusted on partisan political matters.
Dustin (Actual) (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:38 pmWhen there was a distinct media bias through the three networks Americans somehow kept leaning center right. 24 hour cable and the many pundits we see now were nowhere on the horizon. The pundits that you did see such as Buckley and others had an ability to discuss the issues in-depth which is not the case with most tv personalities now. I think a better read citizenry was the reason for the pushback against the bias. Fast forward to today and I think it is safe to say that the level/frequency of reading has declined. Better informed as Karl described probably has to do more with a willingness to read in addition to listening to radio/watching tv but that is just a guess.
vor2 (8c3b9a) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:38 pmLimbaugh’s fundamental ideas about conservatism are not that different from what I think. But I don’t listen to him (I do read about what he says and for a time watched his tv show in the nineties) or watch the other pundits with two exceptions; Fox All Stars and ABC Sunday Roundtable (Christine A sucks eggs but George Will, Cokie Roberts, Donna Brazille and the occasional Sam Donaldson appearance make for interesting dialogue). Other than that I stick to reading a variety of sources with which to form my opinion.
I don’t care for Limbaugh and others mainly because there are only so many ways an entertainer can package an ideology before they have to resort to some kind of schtick. Coulter and Olbermann are two people that come to mind that take it to the extreme. Their antic becomes the story rather than what they are trying to advocate. Rush does this at times at well.
What I get irritated about irt Limbaugh is when people will start off some opinion with “Rush says” and offer little else as to how that lines up with their personal views. Offer even a framework of why some people feel differently and these same people go with the “I won’t listen/read them because they are leftie bastards” or some such thing. At that point I change the subject – pointless to even discuss things with people too afraid to even read or listen to an opposing viewpoint. To be fair I doubt most of the Limbaugh regulars behave like that. Just a pet peeve of mine about the ones who do.
Call me an empiricist, but if they are going to accuse Limbaugh, FoxNews et. al. of spreading disinformation, shouldn’t they be able to produce examples of deliberately false stories that Limbaugh, FoxNews et. al. have propagated?
Gregory of Yardale (a84c5d) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:38 pmNo offense, but this is true.
He has to be pompous because a lukewarm attitude is less likely to win him a massive audience (which is his primary objective as it sells ads and makes his business more profitable).
I agree a lot of people don’t realize he’s joking about his self-praise for a while, but that creates some kind of ‘we get it’ mentality among his loyal listeners. The 3 hours are there before he can sell that many ads.
If Rush’s mission is to change the hearts and minds of the undecided voter, he is an abject failure. But my take is that he holds those people in lower regard than he holds liberals.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:41 pmRush takes parts from all sorts, Taranto, the Journal, he subjects the pablum that the press provides, (ie; todays vapid interview of Goolsbee, and his defense of unemployment as the economic stimulus, by Savannah Guthrie,) and filet’s it properly. He does it generally with good cheer.
Beck is similar, on the radio show, but he does have
narciso (9d0688) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:45 pmthis Howard Beale fixation, that drives me up the wall sometimes
Rush doesn’t attempt to make believe he is anything but what he is: An unwavering conservative. Period. He is not the least bit interested in compromise or reaching across the aisle.
Between his unwavering stand and schtick, he offends deeply. But the people he offends are those who don’t get the inside joke and take it personally, and are those who believe conservatives needs to slide center to make things work kumbyah style.
I have heard oodles of rants against him first attacking his physicality (overweight), drug use, wealth and then maybe, his conservatism. Most don’t seem to have a good understanding of his political philosophies and underpinnings. To first be informed before writing someone off would take some work, I guess.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/3/2010 @ 4:57 pmComment by Gregory of Yardale — 12/3/2010 @ 4:38 pm
Please, you are making too much sense as well as appealing to evidence and rational thought, and we all know that those who claim to rely on such things do not. 😉
Concerning his general approach, Rush says that he gave up trying to engage and win over opponents years ago when he came to the conclusion that the MSM had no real interest in engaging his ideas. He points to the fact that there really is no reason any media outlet should get any quote wrong or distort his statements other than they want to. It’s easy enough to listen or read the transcript. I agree that I would rather listen to someone who owned their political views and tried to discuss facts with respect than someone who hides behind a mask of neutrality. If I make reference to Rush it is to not take credit myself. I don’t care about Rush’s opinion as much as I do about the information he will supply that can be verified that you will not hear elsewhere.
I could be wrong, but if I thought Limbaugh was 1/2 as arrogant as he can appear I would not be interested. As it is, he is the model for what he does, no one does it better, he knows it, but pokes fun at himself. If anything, I think of his phrase, “With talent on loan from God” not as saying he is so superior in and of himself, but that he simply tries to do the best with what he has been given talent for, and he can’t take credit for what he was given.
The MSM has been willfully twisting the news and public opinion at least since Walter Cronkite made the American people think the US and S. Vietnam lost the Tet offensive. It takes genius, skill, lack of intellectual honesty, and true arrogance to succeed in making a country think a great military victory was actually a defeat. “Tokyo Rose” would pay homage to Cronkite if given the opportunity.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/3/2010 @ 5:23 pmHe does it generally with good cheer.
And oh my does that offend the left. How dare he! The unmitigated gall.
This is the brilliance of Rush – he knows his opposition better than they know themselves. And he plays them continually.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/3/2010 @ 5:39 pmIt’s projection Greg, Keiff is the mirror image version of O’Reilly, although there isn’t that much of a qualitative difference, Schultz is their projection of Limbaugh, Matthews is sui generis,
narciso (9d0688) — 12/3/2010 @ 5:51 pmMaddow who the heck, would be her counterpart. Media Matters is the antipode of Media Research,
but they are all bitter, delusional sorts,
Let’s see:
— The claim that Obama’s Indian trip cost $200 million a day
AJB (d64738) — 12/3/2010 @ 6:36 pm— The allegation that Obama attended a madrassa as a child
— The claim that the end of life planning in one of the versions of the HRC bill was “involuntary.”
— The entire Shirley Sherrod affair
— The claim that a document issued under the Bush administration that discusses hypothetical predictions of the future expresses Obama’s worldview.
OK, I read the links. Typical distortions and none of them seem to be examples of Rush making up false stories. The fact that democrats agree Obama attended a madrassa is pretty hilarious, especially noting that the radical madrassa claims came from the Hillary for President camp (As did the birther claims)
Actually, the media matters link is even funnier, but they can’t be bothered to type in complete sentences so I guess I’ll just ignore them.
But indeed, they say it’s a smear to accuse Obama of being in favor of redistribution of wealth as though Joe the Plumber never asked point blank and received a point blank response.
to AJB, that Media Matters insists something is a lie makes it a lie, even if the claim has been validated over and over and over again.
It does seem that the $200,000,000 per day claim was fabricated, but the White House refuses to note how much it’s spending on travel because the actual figure is likely horrendous and far in excess of anything the Bushes spent. These people are reserving entire hotels or entire floors of hotels and taking a ridiculous number of vacations. Since they refuse to say how much they are really spending, it’s not surprising people are speculating inaccurately.
Why don’t we have a right to know? Because Media Matters says so.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 6:50 pmHey, AJB, why don’t you stop deleting my comments on your blog?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 6:50 pmOne common theme for AJB’s links is that someone other than Rush or Fox News was the source of the inaccuracy (such as the Hillary campaign or India’s news), or the ‘inaccuracy’ was actually pretty accurate.
