Why do liberals use statements by talk shows hosts to indict all Republicans?

Question

I constantly see liberals posting tirades against all Republicans based on statements by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. There is no question that these people are partisan and spin for the Republicans, and while they do have influence in the debate, they in no way represent the whole of thinking in the Republican Party. When I see Republicans posting regarding statements it is usually, but not always, in response to actions or statements of politicians. You don't see them saying did you hear what Al Franken or Alan Combes said on his show? In those rare instances when they do, the liberal answer is "change the channel if you don't like it". Some content from these shows may indeed be offensive based on your viewpoint, but what about free speech? and Do liberals not know how to change the channel?

Disclaimers: I am not a Republican. I am an Independent. I do not listen to Hannity or Limbaugh as a general rule and wouldn't base my views on their opinions if I did.

What say you?

dstr: I would agree that many do cite these men as their sources, and even when they don't the inference is obvious. However, there is a difference between attacking the message and attacking the messenger. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think liberals honestly fear Limbaugh because of his power to influence the debate, especially given the fact that conservatives do not exhibit the same fear regarding these men's liberal counterparts in general.

goliathntime: Excellent point

no-duh yoda: That is a weak partisan argument. Both sides are pretty guilty of trying to spin every event to their benefit, and both are really good at denigrating the other side. However, I have seen more liberals call all dissenters stupid sheep and worse than conservatives.

feistycharley: Bill O'Reilly annoys me in general. I do not listen to any nationally syndicated political talk shows on a regular basis. I do listen to some local ones because they discuss local events. I just happen to like the phrase.

feistycharley: Further, I am not making broad generalizations. I asked a question based on given criteria and personal observations. I am not making direct indictments against any group. The question is provacative in phrasing because I have found that this is best tactic for actually getting people to answer. I weigh all arguments and really do like well thought out opinions, but it takes more than just blaming the other side for the same behavior to qualify.

Answer 1

The Liberals use what Limbaugh and Hannity say on their shows, because Limbaugh and Hannity are directly piped into the administration. The Republican media have direct, unfettered access to the president and his cabinet.

Unlike most Liberals on here, I actually DO listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. I listen to the repetitive hammering home of talking points. I listen to Sean Hannity cherry-picking phone calls from the most insane, incoherent, and idiotic Liberals, so that he can paint the broad brush that they're ALL like that.

I listen to them frame the debates to make them suit the message -- for instance, saying Democrats are against intercepting terrorist phone calls, when they're in fact against the unauthorized phone taps of American citizens without a court order. Or when Hannity says that the Democrats are using fear to scare American into voting for them, while Dick Cheney talks about the prospect of "mass death in America" if you don't vote Republican. Or when Limbaugh hammers on Michael J. Fox for his stem cell ad, but doesn't mention that Fox did an ad for Republican Arlen Specter in 2004 that said the same exact thing.

Most people SHOULD know better than to accept what ANYONE says as gospel before doing the research themselves. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. We're told we have to take their words for it... to trust them implicitly. Don't ask questions.

In fact, it just happened yesterday. During Donald Rumsfeld's press conference, a reporter had the misfortune of asking The Donald (I'm paraphrasing), "What happens if the Iraqi government does not meet the benchmarks discussed by the President at his press conference?"

After the Defense Secretary chided the reporter for even asking such a question, he finally just said, "So you ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it's complicated, it's difficult, that honorable people are working on these things together; there isn't any daylight between them. "

Don't ask question. Just know that it's complicated. That's all you need to know. Sit back. Relax.

So that's why Rush and Sean are so important in this process. The administration relies on them to get their message out. The administration lets them explain why they do what they do.

Answer 2

Whenever you make a broad generalization like "Liberals do this, republicans do this..." you're not doing the debate any good. I have not noticed that 'liberals' always point to Rush as their reasons for disliking the conservatives. Of course, he's an easy target because he is a media figure and he says a LOT of dumb stuff. It's also a generalization to say that all conservatives refernece politicians.

