Do pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Al Franken enlighten political dialogue, or just reinforce....

Question

...people's long-held assumptions (and hatred) of the rival philosophies?

Answer 1

Rush and Ann the man spew hate. I have never heard the same type from Al.

Answer 2

I think they just sustain the polarization of political and philosophical beliefs. There actually used to be goodwill between parties, where they fought each other in government but after six pm were able to actually socialize with one another and be friendly. The GOP attack dogs like the late Lee Atwater submarined that kind of bipartanship and unfortunately governments and political parties around the world have adopted mean nasty characher assassination tactics as acceptable. I also think this is why the world has become nastier and meaner and ruder because they are emulating the Ann Coulters, the Limbaughs, the Bill O'Reillys, the Al Franken's of the world, however I think there are more nasty narrow minded right winger ' compassionate christians' and libertarians who fit that catagorey than liberals or middle of the road independent voters.

Answer 3

Well, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will actually draw out information that you normally do not get to hear. Items that you have to really search for in order to get the information. Many times from sources that are not available for good reason.

For example, Rush had the Bill Clinton clips "Ron Brown Phony Mourning" and "Ordinary American".

At Ron Brown's funeral, he died under mysterious circumstances, but that's fodder for conspiracy theoriests. Anyway, he was a member of Bill Clinton's Staff. So he's attending the funeral service. The clip shows him walking away with another gentleman and they're laughing at something Clinton said. Then when Clinton sees the camera, he gets this sorrow filled look on his face and whips up some tears. The other guy is oblivious to the cameras and is still laughing.

Then there was the very neatly non reported speech at one of the organizations for Black Americans. Bill Clinton is making his speech. In it he says, "Black Americans are just like Ordinary Americans." Nobody says a word about it. You see the men on stage shift in their seats a little bit, but that's it. No one says a word about it. Not Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Nobody.

The sentence implies that there two distinct and different Americans. Nobody puts Clinton's feet to the fire. If a Republican had made that mistake... There would still be talk of it today.

Those are just some of the examples... I've only listened to Al Franken a couple of times. He results to personal attacks and I just don't care to listen to it. Like the titles of his books. "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar." When they result to name calling like that, it generally means they don't have much of an argument to stand on.

I believe there is some enlightenment going on in some of these.

Answer 4

They both enlighten and reinforce political dialogue, but neither is their primary purpose or key to success. These people brilliantly key onto very popular feelings which have been extremely suppressed, and basically say what everyone is dying to hear in a very entertaining way; a reinforcement of political dialogue which validates people's beliefs and feelings. They also promote entertaining dialog with those who hold differing views while introducing "food for thought" without allowing existing beliefs to be de-valued, dismissed, considered too lightly; an enlightenment of political dialogue.

They are popular because people hear what they want to hear in a very fun and relaxing way. They break the ice created by those who take politics so seriously that every disagreement becomes an excuse for character attacks. Like comedians, they allow us to laugh at politically incorrect or socially taboo topics. This brings peace and resolution to our lives; the largest obstacle to such lying primarily in our refusal to respect, accept, and express our own feelings and experiences.

Even anger when expressed correctly brings peace and resolution because it justifies and expresses displeasure. Some anger is entertaining and productive, while other anger is just blind, irrational, dry, and disgustingly barbaric. Those who use anger to entertain (like Savage), specialize the former kind of anger.

Answer 5

These "pundits' as you call them, are nothing of the kind.

Ann Coulter has been jabbing away at the snooze button on her 15 minutes of fame for 15 mintues longer than she should have been allowed;

Franken and Limbaugh are professional entertainers, no more qualified to render intelligent opinions about contemporary issues, than a baker giving advice to a doctor about how to best perform that brain surgery. Whats so alarming so that so many people (on BOTH sides of the fence) take what say so seriously, with no sources to back up their claims, no one in a position of knowledge coming out to support their claims, etc, and gullible people just swallow it down.

I will say as entertainers go, Franken seems to do more research into hs claims than Rush does. The big difference between the two (to me anyway) seems to be how Franken will go out of his way to give you sources, etc and almost too mUCH crap along with his thesis du jour; Limbaugh is the opposite, giving too little information and in some cases even suppressing information contrary to his positions.

However, bottom line, if they get reasonable people maturely discussing issues not only important to ourselves but our children, then they serve a legitimate purpose. To think ANY of them are more than just ildly entertaining diversions on a boring day, is to risk being thought of as mentally inferior.

Answer 6

Depends on who is listening. I am a Republican and sometimes I listen to Air America. I think it is good for people to hear other points of view and reasons behind their view.

Also depends on the Host. Some hosts are mostly talk and trying to knock down the other side.Then some other hosts are more responsible and have real dialogue. They put their positions in of course. But respect the others posittions as well.
Like
Micheal Medved
Dennis Prager
Some are there to be entertaining. Kind of like Jay Leno. Where they are more entertainment based rather than just trying to be politicaly based.

Answer 7

I'm liberal as they come but boy do I hate the sound of Al Frankens voice. Political talk radio is a bad scene. Athought I do like some Young Turks, Stephanie Miller or Sam Seder on occasion (Garafalo does an AWESOME Kathleen Harris impersonation) NPR for the win.

Answer 8

To me, Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken are sarcastic mouthpieces for their own parties. They sound like their job is to dumb down the platform enough to appeal to people's emotional heartstrings, rather than to their rational nature. Whatever gets the vote out works for them, I guess. Then again, one of George Washington's major campaign expenses was enough whiskey to get the voter turnout that he needed, so maybe politics hasn't changed too much over the years.

I don't know how it's happened, but I've never enjoyed the opportunity to listen to Ann Coulter.

Answer 9

If they get people to pay attention to what is going on great.

However, it has come down to the point when it comes to politics.
The line is if you disagree with me you are dumb or a sheep etc etc.

Or if a news report comes from a network they don't like it is bias.

Well they are all bias in their reporting.

We all happen to think we are not bias and everyone else is.

Need example see how liberals attack Fox News because they give a different point of view.

Or the hate they have for Rush and Ann.

Guess what you don't like them don' t listen to them.
Nobody listen to Al and now is looking for another job.

People have gotten too narrow minded.

Answer 10

both, Franken is different he uses facts, limbaugh is a paid mouth piece and coulter is an entertainer, hannity is a rather stupid fraud, Ed Schultz is trying to enlighten people. Stephanie Miller is by far the most clever. almost all the others are paid to push an agenda.

Answer 11

that's a priority for many the political suggestion occurring available on the instant. human beings do no longer actuality verify... a rapid seek in the direction of the hunt engine and despite result comes up... absolutely everyone can edit wikipedia... that's not a solid source... that's not a bad place to start yet then you quite could determine references... Even Glenn Beck admitted to no longer actuality checking on the grounds that his application is editorial is nature and not journalism or information. each and every physique keeps speaking approximately ingesting the kool-help on the two factors; it may help if each and every physique actuality checked which does take some attempt confident and not only a rapid and grimy seek engine study. It additionally does no longer harm if we did no longer place self belief in editorialism for data because of the fact they let us know what we would desire to hearken to. bypass get the data and then make some counseled judgements.