If ajb has to lie to smear his targets, and we all know how motivated he is, that’s a great case that he’s wrong.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 6:52 pmajb == fail.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/3/2010 @ 6:59 pmLately I have not been listening to Rush as much when I drive..and used to that was the only time I did listen to him, otherwise I was working.
Rush is obviously good at what he does, but there are times when he just annoys me. The whole chickification shtick he does is sort of tiresome and lately it seems to me there is more of this class warfare…get the establishment toady stuff on his program. There are times when I really think he is wrong about something, but lots of times I agree with him.
One thing I have noticed about talk radio/TV pundits/blogosphere people is that they all talk to and about each other. It is an echo chamber, left and right. If one them says something, it just round and round.
I think that is why some people seem uninformed, they just hate listening to all that. To many of us it is like sports or entertainment. My husband would prefer root canal to a presidential debate.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:04 pmWho is this AJB? Will mysteries never cease?
JD (109425) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:07 pmPerhaps he simply puts some people off with his style.
vor2 (8c3b9a) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:13 pmTerrye,
Althouse was riffing on Rush’s chickification shtick this week. Do you take it personally, or just see it as a negative reflection on women that he would use the term to describe the decline of the American male?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:21 pmDustin, thanks for taking the time to wade through the BS so I didn’t have to. Even SNL did a sketch of an Obama interview a few weeks ago where they played up the $200,000,000 a day claim and the reality that the WH wouldn’t deal with it.
There are timers I get annoyed by Rush too, and often he says things that I think are pretty funny but would better be left unsaid if one wishes to be polite rather than pummel them with their own stuff. That said, Rush never claimed to be a model of grace and mercy.
he knows his opposition better than they know themselves
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:24 pm– “as well as every square inch of my glorious naked body” or something like that is the direct quote.
Rush says the kinds of things that a narcissist would, except he knows he’s doing it and is being tongue-in-cheek, unlike others who make even more astounding claims and don’t realize they’re saying anything unusual.
Perhaps he simply puts some people off with his style.
Comment by vor2 — 12/3/2010 @ 7:13 pm
I don’t know if you have ever read Ann Althouse, but she had an interesting encounter of sorts with Rush the other day.She listens a great deal and defends him often, even when she might not agree with her. But the other day she was put off by something that I myself have been annoyed at Rush about, his use of the word chickification and his need to call Assange a sissy time and again and make fun of Assange’s physical size etc. He read her blog post and responded to her on the air and she responded to him…she has the video on her site…her point was that there is nothing feminine in Assange’s actions, whatever the man is, he is not acting like a woman. Rush picked some of the most negative traits possible and gave them a feminine character. The interesting thing was that he seemed somewhat suprised by Ann’s take on what he said. I don’t think he honestly realized that some women are not only not underhanded and sneaky put kind of resent the inference that they are. He was not nasty or anything, but he really did somewhat on the spot…something you do not often see with Rush.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:25 pmeven when she might not agree with her.
oops, even when she might not agree with him.
preview is for the faint of heart.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:26 pmThere are real consequences to a presidential debate, that’s why the soft glossy platitudes
narciso (9d0688) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:28 pmthat were offered in 2008; were so unsatisfying.
The primaries were a waste of time, as the GOP candidates, basically assented to democratic templates. The subsequent McCain campaign was ignorant of what it needed to do, and hence gave
up, except for one small faction, who refused to concede. Just in this last few days, after the midterms, there have been huge steps against our
liberty, our fortune, and our honor. These pragmatic Senators like Brown, Murkowski, Vitter,
who not only didn’t realize the noxious nature of
the FSA, but were ignorant of the basic violations
of parliamentary procedure, sought to secure it.
I agree with you Terrye on those kind of things. Now, I think when Rush is talking about “chickification”, that is more of a way of referring to taking away masculinity, rather than really saying someone, like Assange in this instance, is truly feminine in the way he thinks of a woman. So, he’s not thinking of it as really having to do with women or healthy femininity at all, so it doesn’t occur to him that a reasonable-thinking woman (i.e., conservative) would be offended. He’s appealing to a stereotype of a 12 year old girl screaming at the snake the 12 year old boy just shoved in her face. Now, none of us really think that is a nice thing for a 12 year old boy to do, nor are we pleased with an exaggerated drama act by the girl, but I think that is the kind of idea which he has in mind.
I wouldn’t use the term either, nor “feminazi”, and similar things that are derogatory.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:54 pmYou forgot Limbaugh said “environmental wackos” caused the BP oil spill in an act of sabotage.
And then, when it looks like Halibuton is at fault, Limbaugh ties to minimize the spill and says “this much oil leaks from the gulf everyday.”
Tman (9df40f) — 12/3/2010 @ 7:57 pmTman,
I think I heard some of that talk, and I did not take it as him being serious.
He, and others, were serious, though, when they pointed out that more reasonable oil drilling policy in the Gulf, rather than those in place at the demand of “extreme environmentalists” would have eliminated the need for such technologically complex deep-water drilling.
Obama/Palin2012 Committee (cac12c) — 12/3/2010 @ 8:05 pmYeah, he totally doesn’t look a hell of a lot more intelligent than the hysterical MSM over that slice of sanity in an ocean of dumb. You sure got him!
Dustin ♥'s ☻bama (b54cdc) — 12/3/2010 @ 8:10 pmYes, if only we had an example of a similar event with similar circumstances yielding a similar result, oh yes the 1979 Ixtoc spill by the Mexican
narciso (9d0688) — 12/3/2010 @ 8:14 pmstate run company, Pemex
___________________________________________
With the internet and bloggers, the MSM cannot get away with what they routinely pulled since the 1950′s. Comment by Longwalker
I know that I’ve been introduced to certain information due to the existence of the Internet. Information that in past years would have required a tedious leafing through of innumerable periodicals or a drawn-out visit to the local library–the fast and easy assistance of a search method like Google no where to be found.
Also, has the ability of people to voice their opinions — and to rebut the MSM — in a public arena ever been as widespread and convenient in past years as it is today? I’ve come across online forums at very liberal organizations like the LA Times and am fascinated by the number of readers who will post opinions that run counter to what a reporter or columnist (almost all of liberal persuasion) is trying to foist on the public.
Internet or not, I was talking with a neighbor a few days ago who leans right in general. Back in 2008 he apparently either voted for Obama or withheld giving his support to McCain. I do recall his telling his wife, who leans left, that he actually was glad that Obama ended up winning the presidency.
Fast forward to today and I mentioned to this person that Obama’s former close adviser, Jeremiah Wright, had given “goddamn America” sermons to his congregation. My neighbor said he had only a vague awareness of what Wright was all about and was truly oblivious to just how bad the guy really was. Such ignorance is astonishing in this age of the World Wide Web, but it shows how easily someone’s judgment and reliability (on election day, for example) can quickly go into the dumper.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/3/2010 @ 8:48 pmTman is providing a broader proof of my point. The mere mention of Limbaugh causes him to go batshiat crazy and lose focus on the big picture.
Karl (928df3) — 12/3/2010 @ 9:30 pmMark’s story demonstrates the other half of my point. Limbaugh talked about Wright; Hannity even moreso, on radio and FNC. But people who are only casually interested in politics don’t know anything about him. So, to the extent that media biases matter at th margin, which biases still prevail? And yet the MSM is freaking out about conservative media, because it’s easier than confronting the fact that the casual citizen’s opinion of Obama is shaped by what Obama and Democrats have said and done since gaining power.
Karl (928df3) — 12/3/2010 @ 9:37 pmYou’re assuming he was ever sane, in the first place, ‘facts not in evidence;. Sometimes people
narciso (9d0688) — 12/3/2010 @ 9:44 pmhave to learn the hard way
Since AJB is posting his moniker in all caps tonight, he must be really serious.
