Ed Schultz spends his 3 hours knocking Hillary and praising Boob Pickens...

[Peregrine Took]

while Fatty Limbaugh knocks the "Democrat" party and Obama for 3 hours.

I've noticed this many times - our talkers spread their topics around on a variety of subjects but right wing talkers keep focused on hitting on Democrats and Obama all the time.

Maybe we just don't have their fire in the belly.

Normal people would get worn out going over the same topics constantly but they aren't "normal" - maybe that's why they have been successful over the years.

[nomorenomore08]

1. All they have to do is keep repeating "Democrats bad" over and over again.

Anything else would exceed the attention span of their audience.

[mtnester]

2. Sigh...Ed is ALWAYS and FOREVER

about Ed

nothing else matters to him really.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Maybe we just don't have their ability to lie to themselves, either

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Mike Malloy's been telling people to vote third party so McCain can win all week.

Anything Ed is doing pales in comparison.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

9. That's not what he said at all.

What Mike said was that the next President is going to be blamed for everything Bush has done to destroy this country, much as Jimmy Carter was blamed for the direct results of Vietnam and Watergate - and this is 1000 times worse - so why let a Democratic president take the fall for that, instead make sure that a veto-proof senate is elected, so McCain can do absolutely NOTHING.

I'm not saying I agree with this strategy, or see the risk in doing so, but what Mike is saying is fundamentally correct. I believe Obama has the potential to be a great President, but I don't know if anybody, short of Jesus Christ himself, will be able to dig us out of the hole - no make that a Marianas trench - that Chimpco has created. And if that's the case, why let Obama take the rap for it? If we had a veto proof Congress, McCain wouldn't be able to make anything worse, but when Chimpy's economic chickens came home to roost, Gramps would be the one left holding the bag.

Strategically it makes sense. Again, it's no endorsement, but I see exactly what Malloy was getting at. If Obama is framed for the next Great Depression, we'll never see another Democrat elected to office again. :(

[still_one]

12. Carter wasn't blamed for Nam. he was blamed for the Iran hostage crisis

which was triggered by him allowing the shah in the U.S. for treatment as I rember

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

16. No, he wasn't blamed for Vietnam. He was blamed for the ecomonic mess that followed 'Nam

And the bills from that useless illegal war pale in comparison to the bills from the current useless illegal war. That's what I meant. Not Vietnam or Watergate themselves, but the economic consequences of both.

Republicans are hypocrites about damn near everything, but especially economics. They tried to credit Reagan for the relatively good economic period in the 1990's, and then turned around and blamed Bill Clinton for the first Bush recession in March 2001, which even FAUX Noise originally reported correctly.

They're already preparing their stories to blame Obama for whatever economic disaster happens. And this time around, the corporate media will be full and willing partners in the frameup.

[Cleita]

13. I'm certain Obama is being set up as a one term President to be blamed

for the neo-con mess, however, I have faith that Obama is smart enough to work through this especially if he gets a progressive Congress to work with.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. Then you haven't been listening to everything.

He is denigrating Obama, his supporters, and Democrats. He is touting 3rd party candidates, like Nader. Last night he got back on the McCain can't appoint judges to SCOTUS line, because Congress has to approve them. Well who gets to nominate them, Mike?

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

17. If the Senate did its job, we would not have Chief Justice Roberts, Sammy the Fish Alito, or Mukrazy

among other Chimpointments of the last decade. It is the constitutional duty of the Senate to determine whether a presidential appointment is worthy of the job, or not. And in the case of most Bush appointments, NOT would be the correct answer.

If the dozen or so DLC senators who vote against the party more than half the time had existed in the 1980's, we would have Chief Justice Robert Bork right now. But (thank God) the Senate back then actually did their job and they shot that right wing bastard down, forcing Reagan to find a more moderate nominee. As a result, we got Justice Kennedy. Hardly a flaming liberal, and he definitely voted wrong on a certain key decision in December 2000. But he has also voted against the Scalia/Thomas fascist wing of the court on many cases, effectively becoming the "swing vote" on the court.

That's what happens when the Senate does their job. And the fact that they have NOT done so recently, is why Chimpy has gotten away with far worse than his dad or Reagan ever did.

[still_one]

11. if malloy is saying that he is an idiot /nt

[polichick]

5. We're just more rational.

[jobycom]

6. Conservatives coordinate their message.

They aren't trying to inform their audience the way neutral or liberal journalists and commentators do. They are running infomercials to persuade their listeners to vote a certain way. The major spokesgoons coordinate their efforts for maximum effect, even coordinating buzz words and memes.

Liberals don't like that type of homogeneity and artifice. Not that Ed is much of a liberal--but he's still not affiliated with the conservative gang.

[Jim__]

7. Limbaugh & Co can get away with repeating the same shit over and over and over.

His audience doesn't remember what he said yesterday. It wouldn't work on progressive radio.

[Cleita]

8. I'm so happy they kicked him off the air on my local affiliate. That's the

good news. However, the local boob they replaced him with isn't much better. I'm just grateful that he isn't heard beyond my county.

[still_one]

10. and how was he knocking Hillary? could it be about her name being placed in nomination

at the convention?

as far as pickens, was he praising pickens or pickens proposal for more green energy?

[madfloridian]

15. That is just not true.

Schultz was questioning the actions of the Clintons in promoting party unity...and so am I.

[aquart]

18. 72 million Dems, 55 million Reps, 42 million Inds.

We need 13 million independent votes and not one Republican.

[OwnedByFerrets]

19. People tend to listen to what they agree with.

The idiots WANT to hear Limpballs trashing the democrats for 3 hrs a day. I, instead like to listen to Thom telling the truth for 3 hrs a day. You couldnt pay a rightwinger to listen to Thom and you couldnt pay me to listen to Limpballs. Its just the way it is.