Personally, I tend to use the politician's actions against them, rather than focus on their words. And really, that's the problem with your whole arguement. It doens't matter what people say. These politicians have an expensive team of handlers who script every word that comes out of their mouths. That goes for republicans, conservatives, and all other parties from all nations. (Except Venezuela for example. That man says whatever comes up in his brain. That guy just doesn't care).

Same with these spin doctors on the radio (What say you? is a catch phrase of Bill O'Reily, isn't it? You a Bill fan? I used to like him before he sold out). These guys are paid for their personalities. I would bet every dime I had that a lot of the issues they tout, they don't actually agree totally with. They just know it will cause controversy, and thus plublicity. All publicity is good publicity for these people.

I would caution anyone who really wants to get down to the REAL issues to not listen to the words that fly around. Watch the actions. Read the legislation they sign. Those are the real ways you can tell what your politicians are doing, and what they're worth. You will end up with a much more intelligent point of view, backed by tangible facts, not words.


<<>>

Well then, I'll say this: Words do not matter. What they do is what matters.

Answer 3

I agree. Most people here think debating is saying "liberals suck" or "conservatives suck." What few people seem to realized is that nearly 70% of Americans are moderates. Moderates look for viable solutions to problems. At a debate, one must realize that the audience is there to hear the candidates solutions and make an intelligent decision as to who can solve the countries problems.
If your solution is liberals suck or conservatives suck, you are not presenting any intelligent information and will not win over your audience.
Most mature Americans don't listen to any of the talk show host you mention. Those shows are not much different than the Jerry Springer show. It's just hype to attract a paying audience.

Answer 4

Both sides do it. Conservatives like to use quotes by Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. The problem is that people tend to accept what the extremists say as the gospel truth without thinking for themselves. Very few of us sit off in the extreme wings. The vast majority congregate towards the middle, but the extremists seem to yell the loudest.

I try not to judge groups as a whole by the actions of the vocal minority, as you have done here.

Answer 5

Well, I don't think anyone should use violet rhetoric, both left and right need to grow up and talk politics, not bully each other. That being said, the reason: Sarah Palin has a huge fan base and is all over the TV, Mark Malloy's fan base is less, and not nearly as many people even know who he is. You are no better than anyone who spews the rhetoric you realize.

Answer 6

Like you I am an Independent, and as such have no party,unfortunately. It is hard to find an affiliate of either of the two parties that does not use the extreme to try to slam the other party. Independent research is the only way to go, and thankfully there are a lot of government sites that actually reveal voting records and history of the candidates, that is where the real truth can be found.

Answer 7

I think that this incident frames the election quite nicely. It demonstrates the hypocritical nature of the Republican mindset, who says out of one side of their mouths that they want to protect and preserve life and that they are compassionate, but then out of the other side of their heads they cast mockery and insults at anyone, including disabled Americans, who do not think they way they do. Limbaugh is widely praised by most Republicans, and therefore to me seems representative of their mindsets.
Limbaugh is just one example of this kind of Republican depravity. And is comes at a time when this talking head,...exhaulted by Republicans as being "right"...is himself a drug dependent person, disabled by his own inappropriate vices.
My Daddy always told me that you can see a person's soul in the words he uses...Since Limbaugh is the GOP poster child, it seems to me that Republicans cannot be trusted. Who will they mock next? You?

Answer 8

Democrats never ever quote liberals like Franken or Combes.
Democrats know that they are both such freaks, that what they say frightens the average citizens.
Liberals just talk to liberals. They can't allow Americans to know what they really believe.
They try to keep it in the Democrat Community.

Answer 9

I am also an independent...but I see it on both sides.

But I blame the idiots who actually believe half the crap they hear on cable news....some cannot seem to grasp the idea...these are commentaries and not news shows.

While it is true they do not speak for the majority....some ppl can't seperate the two.

Answer 10

Amen, bro. I'm not trying to by offensive, but I really do find the liberal stance to be quite hypocritical.

There are several common examples of this. "Majority rules", for instance. Many left-wingers will say that, for example, abortion should remain legal because something like 51% of the population is pro-choice, while at the same time say that we shouldn't display the 10 commandments in public despite the fact that 95% of the country is christian.

Go figure.