Be warned!
Ag80 (e828a4) — 12/3/2010 @ 10:06 pmKarl: Nicely done and welcome back.
To the commenters above who dislike Limbaugh, well, that’s ok. I probably do not like your choice in music, or movies, or wimmin. It’s not personal. It’s principled. One either believes in the founding ideas, or one believes in Obama money. I do not care as long as you get your hand off my wallet.
I do remember listening to Rush when I lived in a large SOCAL city. He seemed extreme then. When I moved to a rural area, he made sense. Rural areas have no need to bribe locals with taxpayer $$ to not set fire to the city.
Sometimes where we sit determines what we believe.
unworthy (4fbede) — 12/4/2010 @ 12:10 amAnd another thing: If the MSM wern’t a flaming bag of dog poo, this site would have no reason to exist. In which case we could all go back to our regularly scheduled pron sites.
There. I said it! Now get off the phone, you big dummy.
Mark Levin (4fbede) — 12/4/2010 @ 12:33 amWhen it comes to Jeremiah Wright, I don’t think it mattered that much to most people. I think there was an immediate ugly response to the things the man said, but Obama makes a speech and enough people are satisfied that it goes away.
I think the problem conservatives have is that it does not go away for them. They still think about Wright and the things he said and they assume that if only the media had made it more of an issue it would have stopped Obama. I doubt it..I think this is the mistake conservatives make, they assume they are a majority and they are not. No doubt there are more conservatives now than there were a decade ago, but most people just don’t care about a lot of this stuff. If they did, Teddy Kennedy would not have stayed in the US Senate as long as he did. People just assume that everyone has something to hide and so they when these things come out, they look the other way.
Often times it is how people react to the revelations being made public that has the greater effect on people. This is where I think some of Palin’s supporters are making a mistake. And Huckabee too…constantly whining about how mean the elites are to you does not make you sound presidential or gracious, it makes you sound petulant and immature..
Terrye (2e6779) — 12/4/2010 @ 5:01 amTerrye-
Supposedly the polls say that the American public is more center right when asked about specific views/issues than one would think by looking at election results. I think “they”, whoever “they” are, have succeeded in popularizing the idea that Dems are nice people who care about others, and Repubs/Conservatives are selfish stingy prudes, who “don’t care if children go to bed hungry” and who think sex should not be talked about and adults should stick their heads in the sand. So, unless you want to be considered a selfish pig, you stay away from Rush and the others, unless you know enough and are strong enough in your views to stand up.
There’s the old saying, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you don’t have a heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you don’t have a brain”. The quick sound bite spread of information is all about tugging on emotions and initial impressions, not about thinking in detail about a problem. As Mark’s story suggests, and similar incidents I’ve had suggest, if the American public knew about Wright, Bill Ayers, and Obama on abortion, he would have had a much more difficult time getting the Dem nomination and presidency. Just on abortion, I think the majority of Americans don’t like the idea, but they also don’t like the idea of telling someone else what to do in the situation; but it would be only a very small number who believe a woman has a “right” to have her premature infant killed if it survived an abortion. Most would find that a hideous idea, even Nancy Pelosi knows that.
As far as Kennedy, “well, he was never found guilty of a serious crime, right? So it just was a bunch of political opponents stirring up trouble.”
As far as Palin and Palin supporters, I’d bet that a lot of people who like Palin wish she were in the news less often and don’t feel they are the ones forcing the issue; it’s just that they’ve had enough watching Repubs like GW get attacked, not put up a reasonable defense, and get written off because of lies that were not contested. The “Alinsky Way” is to isolate and marginalize opponents. The dems/libs would love to keep Palin in the news with the general idea that she is “too extreme” if they can avoid discussing the issues, call it the “Limbaughization” of Sarah Palin. That’s what the Sestak Senate campaign in PA did, “Oh no!! Toomey sounds too extreme, like Sarah Palin!!”
Obama/Palin2012 Committee (cac12c) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:06 amAre you saying that you believe people who don’t like Limbaugh don’t have principles or cannot be conservative?
vor2 (8c3b9a) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:10 amRush may talk a good game of conservatism but be honest – multiple marriages and some of his choices in his personal life don’t strike me as someone who walks the conservative walk in their life away from the studio.
These things are separate from the things he advocates and too often people who really don’t like him blur the two – one doesn’t really negate the other.
Simply believing in conservative ideas is less impressive than living them in your everyday life.
Rush makes a lot of money for talking about them – millions of people live them for free each day and not all of those people are necessarily his fans.
Except if one has shown fidelity for twenty some years, honesty and integrity that’s not regarded so well. One is supposed to marvel at the Clinton’s marriage, except well for the obvious, that it’s the
narciso (91a751) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:39 ammost medieval contraption imaginable.
As far as Palin and Palin supporters, I’d bet that a lot of people who like Palin wish she were in the news less often and don’t feel they are the ones forcing the issue; it’s just that they’ve had enough watching Repubs like GW get attacked, not put up a reasonable defense, and get written off because of lies that were not contested. The “Alinsky Way” is to isolate and marginalize opponents. The dems/libs would love to keep Palin in the news with the general idea that she is “too extreme” if they can avoid discussing the issues, call it the “Limbaughization” of Sarah Palin. That’s what the Sestak Senate campaign in PA did, “Oh no!! Toomey sounds too extreme, like Sarah Palin!!”
Comment by Obama/Palin2012 Committee — 12/4/2010 @ 6:06 am
However, right now the number one villain of way too many Palin supporters seems to be Barbara Bush who, at the age of 85, made a comment that Palin’s fans reacted to with way too much venom. I mean come on, think of the things Barbara Bush has heard the media and the pundits say about her husband and her sons over the years and here these same people who claim they value honesty and transparency tell the woman to shut up because she said something they did not like.Well, there are lots of people in this country you can not tell them all to shut up when they say something you take offense at.
After the news broke about Wright, Obama did not fair all that well in the primaries that followed within days, but then he recovered. Yes, I do think that most Americans tend to be center right, however, I also think they don’t believe half of what they hear, so they allow a certain amount of stuff to go by. If they did not, Obama would not be President today.
Terrye (2e6779) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:45 amTo the commenters above who dislike Limbaugh, well, that’s ok. I probably do not like your choice in music, or movies, or wimmin. It’s not personal. It’s principled. One either believes in the founding ideas, or one believes in Obama money. I do not care as long as you get your hand off my wallet
I believe in the founding ideas, but I also tend to get tired of listening to people yell on the radio. There are a lot of people who tend to be pretty conservative in many ways, but who could probably not listen to Rush or Beck or Hannity or even O’Reilley. Not everyone likes that sort of thing.
Terrye (2e6779) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:48 am#
Except if one has shown fidelity for twenty some years, honesty and integrity that’s not regarded so well. One is supposed to marvel at the Clinton’s marriage, except well for the obvious, that it’s the
most medieval contraption imaginable.
Comment by narciso — 12/4/2010 @ 6:39 am
midieval is a good word for it..it is an alliance.
Terrye (2e6779) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:49 amYes, he had the Journolist to cover for him, and they through the netroots, tried to tamp down the Hillary rebellion, he still lost most of the primaries, but Hillary ended up like Michael with
narciso (91a751) — 12/4/2010 @ 6:51 amthe Tattaglias.
