In charge of everything, but not to blame for anything

[AZhitman]

Pelosi really does need to be booted. I mean, come on. THIS is the crackpot wingnut that brought us, "If you want to know what's in it [the bill], you'll just have to pass it."

Now this: "We'll stop blaming Bush when the problems go away."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-6ThQ1 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Not only is she WAY off-track on a lot of this, but DAMN. Seriously - We can keep Obama, as long as she and Reid go away. Holy damn, she's a colossal moron.

[Cold_Zero]

When the problems go away? Like when we are in heaven? Give me a break. It is hard to teach my daughter to take responsibility, when the leaders of this country don't. Where is that "the buck stops here" guys these days?

[AZhitman]

She makes me physically ill. Where is the hue and cry for removing her from office? For God's sake, she's 2 heartbeats from the Presidency!!! What more evidence of this Administration's decimation of the Constitution do we need?

[srellim234]

Where is that "the buck stops here" guys these days?

Running on third party tickets but not enough people will vote for them. That and even if they were running as a Republican or Democratic they're too honest to be able to get the party nomination.

[AZhitman]

How many times has he said it?

[srellim234]

So Obama wants the buck to stop with him and he'll take the blame. Fine. The buck stops with him and blame him.

If Pelosi wants to blame the previous administration and not blame Obama, that's fine, too. Her opinion as a member of the legislative branch of the government, not the administration. She's not executive branch yet.

Yes, she's barking up a lot of wrong trees but this is not "more evidence of this Administration's decimation of the Constitution." This statement is not about what the Administration has done. It is simply enumerating reasons she wants to blame the opposition party and Obama's predecessor for her ineffectiveness to be a true leader in the House.

[AZhitman]

True leadership dictates that POTUS would put a muzzle on her moronic yap.

I'm inclined to agree with you Steve, but when it takes THAT much effort to deflect criticism from someone who clearly does not have the best interests of the American people in mind, I think it's time to simply call a spade a spade and make sure she can do no further harm.

[srellim234]

I agree. I'd like to see her out of there but unfortunately the odds are very good that the Republican she"s running against (Carly Fiorina) would be an even bigger nightmare, just doing the same cr*p for the Republican side. The only difference is that Fiorina wouldn't be as influential because she would lack seniority. Pelosi is not a leader and I never accused Obama of being a leader either.

EDIT: My goof entirely. Fiorina is running against Barbara Boxer for senator. My mind just went numb. Sorry about that. I guess it's time for me to call it a night and get some sleep.

[AZhitman]

Argh... It's just frustrating. I don't know if it's ignorance or apathy, but this s*** would NOT have flown in a GOP Administration, the media and public would have been calling for impeachment or charges of treason.

Makes me wonder where the control really lies, and it's a terribly helpless feeling.

[stebo0728]

Hey listen, we may not be able to do anything about Pelosi and her actual seat ... BUT ... if we can get the majority back at least she'll be out if the speaker seat right??

[AZhitman]

She makes HIllary look absolutely brilliant.

[stebo0728]

She makes HIllary look absolutely brilliant.

She makes Obama look like Alexander Hamilton

[srellim234]

She makes Spongebob Squarepants and Patrick Star look like intellectuals.

[smockers83]

WTF is wrong with the people who voted this person into office and continue to do so? Not only is Pelosi moronic, she's got 1000s of morons behind her. She smokes way too much.

[AZhitman]

WTF is wrong with the people who voted this person into office and continue to do so? Not only is Pelosi moronic, she's got 1000s of morons behind her.

I'd expect no less from the mouthbreathing cretins of CA.

As I said before, I can't believe there's not more outrage.

Bush made up a word and the world freaked. Bush1 went back on his word and the world freaked. Clinton porked a fatty in the Oval and the world freaked.

This woman is systematically decimating the very concepts that make us strong, and no one notices?

[heliochrome85]

WTF is wrong with the people who voted this person into office and continue to do so? Not only is Pelosi moronic, she's got 1000s of morons behind her.

I'd expect no less from the mouthbreathing cretins of CA.

As I said before, I can't believe there's not more outrage.

Bush made up a word and the world freaked. Bush1 went back on his word and the world freaked. Clinton porked a fatty in the Oval and the world freaked.

This woman is systematically decimating the very concepts that make us strong, and no one notices?

i will honestly never understand why people hate her. truthfully, i dont think i will. im completely indifferent to her. as for who is systematically decimating the very concepts taht make us strong, one neednt look any farther than TalkRadio and the major voices of the Right.

who is drumming up this xenophobia regarding mosques?
Who is claiming to defend the Constitution while simultaneously voting to strip American Citizens of the rights given to them by the Bill of Rights?
Who is blocking all activity in the Senate by filibustering and placing blanket holds?
Who is preventing the advancement of science by blocking funding because of their own religious beliefs?
Who is voting to extend Bush era tax cuts to the richest 1% at a time when the country is broke and we are fighting two costly foreign wars?
Who is spreading seditious rumors about the Executive branch of the US Government?


somehow, I dont see Nancy Pelosi being behind any of that.

