Note to Andrew, I posted this at the same time you commented on the post below this one.

I had no idea you were going to write that really. So I just read it, AFTER I posted this.

Funnily enough, it was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. And you didn't even know it, you prophet you.

I'm going to paste it here, and give you a pass as having already answered.

Two birds with one stone and all that... :)

From Andrew:

Well with a good 4-8 years in the political desert, we could really afford to do some housekeeping. Limbaugh and Hannity command the attention of a wide audience, but they are not good for conservatism. Limbaugh will say anything if it means getting attention. I don't mean to charge him with insincerity, but the guy is a businessman. He does what sells. Hannity is a little better, but he tends to equate Conservatism with Christianity in the way that Falwell equated Christianity with Conservatism.

And the fact remains, that in 8 years of unchecked executive expansion, unhinged spending, and utter contempt for the Constitution, these two, along with most of the other "faces" of conservatism went right along with it, justifying it in many cases. It wasn't until it became apparent that the Republicans were going to lose the election that many conservatives started criticizing Bush.

What we have right now isn't working. Hannity and Limbaugh will always have their audience, and they will have their influence, but that doesn't mean they are good for the movement. They aren't.

That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

Thanks, Andrew. Your answer "by accident" was perfect. :)

Hannity circles around the same talking points continuously, and badgers those callers who disagree with him. His show is boring because he is continually rehashing the same basic points ad nauseam. Limbaugh takes too much delight in disparagement of those who disagree with him, and in the sound of his own voice. Listening to either of them continually leads me away from a Christ-centered, Christ-like life, because they both tend to ignore Phillipians 4:8, in their radio personae at least.

They're both mean, they both tell half-truths and they both lie.

If I can ask a follow-up question here--speaking as someone who's never watched Sean Hannity except for the occasional YouTube interview clip, and hasn't listened to Rush since I first moved out of the country a decade ago--are the people who say nasty things about them really any better?

Thanks for asking! I am one of those conservatives who refuses to listen/watch/read either Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter.

They do not just merely disagree with the liberal platform but they are mean and rude and fear mongering. After listening and/or reading what either of them have to say I do not walk away encouraged or motivated to look for a change but instead walk away angry, scared and mean-spirited.

Proverbs 22:24-25 "Make no friendship with a man given to anger, not go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare."

and

Proverbs 29:22 "A man of wrath stirs up strife; and one given to anger causes much transgression."

Because I am a christian I try to disagree with a liberal politicians with grace rather than anger.

Inviting either of the above into my household several hours a day through radio, tv, or blogs did not prove to be fruitful for my life.

Did I answer nicely? :) Was I gentle? I hope so!

I used to listen to Rush and Hannity daily, but like others have said I grew weary of the same rants from Hannity and I found an alternative to Rush in Glenn Beck.

I prefer Laura Ingraham's radio show and also Glenn Beck - both are traditionalist conservatives who don't necessarily toe the Republican party line. Both have criticized President Bush and other Republicans when they disagree with them. Both keep it rational. And both also keep their shows highly entertaining and amusing.

Diane's post (#5 above) sums it up for me. She says it better than I would have.

In short though, I think they are jerks. The fact that they are jerks who agree with me doesn't help all that much and in fact makes me want to distance myself from them and say "not all of us who believe such-and-such are like those guys!"

In addition to the jerk factor there is also the half-truth or selective-truth factor. They seem to be bent on making a case rather than finding the truth or being fair and hence, will twist or distort things at times, or gloss over/not report stuff that doesn't serve their desired end. "Yeah but the other side does it too" isn't good enough for me. I'd prefer to counter "the other side" with grace and balance rather than with "equal but opposite" ungrace and imbalance.

I find Hannity to be mean-spirited and and I find Rush to be an ego-maniac. Quite honestly, neither is attractive, even though I agree with them a lot.

Neither (for the reasons I mentioned above) are gracious to people who disagree with them. I think when I was younger I equated agreeing with someone with liking them too.......that's just not the case anymore.

And I think in an age where the majority of us prefer grace and authenticity, their acts just don't hold up very well.

For a good example of how to be conservative and gracious to someone who vehemently disagrees with you, go to youtube and watch Huckabee's interview with Bill Maher last week.

I'm warming to Huckabee (I've seen his tv show a couple of times), too, and love Laura Ingram, although from reading this thread I feel some people would say she is mean as well. I don't happen to agree with that, I think she has sarcastic wit combined with high intellect. She doesn't seem to hit the same thing over and over and over like Hannity. Nor does she seem like an egomaniac, as Rush comes across.

I actually can see truth in some of the criticism of Hannity & Limbaugh, but it doesn't keep me from liking them for a few minutes a day. I can't really climb on board with the "liars" accusations, though. I don't think they're liars. I get annoyed when they overlook or excuse something a Republican did that they'd bbq a Dem for, but I don't think that makes them liars, just inconsistent.

I think we should rail against all politicians for stupid whether they're Democrats or Republicans.

Please forgive me if this is redundant ... I didn't read the comments.

Re: Limbaugh

I don't like his crass language. I don't like the juvenile name-calling. His astonishing arrogance is matched only by the shallowness of his understanding.