It is regarded well by the people who matter most — children. Raises the odds they will follow that path.
vor2 (8c3b9a) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:01 amThere’s one irony in almost any discussion about Rush and his huge audience numbers: in most Arbitron surveys, his percentage of self – identified Democrats actually is larger than self – identified Republicans. This is one of the often overlooked reasons why his show continues to garner the ratings it has enjoyed over the years.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:17 amRush generally doesn’t yell, sometimes he does at sheer stupidity, but unlike many in the field, Savage in particular, he manages to pull it off with good humor, because he was a disk jockey, back in the day, and he came to Hazlett and Friedman and
narciso (91a751) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:26 amBuckley in a nontraditional way.
Terrye @ 58 – I like none of them. I watch more MSNBC in any given day than any of those combine in a month.
JD (306f5d) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:37 amPart of it is what do you consider “conservative”. Economics? Politcal theory/government? Social values?
Rush does not hold himself up to be a paragon of virtue, a model of how to live life, he is an advocate of ideas that he thinks will always carry the day if expressed in an understandable way. To the degree he holds “conservative family values”, he doesn’t put himself up as an example of having done everything right. A hypocrite is not one who fails at what they call good, but one who practices and endorses what they call bad in others. I could be wrong, but I’m not sure if Limbaugh would have criticized Clinton for simply being unfaithful to his wife. Many people are unfaithful, unfortunately, and it does not interfere with their professional lives, for good or ill. Very few people (only one I know of) can treat a subordinate the way Clinton did with Lewinsky and get away with it.
When someone does live “according to their values”, like Palin, the screaming gets even louder. In other words, some people who want to criticize Rush the loudest will do so no matter what reason they will use, some people will criticize Palin no matter what.
Does every “conservative” need to like Limbaugh or Palin? By no means!! And even those who “like them” do not like everything about them.
But as narciso says, journolist was there for Obama too. Few stories ever have much impact if they are in the news a day or two then disappear, including Wright, including Ayers, including who shot JR or JFK.
A Biblical allusion for non-Biblical characters- jesus said the religious leaders didn’t like John the Baptist because he was an ascetic, and they didn’t like Himself becuase he socialized “too much”, no matter “what tune the piper played”, the listeners complained.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:46 am____________________________________________
They still think about Wright and the things he said and they assume that if only the media had made it more of an issue it would have stopped Obama.
The example of my right-leaning neighbor mentioned previously and notwithstanding, I’ve never assumed a majority of the electorate in 2008 was ignorant of just how bad Obama truly was and is—due to the MSM or otherwise. The reason for that is I see the sociopolitical trends in urban America (eg, Detroit, Oakland, LA, SF, DC), countries like Mexico, Venezuela or Argentina, or effete societies like France. So I know that a good percentage of humans easily fall for the notion that liberalism offers something humane, generous and beautiful to the masses. IOW, a lot of people make themselves willing suckers for the used-car-salesman dynamics of leftism.
That’s why the truly low-life background of the guy now in the White House can be rationalized away by the variety of people who are the prime reason that societies can become so corrupt or dysfunctional (Viva, Mexico! Á la votre, France! Party on, Detroit!).
As for ignorance in the age of the Internet, I admit to being oblivious to the following person mentioned by narcisco in the “Delusional Quote” blog entry. I’ve previously been aware of folks like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. I didn’t realize the scroungy history of Obama goes back further, all the way to his grandfather and, in turn, one of his grandfather’s buddies.
^ When the example of someone with a case history as scroungy as that of Obama is up for debate, I don’t blame the MSM for pushing such a person into the White House. That assumption could be used if the current president’s history had been more ambiguous and innocuous. So in this instance, I blame the majority of the electorate who in 2008 decided that if it was good enough for Mexico/France/Greece/Venezuela/Oakland/Detroit/San Francisco/Spain, it was good enough for the United States.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:50 amMaybe they didn’t know, Mark, like Brokaw and Williams admitted to Charlie Rose, at the end of the campaign, but it was their duty to find out;
narciso (91a751) — 12/4/2010 @ 7:56 amrecall this appeared in the Telegraph, serving
the ‘VRWC needs since 1992′(sarc), as Freddoso revealed his early wins in Illinois politics were
about machiavellian manipulation
_____________________________________________
Simply believing in conservative ideas is less impressive than living them in your everyday life.
I know there is a conservative counterpart to “limousine liberalism” (and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that type of two-faced behavior). But since the left disavows far more of the fundamental aspects of human nature and reality — harsh or otherwise — the phoniness of “do as I say, not what I do” often is on full display among so many liberals.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/4/2010 @ 8:05 amI really like Rush, and am a subscriber to his podcasts. Being on the inside, as it were, I especially enjoy his media tweaks and the media’s invariably clueless reactions. My MSM colleagues are mostly appalled about my Rush habit, of course.
The moronic comments of those who don’t even listen to Rush regularly are especially enjoyable to me. Anyone listening to his show more than casually knows that Rush uses mock-pomposity, sarcasm, irony and exaggeration – the entertainer’s toolkit — to drive home his serious points. And while his accuracy rating is probably lower than his proclaimed 99.5 percent level, it’s certainly higher than that of his critics.
But don’t tell Rush this . . . I like Mark Steyn when he substitutes even more!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/4/2010 @ 8:09 amHe’s the only really good substitute host, and he started out as disk jockey too, but he’s informed
narciso (91a751) — 12/4/2010 @ 8:13 amand witty in ways, that put most of the others to shame
Actually I’m hot and cold on the bias in the media issue. More likely that it’s laziness and incompetence. Lot of that going around. Big resume, stool for results.
glenn (0af9f1) — 12/4/2010 @ 8:33 am___________________________________________
Maybe they didn’t know, Mark, like Brokaw and Williams admitted to Charlie Rose,
I suspect that was either feigned or willing ignorance on their part. Or I should say that if Obama had the ideological characteristics of, say, Clarence Thomas, they’d have happily, gladly, enthusiastically delved deeper into Obama’s life history and trumpeted what they found.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/4/2010 @ 8:46 amActually I’m hot and cold on the bias in the media issue. More likely that it’s laziness and incompetence.
Bias can be a form of laziness. The reporter doesn’t think through an issue very deeply, and just goes with the media groupthink. The supercilous lefty reporter who values trite slogans over deep thinking is a common plague on the industry. The LA Times is full of them, and the result is shallow, inaccurate stories based on what the reporter already “knew”.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/4/2010 @ 8:57 amI believe in the founding ideas, but I also tend to get tired of listening to people yell on the radio. There are a lot of people who tend to be pretty conservative in many ways, but who could probably not listen to Rush or Beck or Hannity or even O’Reilley. Not everyone likes that sort of thing.
Rush doesn’t yell. And I think he is in a separate category from O’Reilly (who clearly has unresolved anger/bullying issues) and Hannity (whose pomposity makes my ears bleed). Limbaugh is well humored, tongue-in-cheek, and very confident. His sense of humor, to me, distinguishes him from the humorless and smug O’Reilly and Hannity.
But the most important difference is the sheer quality of analysis and provision of information. Rush peels back more layers than the others even know exist. And I don’t get the sense that he is compelled by loyalty to any particular people. I think he’s perhaps enough of a powerhouse where pols need him rather than the other way around. It’s a unique position to be in.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/4/2010 @ 10:19 amAccording to TV Newser, Fox News is the only network that honored the Obama Administration’s instructions for an embargo on news of Obama’s trip to Afghanistan. Any guesses on whether the Administration will give Fox News credit for trying to protect the President?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/4/2010 @ 11:25 amSometimes showbiz is showbiz. These guys make millions peddling their yelling and absurd commentary.