[AZhitman]

...and all of your points are arguable on their own merits, deserving (each) of their own thread.

Interestingly, a lot of those "snippets" you posted are exactly the kind of "drummed up" half-truths that you're railing against... There's much more to each of them than a simple one-liner, and you know it.

TalkRadio is not to blame. That's silly. If the Left had something to say, then they could say it. They don't. Their shows suck, and that's why no one listens, and that's why they don't draw corporate sponsors.

No, Tariq, you are correct in this: She's not THE problem. But she's a large part of it, and it's simply explained:

She has power. She says things ("pass it to see it" and "we'll quit blaming Bush when things improve") that clearly shows her disregard for logic and her arrogant dismissal of the democratic process. She mistakenly thinks that she "knows what's best" for the country, and I disagree. Her thought process is dangerous and frightening, and the only thing MORE scary is the fact that people line up behind her like brain-damaged sheep.

[IBCoupe]

TalkRadio is not to blame. That's silly. If the Left had something to say, then they could say it. They don't. Their shows suck, and that's why no one listens, and that's why they don't draw corporate sponsors.

An alternative interpretation is that the left doesn't respond as well to cheerleaders. AirAmerica failed because liberals aren't interested in a circle-jerk of ideas, not because their shows necessarily sucked, but because the target audience sought alternative means of information-gathering.

I do believe the left has a lot to say. The fact that only roughly half of the voting public chooses to cast their votes on Republican candidates is indicative of this, Greg. What you're not seeing is a loud, angry sensationalism coming from the blue-tinged. Usually it's more a smarmy, quiet sensationalism.

[wingFeather]

Pelosi needs to jump her Trans Am into a concrete bridge support. Anyone supporting her has an evil heart & can ride with her in said car. Stupid circle jerkers.

[AZhitman]

TalkRadio is not to blame. That's silly. If the Left had something to say, then they could say it. They don't. Their shows suck, and that's why no one listens, and that's why they don't draw corporate sponsors.

An alternative interpretation is that the left doesn't respond as well to cheerleaders. AirAmerica failed because liberals aren't interested in a circle-jerk of ideas, not because their shows necessarily sucked, but because the target audience sought alternative means of information-gathering.

I do believe the left has a lot to say. The fact that only roughly half of the voting public chooses to cast their votes on Republican candidates is indicative of this, Greg. What you're not seeing is a loud, angry sensationalism coming from the blue-tinged. Usually it's more a smarmy, quiet sensationalism.

That's all well and good, and may even be completely accurate.

That still doesn't justify implicating talk radio hosts for perceived societal ills.

An alternative interpretation is that the left doesn't respond as well to cheerleaders.

Dude. Seriously? I know you weren't around for Kennedy's vapid but moving speeches, but you certainly were here for the fawning and swooning over Obama... I thought half of the goddamn Beatles came back to life and walked on stage.

Sorry, I couldn't let that one go.

[IBCoupe]

That still doesn't justify implicating talk radio hosts for perceived societal ills.

Certainly not, but that wasn't exactly what I was responding to.

but you certainly were here for the fawning and swooning over Obama...

You think the chronic support of Rush Limbaugh's talk show is comparable to the instant responses to Candidate Obama's campaign promises? Dude. Seriously?

[AZhitman]

That still doesn't justify implicating talk radio hosts for perceived societal ills.

Certainly not, but that wasn't exactly what I was responding to.

My bad - I was replying to Tariq.

but you certainly were here for the fawning and swooning over Obama...

You think the chronic support of Rush Limbaugh's talk show is comparable to the instant responses to Candidate Obama's campaign promises? Dude. Seriously?[/quote]

I don't see what you're getting at. You suggested: "...the left doesn't respond as well to cheerleaders." I disagreed.

I couldn't speak to "chronic support", because I haven't listened to Rush since early in the Clinton Administration (when he was on TV). But your tone leads me to believe that you feel there's some "illicit-ness" to that. There's not. Hey, it's a free market (for now), and if people quit buying what he's selling, then he'll be off the air. Hasn't happened yet. A good example - I used to really like Beck's show. I can't tolerate him anymore (for more than one reason). Ergo, I don't tune in to his show, so his sponsors have one less listener to pitch to. Another example: I hate Stern with a passion. I think he's an imbecile and a moron, an I can't for the life of me figure out why otherwise intelligent people would listen to his mind-numbing idiocy... Yet his show thrives.

[IBCoupe]

What I'm saying, Greg, is that there's a difference between a talking head spouting off on the radio to an agreeable audience and a Presidential candidate making well-received campaign promises for official action. I really don't think the latter can be categorized as "cheerleading." One could be seen as people responding to an "echo chamber" effect and the other is more plausibly seen as people participating in the political process.

Whether political "cheerleading" is a bad thing is for another argument. There's no doubt that Rush Limbaugh's is the most popular radio show on air today and there's similarly no doubt that the second-most popular radio show, Talk of the Nation on NPR, isn't anywhere near being his "liberal" counterpart.

Remember, I was offering a possible explanation as to the lack of left-wing talk-radio. The right-wing talk-radio follows a certain format, and it may be that this format is more appealing to those who hold a right-wing viewpoint (for whatever reason), thus enabling those talk-radio shows to thrive. That same format may not be as appealing to a left-wing viewpoint, which could be why those talk-radio shows did not thrive.

Once again, it isn't my goal to comment on the value of that particular format; I'm responding to a theory you put forth. I don't believe that the absence of liberal talk-radio has anything to do with liberals not having anything worthwhile to talk about, or the inherent crappiness of liberal talk-radio shows.

[AZhitman]

There's no doubt that Rush Limbaugh's is the most popular radio show on air today and there's similarly no doubt that the second-most popular radio show, Talk of the Nation on NPR, isn't anywhere near being his "liberal" counterpart.

Actually, according to this, NPR's show comes nowhere close. In fact, they wouldn't even crack the Top Ten:

Talkers Magazine compiles Arbitron's data, along with other sources, to estimate the minimum weekly audiences of various commercial long-form talk radio shows.

The Rush Limbaugh Show – 20+ million
The Sean Hannity Show – 12+ million
Glenn Beck Program – 10+ million
The Savage Nation – 10+ million
The Dr. Laura Program – 9+ million
The Mark Levin Show – 6.25 million
The Laura Ingraham Show – 6.25 million
The Dave Ramsey Show – 6.25 million
Neal Boortz – 4.25+ million

http://www.npr.org/about/press/2009/032 ... ecord.html says TOTN reaches 3.5M listeners weekly.

Interestingly, all 10 are conservative (Boortz is Libertarian, and Ramsey's show is non-partisan but he's Right-leaning). Not a lefty in the bunch.

[AZhitman]

I don't believe that the absence of liberal talk-radio has anything to do with liberals not having anything worthwhile to talk about, or the inherent crappiness of liberal talk-radio shows.

Fair enough. Perhaps it could be that the US is a lot more conservative than we (collectively) like to admit. Hmmmm...

Bunch of closeted capitalists and neo-cons... ...in fact... I'll bet you're one of 'em too... EXPOSED!!!

[heliochrome85]

I don't see what you're getting at. You suggested: "...the left doesn't respond as well to cheerleaders." I disagreed.

I couldn't speak to "chronic support", because I haven't listened to Rush since early in the Clinton Administration (when he was on TV). But your tone leads me to believe that you feel there's some "illicit-ness" to that. There's not. Hey, it's a free market (for now), and if people quit buying what he's selling, then he'll be off the air. Hasn't happened yet. A good example - I used to really like Beck's show. I can't tolerate him anymore (for more than one reason). Ergo, I don't tune in to his show, so his sponsors have one less listener to pitch to. Another example: I hate Stern with a passion. I think he's an imbecile and a moron, an I can't for the life of me figure out why otherwise intelligent people would listen to his mind-numbing idiocy... Yet his show thrives.

this seems appropriate.


somebody has to cater to the jerry springer voters...

[AZhitman]

The hog in the blue is killin' me - just choked on my DIet Pepsi...

[heliochrome85]

There's no doubt that Rush Limbaugh's is the most popular radio show on air today and there's similarly no doubt that the second-most popular radio show, Talk of the Nation on NPR, isn't anywhere near being his "liberal" counterpart.

Actually, according to this, NPR's show comes nowhere close. In fact, they wouldn't even crack the Top Ten:

Talkers Magazine compiles Arbitron's data, along with other sources, to estimate the minimum weekly audiences of various commercial long-form talk radio shows.

The Rush Limbaugh Show – 20+ million
The Sean Hannity Show – 12+ million
Glenn Beck Program – 10+ million
The Savage Nation – 10+ million
The Dr. Laura Program – 9+ million
The Mark Levin Show – 6.25 million
The Laura Ingraham Show – 6.25 million
The Dave Ramsey Show – 6.25 million
Neal Boortz – 4.25+ million

http://www.npr.org/about/press/2009/032 ... ecord.html says TOTN reaches 3.5M listeners weekly.

Interestingly, all 10 are conservative (Boortz is Libertarian, and Ramsey's show is non-partisan but he's Right-leaning). Not a lefty in the bunch.

How sad is it that the most powerful voice on the radio, Limbaugh can get away with calling the freely elected President of the United States, Imam Obama, without anyone batting an eye. Yes he has the freedom to do so, but it goes to show you how 1.) he is invested in his audience, and 2.) how much he is willing to continue the "Obama is a muslim" myth. You have to understand how dangerous and destructive this is for someone like me, living in a blood red state.

[heliochrome85]

The hog in the blue is killin' me - just choked on my DIet Pepsi...

take a look at the title of the show in the bottom left hand corner. tell me that Howard Stern doesnt have an audience.

[heliochrome85]

The hog in the blue is killin' me - just choked on my DIet Pepsi...

also, she has hog jowls.

i love america.