Wesson (019671) — 12/4/2010 @ 11:33 amTo the Oleaginous One, behind every good deed is an evil conspiracy.
AD-RtR/OS! (434c01) — 12/4/2010 @ 11:38 amO’Reilly’s just not that well informed and he covers it with bluster, Hannity is someone repetitive, but considering the trite garbage
narciso (91a751) — 12/4/2010 @ 11:41 amthat we get in our regular media; it’s
#
I really like Rush, and am a subscriber to his podcasts. Being on the inside, as it were, I especially enjoy his media tweaks and the media’s invariably clueless reactions. My MSM colleagues are mostly appalled about my Rush habit, of course.
The moronic comments of those who don’t even listen to Rush regularly are especially enjoyable to me. Anyone listening to his show more than casually knows that Rush uses mock-pomposity, sarcasm, irony and exaggeration – the entertainer’s toolkit — to drive home his serious points. And while his accuracy rating is probably lower than his proclaimed 99.5 percent level, it’s certainly higher than that of his critics.
But don’t tell Rush this . . . I like Mark Steyn when he substitutes even more!
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 12/4/2010 @ 8:09 am
I have one of those jobs that requires that I drive a lot, and for a long time I kept the radio on talk radio. I listened to Rush a lot. I just got tired of listening after awhile. That does not mean I don’t like the guy, but then again taking a break every now and then does not mean that I don’t know that Rush uses satire and all sorts of things to make his point.
I have started listening to audio books to pass the time lately.
Terrye (eec529) — 12/4/2010 @ 12:14 pmRush doesn’t yell. And I think he is in a separate category from O’Reilly (who clearly has unresolved anger/bullying issues) and Hannity (whose pomposity makes my ears bleed). Limbaugh is well humored, tongue-in-cheek, and very confident. His sense of humor, to me, distinguishes him from the humorless and smug O’Reilly and Hannity.
But the most important difference is the sheer quality of analysis and provision of information. Rush peels back more layers than the others even know exist. And I don’t get the sense that he is compelled by loyalty to any particular people. I think he’s perhaps enough of a powerhouse where pols need him rather than the other way around. It’s a unique position to be in.
Comment by Dana — 12/4/2010 @ 10:19 am
Fine, Rush does not yell, he just gets loud sometimes. I am not dissing Rush, I am just saying that not everyone likes talk radio. That does not mean they hate Rush or that they are liberals, some people just don’t want to listen to that for hours and hours.
Terrye (eec529) — 12/4/2010 @ 12:17 pmOf course, Terrye, I don’t think anyone was inferring that by not listening to talk radio and/or Rush, they must be libs etc. Each to his own.
Re: audio books. Funny you mention it: I just attempted to listen to my first one last month. I got about 15 painful minutes into it and had to turn it off. It was a piece of fiction I had read long ago in book form and it made me nuts that it was clearly the same narrator reading all the different character’s parts and simultaneously changing her tone/accent to the individual’s need. I just couldn’t stand it. Again, to each their own.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/4/2010 @ 12:43 pm“pomposity”
Thanks Dana I couldnt stand Shawn – but I never could figure out a word to describe his character
Personally, I think Alan being a total rude jackazz had more to do with his success than his pompositations
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 12/4/2010 @ 1:03 pmDana:
I really like audio books, but then again all of this is so subjective. I have discovered that the reader is almost as important as the book.
I listened to books like Anna Karenina and The Lord of the Rings as well as the Chronicles of Narnia. I also listened to Inez of My Soul by Isabel Allende, which I loved. It was an historical novel about the founding of Chile. Man, those conquistadors were tough. I listened to several books by Dean Koontz, a conservative writer of scary books and all sorts of fiction such as Anita Diamant’s Red Tent, which I thought was very interesting and well researched.
I also listened to Amity Shlaes, the Forgotten Man as well as Clarence Thomas’s autobiography My Grandfather’s Son. I listened to Laura and George Bush’s books and I listened to several of David McCullough’s books on the Revolutionary war and the early presidents.
I drive a lot and the radio was so repetitive that I found the books more interesting.
Terrye (eec529) — 12/4/2010 @ 1:22 pmAfter all, media bias is rarely the decisive factor between victory and defeat,
Really? How does he know? IIRC, Evan Thomas — making an admission against interest — estimated its impact at 15%. That’s far more than the margin of victory in almost any election I can remember. If Harry Reid got anywhere close to that 15%, that’s enough to more than explain his victory, without imputing any fault at all to Sharon Angle. Indeed, 15% is enough to explain O’Donnell’s loss without imputing any fault to her! And if 15% if the average, then in those two races the impact must have been greater than that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 3:05 amIndeed, 15% is enough to explain O’Donnell’s loss without imputing any fault to her! And if 15% if the average, then in those two races the impact must have been greater than that.
Comment by Milhouse — 12/5/2010 @ 3:05 am
I think the 15% is wrong, people are not that stupid and O’Donnell lost because she was not a good candidate. I mean come on, the people of Delaware knew who she was. She ran a write in back in 2006 when she lost a primary and she ran against Biden in 2008 and lost again. It was not just the media that hurt her, it was her own background and the things she said and the way she presented herself..what the bias tells you is that if a conservative candidate has any skeletons in his or her closet they are more likely to see the light of day. That is just one more reason not to nominate people with lots of skeletons in their closets.
Terrye (7c855d) — 12/5/2010 @ 3:51 amTerrye, they returned Biden back to office, six times, that tells me all I needed to know, they
narciso (6075d0) — 12/5/2010 @ 4:54 amput in office, someone who raised property taxes
60% in four years, glutton for punishment is charitable
Property tax increases pick your left pocket while the federal taxes pick your right. Let’s support lower taxes and less government.
Property Tax Loans (1a7482) — 12/5/2010 @ 8:13 amTerrye, if we have no right to tell Barbara Bush to shut up, what gives you the right to tell us the same thing? As far as I’m concerned, the moment she opened her mouth against Palin, just in order to clear the way for an inevitably-doomed run by Jeb, she forfeited all claim to my loyalty. She doesn’t care about the cause, so why should I care about her? Her husband was a horrible president; her one son shone only in comparison to McCain, Algore, Kerry, and Obama; and I have no very good reason to think her other son would be that much better. Fool me twice… Palin nailed her exactly; she and her whole class think they own us, rather than the other way around. They are the tiny kernel of truth behind the way the Democrats portray Republicans as running dogs of the aristocracy (never mind that most of the blue-bloods are Democrats).
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 8:37 amTerrye, if 15% weren’t right, why would Evan Thomas say so? What makes you think it isn’t right?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 8:37 amLimbaugh is undoubtedly a rich man. He is the mouthpiece of the top 1% – he furthers the GOP lie of ‘trickle-down” economics – the new war in America and he claims many as true believers, absolute pawns.
Did trickle down ecomics work for Reagan??
The UPI headline on !2/30, 1989 – a report on Reaganomics included, “upper income americans were the main direct beneficiaries of tax cuts in the early 1980s. there is no evidence in our data that those benefits have trickled down to lower-income americans.”
When president reagan came into office in 1981, he inherited a $994 million national debt. by the time he left, it had ballooned to $2.6 billion. Ronald Reagan.
Reaganomics was a spectacular success for the richest americans in the country who benefited from the exploding tax cuts. The top 1% had seen their wages rise by 80%. Average wages in the rest of the country remained flat and the poorest Americans saw their income shrink by more than 10%. That was Reaganomics.
The designer of Reaganomics, David Stockman, declared on NPR that “Reagan would never support extending the Bush tax cuts.” Stockman took this assertion a step further in calling out the Republican leadership for perverting the notions of fiscal conservatism and betraying what the Party used to stand for. He laid his harshest blame on the Bush administration. Stockton blames the GOP for “destroying the American economy.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:10 amGawd, not more of this twaddle. Stockman was never the “designer” of Reaganomics. That was Reagan. Or are you still peddling the lie that he was too dumb to design his own policies? Most lefties have backed off that claim, and now pretend they never made it in the first place.
Out of the many flaws in the so-called “analysis” you cut and pasted, the most blatant is the assumption that the economic strata are fixed over time, i.e. that the “top 10%” and “bottom 10%” at the end of the period are made up of the same people as they were at the beginning. They’re not. The USA has huge economic mobility, and under Reagan most people moved up the ladder. Those at the bottom of the ladder at the end of his administration were primarily people not even on the ladder at the beginning.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:21 amWhen president reagan came into office in 1981, he inherited a $994 million national debt. by the time he left, it had ballooned to $2.6 billion. Ronald Reagan.
Tman’s innumerate, too. Amusingly, his orders-of-magnitude error works to Reagan’s advantage.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:26 amMillhouse is still buying the lie.
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:32 amhttp://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/the-great-lie-o.html
At the risk of feeding a troll, Reagan had a Democratic Congress, both houses for most of his presidency. Spending comes from Congress. You may be too young or too ignorant to recall that every Reagan budget was declared “dead on arrival” by Tip O’Neill.
Reagan came to office with two unique concepts. One was that the Soviet Union was far weaker than the CIA was asserting. Two, that trying to regulate the economy and to balance the budget by raising taxes were fools’ errands. He deregulated oil, to the Democrats horror, and gas prices fell dramatically. The Democrats were all for blaming oil companies, showing how ignorant they are in economics.
David Stockman was a very young man who was seduced by the Washington elite. He “grew in office” which always means taking a left turn.
The US has collected taxes that approximate 20% of the national income for the past 70 years, regardless of the tax rates. It is a delusion to believe that you can raise them above that without depressing economic activity. “Trickle down” economics is the left’s term for the classical economics of free markets. The poor do not create jobs. Marxists have been trying to show that governments create jobs for over 100 years. They have yet to show a successful example.
Read “The Wealth of Nations.” It would do you good.
Mike K (568408) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:33 amTman,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:34 amCare to correct your three-orders-of-magnitude error on the national debt? Or have you figured it out yet?
You say Tman, I say Kman.
Eric Blair (86ea30) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:39 amBrother,
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:42 amWhat planet are you living on?
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/465/nationaldebtgdpaj0.gif
Whatever the name, Tman/Kman shows a comical lack of self-awareness by making a fiscal point with numbers that are 1,000 times off.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:44 amIsn’t this a new poster, just after a certain troll got hammered? I’m just sayin’.
Eric Blair (86ea30) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:46 amSen. Sanders put it in perspective. The GOP’s main priority is not the American people, it is to feed their puppet masters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:47 amInstead of spouting what your puppet masters tell you, try being a patriot and supporting what is best for America.
Warren Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
That is what the GOP is fighting for. I think Buffet knows a bit about money. You might care to hear what he has to say.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:53 amTman, aside from making a 1,000-fold error in the national debt, also screwed up by citing Paul B. Farrell, a Paul Ehrlich-type alarmist.
So what’s the biggest time-bomb for Obama, America, capitalism, the world? No, not global warming. Not poverty. Not even peak oil. What is the absolute biggest? One like the trigger mechanism on a nuclear bomb. One that’ll throw a wrench in global economic growth, ending capitalism, even destroying modern civilization. The one that – if not solved soon – renders all efforts to solve all the other problems in the world, irrelevant, futile and virtually impossible. Yes, that one. . .
The world’s biggest time-bomb? Overpopulation say the billionaires. Too many people! Yes, over-population is the world’s #1 problem. And yet, global governments with their $50 trillion GDP, aren’t even trying to solve the world’s “over-population problem.” G-20 leaders ignore it. So by 2050 the Earth’s population will explode by almost 50%, from 6.6 billion today to 9.3 billion says the UN. And what about those billionaires and their billions? Can they make stop the trend? Sadly no. Only a major crisis, a global catastrophe, a collapse beyond anything prior in world history will do it. Here’s why.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:56 am______________________________________________
He is the mouthpiece of the top 1% – he furthers the GOP lie of ‘trickle-down” economics – the new war in America and he claims many as true believers, absolute pawns.
It’s interesting that even in ultra-blue California, in which a majority of the electorate several weeks ago was mindlessly pro-Democrat-Party, pro-liberal, the proposition on the ballot that would have raised taxes on corporations went down to defeat. In that regard, I guess California is merely one step below America’s version of Venezuela/Spain/Argentina.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:57 amWhy would I pay any attention to Buffet? If he wants to pay more taxes, what’s stopping him? The Treasury takes donations. Meanwhile he’s campaigning for restoring the death tax for the most obvious reason in the world: it would make him another fortune. More than enough to cover the extra taxes on himself. Funny how outraged you get about right-wing tycoons supporting policy positions that might, horrors, have the side-effect of lining their own pockets, but you don’t mind at all if the likes of Soros and Buffet do so on the left.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:58 am____________________________________________
Warren Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
So instead of being a stereotypical “progressive,” why don’t folks like Buffett rail against taxes on the working stiff being too high instead of wailing that taxes on the upper income are too low?
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:00 amTman,
Instead of spouting what your puppet masters tell you, try being a patriot and supporting what is best for America.
Physician, heal thyself.
Your half-baked links and left-wing babble don’t impress us, because this blog’s denizens know the facts better than you do.
And try correcting that 1,000-fold error in the national debt you cited. Or does that require a degree of self-reflection beyond your abilities?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:01 amYep, I go to Bernie Saunders for Troof.
Eric Blair (86ea30) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:04 amYes, keep ‘hammering them trolls” and refuting facts as they are presented. Attack the messenger and deny at all costs. Just keep looking to what your masters tell you and carry their agenda.
I personally think the political situation is hopeless. Our system will fail us. Ask anyone who works in the electronics and manufacturing industry. The Asians have implemented nationalistc economic policies and are crushing American manufacturers. Your trickle down economics is not trickling to American jobs, it’s trickling to China. What percentage of your clothing and manufactured good are made in America and who is earning the money for those goods? The top 1/10 of 1% – the CEOs. If you think the tax breaks to CEO’s and big corporations put Americans to work instead of oursourcing to improve their profit margin, you are truly out of touch.
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:25 amTman is one of the many names that William Yelverton has been posting under. Patterico noted that in the sock puppet thread when willie the racist hilljack went all manic.
JD (6e25b4) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:26 amThe projection is stunning in this one, no? In Yelverton’s silly little world, disjonest mediamatterz talking points are “facts”.
JD (6e25b4) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:32 amPlay nice with the shortbus hilljack. I am off to watch the cowgirlz get their butts whipped by the Colts.
JD (109425) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:37 am________________________________________________
Your trickle down economics is not trickling to American jobs, it’s trickling to China.
That’s a walk in the park compared with this dilemma:
^ Government employee unions: Hip, hip, hurrah!
I envision various people, not employed by the public sector, walking around wearing shirts with the saying: “I voted for liberals and all I got was this crummy T-shirt.”
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:49 amProfessor Yelverton, just two questions:
1. Why do you use so many different nicknames. I understand trying to keep your politics away from an academic environment by using a pseudonym (I do), but you must admit that you use a large number of nicknames. Again, why?
2. How do your actions honestly differ from those of a classical internet troll?
I know you won’t answer this, of if you do, it will be full of personal insult and spleen.
But I look at all the good things in your life, and wonder why you are so involved with bitterness and hatred. The deception of your many names online says something important, and I hope you can consider changing your ways.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/5/2010 @ 10:49 amWhat is classic are people like JD who never have anything informative to offer. They despise whistle blowers like Media Matters because they make their point by actually documenting on video what people are saying. Truth is a bitch for those that try and hide from it. All they can do is insult and deny. A delusional, shallow and cowardly existance, perfect puppets whom think they are patriots, yet are just unwitting tools, the worst level of ignorance.
Some people care about this country. Some are patriots and some are puppets. Take a look at this thread, notice who is backing up their facts and who, for lack of mental capacity, simply insult … because that is all they can do.
Tman (ed141f) — 12/5/2010 @ 11:14 am#108, the problem is that your “facts” are not facts, and that unlike you we have no “masters”. I know this is difficult for you to believe, but there are people who form their own opinions, and post accordingly, without receiving orders from anyone. That may not happen on your side of politics, but on our side it really does; quite often, in fact.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 11:22 amThat’s right up there with “I work here is done,” Professor Yelverton.
It’s like you don’t even remember what you post.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/5/2010 @ 11:32 amDear Patterico: do you have a list of nicknames that Professor Yelverton has been using on this blog?
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/5/2010 @ 11:33 amYelverton is allegedly a college professor yet he doesn’t use the proper term to describe the economic policies of China, and others:
AD-RtR/OS! (afa24e) — 12/5/2010 @ 12:00 pmMercantilism – which is what Das Kapital was written to oppose.
#
Terrye, they returned Biden back to office, six times, that tells me all I needed to know, they
put in office, someone who raised property taxes
60% in four years, glutton for punishment is charitable
Comment by narciso — 12/5/2010 @ 4:54 am
This is true.
Terrye (2e6779) — 12/5/2010 @ 3:57 pm#
Terrye, if we have no right to tell Barbara Bush to shut up, what gives you the right to tell us the same thing? As far as I’m concerned, the moment she opened her mouth against Palin, just in order to clear the way for an inevitably-doomed run by Jeb, she forfeited all claim to my loyalty. She doesn’t care about the cause, so why should I care about her? Her husband was a horrible president; her one son shone only in comparison to McCain, Algore, Kerry, and Obama; and I have no very good reason to think her other son would be that much better. Fool me twice… Palin nailed her exactly; she and her whole class think they own us, rather than the other way around. They are the tiny kernel of truth behind the way the Democrats portray Republicans as running dogs of the aristocracy (never mind that most of the blue-bloods are Democrats).
Comment by Milhouse — 12/5/2010 @ 8:37 am
I never told anyone to shut up. I actually people have a right to their opinion even when I don’t agree with that person. I have no idea why Barbara Bush said what she did, it was really not a big deal…just an off hand remark that should have been ignored. You say it was because of Jeb? Well did she say that? Can you read her mind?
This is my point, sometimes jumping all over people and telling them to shut up just because they said something you don’t like or whatever can make you look worse, not them. Barbara Bush is 85 years old, she is an old lady who no doubt has heard millions of people say a lot worse things about members of her own family than she ever said about Palin. No one wants a thin skinned president who is always portraying himself or herself as some sort of victim. The job is too big for that, and it goes against what America is all about if people can not speak out and criticize that president.
Terrye (2e6779) — 12/5/2010 @ 4:01 pmIf Barbara had been just a little tactful, she might
narciso (6075d0) — 12/5/2010 @ 4:04 pmhave said ‘sure this party is big enough for everyone to be a part of, she might have even said
we have a little experience with what my son George, and even what Jeb went through when first
running for office, but the statement seemed to come off like a threat
Barbara knew exactly what she was saying, and with her words she forfeited the right to be respected.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:03 pmThis is plain silly. Perhaps you would care to outline the 10 commandments for those who consider criticizing Palin as well as why Palin can criticize the president and be held on a pedestal for doing so.
vor2 (513abd) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:08 pmDon’t you see the double standard?
It’s the 11th commandment I’m talking about. And yes, criticising the president is what all Republicans should be doing; maybe Barbara should have confined her remarks to that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:11 pmMilhouse,
During the most recent campaign season Palin said a lot of things against other Republicans. Perhaps you missed it.
vor2 (513abd) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:19 pmMay he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!
Bill (02ebc4) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:24 pm<>
#
Barbara knew exactly what she was saying, and with her words she forfeited the right to be respected.
Comment by Milhouse — 12/5/2010 @ 5:03 pm
I see. So the only people that have not forfeited the right to be respected are the ones who say what you want to hear…and anyone who might have questions and doubts about Sarah Palin, but keep their mouths shut..how about them?
I can remember Palin saying a lot more critical things about George Bush than he ever said about her. And I did not fault her for that really, she had to make a case for herself..but this is something that I have noticed about some of the more ardent of Palin’s supporters, they can dish it out, but they suck at taking it. I know Palin has taken a lot of crap from liberals, the vast majority of it undeserved, but is she wants to be in politics in this country then she and her people have to be willing to tolerate a certain amount of criticism without constantly threatening to banish people to a cold and scary place or whatever.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:26 pm#
It’s the 11th commandment I’m talking about. And yes, criticising the president is what all Republicans should be doing; maybe Barbara should have confined her remarks to that.
Comment by Milhouse — 12/5/2010 @ 5:11 pm
This is funny. George W. Bush is a Republican and so is his father, but you have no problem giving both of them crap.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:28 pmMilhouse,
Barbara knew exactly what she was saying, and with her words she forfeited the right to be respected
That’s going a bit far, isn’t it? I didn’t care for BB’s dismissive remark against Palin either, but it really isn’t worth making that much of a fuss over.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:31 pm#
If Barbara had been just a little tactful, she might
have said ‘sure this party is big enough for everyone to be a part of, she might have even said
we have a little experience with what my son George, and even what Jeb went through when first
running for office, but the statement seemed to come off like a threat
Comment by narciso — 12/5/2010 @ 4:04 pm
I don’t think it came off as threat. A threat to do what? She said that Palin was beautiful and then she said something about her staying in Alaska..I mean come on, considering some of the stuff she has heard people say about her husband and her sons I doubt if she really thought it was anything other than sarcastic. She is blunt and she is old and sometimes when you put the two together you get some snarky comments. It is not any worse than the off hand comment Christie made. This the problem, sometimes it is better to rise above this sort of thing, otherwise it just goes on and on.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:33 pm#
Milhouse,
Barbara knew exactly what she was saying, and with her words she forfeited the right to be respected
That’s going a bit far, isn’t it? I didn’t care for BB’s dismissive remark against Palin either, but it really isn’t worth making that much of a fuss over.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 12/5/2010 @ 5:31 pm
Yes. I agree.
Terrye (368a41) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:35 pmReally I recall she admonished the fact that the McCain staff had tried to distance themselves so far away from Bush, specially on national defense,
narciso (6075d0) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:36 pmeven though Schmidt was certainly part of it, she did take issue with some of the excess spending, butas compared with many that wanted to walk away from Iraq, Huckabee wanted to give up, for one example. who supported the existence of Gitmo, even more than Bush. Nicole Wallace by contrast, did and continues to do everything to demean her, and she came from W’s camp. Many of her top staff like Recher and Beigun,and Smith, come straight
from the administration, because they did take
the tough step to defend her from the lies.
I thought sneering at Mrs. Bush for being a blue blood was incredibly tacky of Sarah Palin. Instead of sneering at people who think her unpresidential maybe she should work on being more presidential.
Either that or she could just say hey I’m not running for the presidency. I think she’d find out that people like her just fine they just think the idea of her as president is a bad joke.
America’s in big big trouble and there’s a lot of people – a growing number of people – what don’t have patience with silliness, and I admire Barbara Bush’s forthrightness in this matter.
happyfeet (c0d821) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:48 pmHF
amen!
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 12/5/2010 @ 5:53 pmSince we’re weighing in on how we feel, I’m conflicted about Barbara Bush’s comment. On one hand, I think she has a right to express her opinion and that her comment should be accorded some weight in light of her years of loyal service to the Republican Party. On the other hand, it’s unfortunate how many Republicans feel they have the right and, in fact, the duty to criticize Palin in ways that are typically reserved to the opposition party or to GOP opponents in the last weeks of a Presidential primary. It’s unnecessary and damaging GOP friendly fire.
Having said that, overall I suspect it was Barbara Bush’s Mom side talking and had more to do with Jeb than Sarah. I think she is partisan but she strikes me more as being very protective of her family.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 6:11 pmNote to JD:
Those Cowgirlz managed to win one. Any love for my Horned Frogs?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 6:42 pm____________________________________________
I suspect it was Barbara Bush’s Mom side talking and had more to do with Jeb than Sarah.
It actually probably wasn’t so much her “mom” side as much as the innate nature of the woman. She could have been tactful in voicing disapproval of Sarah Palin, but that would have gone against the history of what makes Barbara tick.
This is from a biography on George W’s/Jeb’s mother, by Pamela Kilian:
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/5/2010 @ 6:55 pmAny criticisms directed to George Bush, Pere & Fils, have everything to do with the policies they implemented, and not to their character, except as to how character and upbringing led directly to those policies that proved to be destructive.
AD-RtR/OS! (afa24e) — 12/5/2010 @ 6:58 pmBut, if we were all Leftists, we’d just say that both of the Bush’s are lying a$$hole$, and Hitler, and ……well, just read back issues of Salon, and Slate, and MoveOn.org., not to mention the two Times’, DU, DailyKos, etc.
#133: yep, there is nothing worse than sneering and insulting others. I completely agree.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:06 pmAnd I also agree that there are a number of people who are impatient with silliness.
But I think you only believe in that when it suits you.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:08 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy5xxF_xfJk
narciso (6075d0) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:18 pmMark,
We called that being catty in my day. Most girls go through it. Hopefully most grow out of it, too.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:22 pmDRJ,
vor2 (513abd) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:22 pmI think that she should expect the criticism when she writes off people who disagree with her as the establishment elite. She is not aiming those barbs at only Democrats.
You characterize it as a right and duty of one side – I see it as more turnabout fair play with Palin and her fans playing the victim card.
Congrats, DRJ. That was sure a wild game, one that we reallly had no business being as close as we were.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:27 pmIs there any topic that does not devolve into Palin bashing/love?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:28 pmVOR2,
Palin seems to be able to dish it out as well as take it, but I think it all goes back to the way she was treated by a few McCain staffers who support and make their living from establishment Republicans … not to mention journalists and other DC insiders. It strikes me as Palin’s way of letting everyone know they fooled her once but it won’t happen again.
Of course, her approach could backfire if the public decides Palin is thin-skinned but my guess is Palin is right to fear them more than the public. The public is pretty forgiving of its politicians. DC insiders? They go for the jugular.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:29 pmI’m not a Cowboys fan, JD. I washed my hands of them when Jerry Jones bought them.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:29 pmJD,
Only one that I can think of – speculation on when the Browns will win a superbowl….
vor2 (513abd) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:30 pmWell, my political awakening really came with Rush on the radio, and the American Spectator in print, I know they went a little by the boards in the mid 90s, but it was a corrective to the hagiography
narciso (6075d0) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:40 pmabout Clinton, that was the norm then, and it is
only a matter of degree to the slop that they have
ladeled about Obama today. what strikes me is there is an undue focus on appearances, Rush doesn’t yell except when he’s facing an exceedingly stupid caller. One didn’t defend our policy, and ultimately much of it was lost, the right blogosphere tried to make up for the Bush administration’s muteact, but with the Journolist and the netrooters, it was like firing a BB gun at a fusilade of howitzers
vor2 – How is never debatable?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:40 pmWell, DRJ, at least the State of Texas had TCU, otherwise it would have been an altogether miserable football season for Texas at many levels.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/5/2010 @ 7:42 pmPalin is the candidate I would least like to have a beer with. I would be like this is tasty beer um you’re annoying please don’t speak let’s just drink our beers okay?
I would drink mine as fast as I could like back in college fast and then say bye bye Sarah I have to go home and feed my turtles I forgot this morning.
happyfeet (c0d821) — 12/5/2010 @ 8:00 pmTCU is great and Patterson is the best kept secret in football. I hope he stays at TCU.
But I like rebuilding years, too. It gives me time to watch basketball.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 8:01 pmThe Big 12 minus 2 should have jumped on TCU before the Big East.
The South didn’t want the competition and there’s no hope for the North.
t.u. always gets its way, though. Why don’t we just call it the Texas-Oklahoma conference and be done with the arguing.
Ag80 (e828a4) — 12/5/2010 @ 8:20 pmI don’t think Texas cares about the Big 12 now that it has the Longhorn Network, but its football program better improve if it wants anyone to watch.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:03 pmI get that Karl has gone away, but that quote above does not mean what he thinks it does (since he is an avid listener to Limbaugh, the confirmation bias is no surprise). Still, Pew asked four questions about “current events,” i.e. what’s a headline in the news today. Limbaugh’s audience did well answering the trivia question, but that is hardly the definition of well-informed, since most of these same people think their taxes have gone up in the last two years (when over 90% of people pay less taxes thanks to the Stimulus bill).
A better example of uninformed versus informed occurred last Wednesday, when Limbaugh obfuscated his way to a conspiracy theory and shot at Bill Clinton. Rush spoke of the Wikileak which revealed Hillary Clinton asked US diplomats to spy on other diplomats and get passwords, etc from them. He then claimed that this information was worthless to US security and was an example of Hillary trying to score materials to blackmail these foreigners so they would have to contribute to the Bill Clinton’s Presidential library. It was breath-takingly stupid I was astonished anyone could listen to him at all, since he clearly thinks his audience is way LESS informed Karl does.
First, how many Limbaugh listeners could answer the trivia question about Wikileaks. A huge proportion since he droned on about it for hours last week. How many could answer a trivia question about the explosive news that Hillary Clinton signed a memo telling diplomats to steal “biometeric” info? Well, everyone had heard that already, so a high percentage.
But, how many knew that the originated under Condi? Well, no Limbaugh listener knew that from him. He set up the Hillary stuff and pretended the Condi stuff did not exist. He just assumed his audience is too stupid to know the whole story so he could set up his ridiculous conspiracy theory.
I know plenty of Limbaugh listeners from work and family reunions and they typically know nothing about what’s in a story beyond a headline and that’s because Rush isn’t about to tell them and they just don’t care to find out.
timb (449046) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:06 amAmusingly, timb, your screed does nothing to rebut Karl’s point at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:10 amI keep waiting for DCSCA to remind us all that he worked around Limbaugh and found him odortastical! Pheromones, I guess.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:23 amSPQR – Hate-filled and angry is no way to go through life.
JD (7f1877) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:38 amJD, but its always worked well for me …
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:39 am