More than that, he defines all issues as "us" and "them." No liberal is ever right about anything in Limbaugh's world.

Most of all, the man in an Ayn Rand-steeped materialist posing as some kind of believer.

Re: Hannity

He could complete the whole show in 45 minutes if he'd quit repeating himself. He's far more reasonable than Limbaugh, but that's mostly because he never steps away from conventional wisdom.

As an example, he was very much against Huckabee and McCain in the primaries, until it was down to those two ... at which point he was suddenly a Huckabee fan. Then, he was in the tank for McCain.

I don't know what, if anything, Hannity actually believes, and what he says just because it's what his audience wants to hear.

I've grown weary of Hannity for the reasons that Jeff and some others mention, but I still like him, and I sympathize with you, Phillip. Still, the show (Hannity and Colmes) is better for me when Rich Lowry substitutes. Lowry is more reasoned and less bulldoggish.

I like Limbaugh. His arrogance is all show. These guys do some serious commentary, but they are mostly entertainment.

But the best radio show, bar none, is the Dennis Miller Show. If he's not in your area, check it out at DennisMillerRadio.com. It's more than worth becoming a premium member and downloading the daily show without commercials.

Dennis is respectful of ALL his guests, as well as of dissenting opinions. Unlike many others, I never get angry when he interviews liberal guests, and I spend a lot of time laughing. He has taught me much about debating my ideas without stirring up rancor. (Admittedly, however, I AM a slow study).

I'm hoping for a calm, rational, reasoned explanation that's seasoned with salt and full of love for me.

I think it's a shame we have to ask things in this way on the internet, Phillip. What is it about this medium that brings out the worst n people?

I really want to know, if maybe I shouldn't like them either, and maybe I've just missed something?

Can't help with your question, because I like them both. Hope that at least makes you feel better. I guess Rush is too in your face for alot of people. But there's no end to public figures who have made entire careers out of being worse. I don't quite get what beef people would have with Hannity. We could indict him on aggressiveness and maybe lack of objectivity. And that's OK if we are willing to indict the entire new genre (new in the U.S., anyway) of commentary from a pre-established viewpoint. Hannity is just playing the game the way it is played, and alot more fairly and knowledgeably than most.

Andrew said,

And the fact remains, that in 8 years of unchecked executive expansion, unhinged spending, and utter contempt for the Constitution, these two, along with most of the other "faces" of conservatism went right along with it, justifying it in many cases.

Want to correct this. I get to listen to Rush rather infrequently, but still, over the last several years, almost every time I would hear him he would go into at least one diatribe about how stupid (his attitude, not mine) Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was. He rode Bush pretty hard about everything exept national security until the latest election cycle began. And then he turned his guns elsewhere. Don't really know what Hannity had to say about it.

Phil,
Sorry about spelling your name with two "l's".

When I was in management I was told that the “Big Dogs” liked Limbaugh and if I was going to move up in the at a boy company this chic needed to listen to him. I did and I heard him say something then I heard him after being blasted the next day say that he didn’t say it. People were quoting him and he still denied it. I have never listened to him after that. If that was going to hold me back then hold me back. I did have some fun conversations with the “Big Boys” if they can’t take a woman who can debate then who needs um!

Sending Mr. Fuzzball a {{{{{hug}}}}

I concur about Dennis Miller - his show used to be on at 3pm here (they've moved him to 8pm, which is a travesty) and I listened every day. He was a great combination of opinion and entertainment and as Les said, he was always extremely courteous to his guests and hilarious, too.

I also used to listen to Jerry Doyle, until the station here dropped his show (Dennis Miller was his replacement). He's more conservative libertarian, but his show was excellent.

Ditto what everyone said about Miller. That guy's awesome.

I like Rush, but he's not my leader. He's not the face of my Party, and he's not the face of any movement I believe in. He's arrogant, and that's annoying, but he is funny so that that helps to balance out his arrogance. I like Rush more than I dislike him, but he's not divine -- he just thinks he is.

I like Sean, but to me he's like a baby Rush in a lot of ways. Again, he's not the face of anything for me.

Someone mentioned Coulter. I dislike her. A lot. She's full of hatred, and that's repulsive to me.

IMO the best conservative talk radio out there is Michael Medved. Retire the jersey, there's no one better.

Bird,

I think of Ann Coulter as sort of like a nuclear weapon. The world would probably be better off without any of them, but as long as the other side has theirs (Al Franken, Bill Maher) I want some too.

I agree with you that Michael Medved is great. The local talk radio here stopped carrying him a few months ago. I used to listen to him almost every day.

Phil, you rock!

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said. I think both Limbaugh and Hannity play a role in modern conservatism, but I am troubled by people who become Rush or Hannity disciples. I was particularly disturbed by "project chaos" (Limbaugh) and by Hannity's early talk of McCain ushering in the end of the world. Both were overblown. In Project Chaos's case, I really dislike dishonesty.

But I also believe in freedom, and think Hannity and Rush should continue broadcasting to their heart's content. And here's to new voices on our airwaves as well. (I'm a big fan of Beck and Miller. Now, if only P.J. O'Rourke would get a show :-)

But I also believe in freedom, and think Hannity and Rush should continue broadcasting to their heart's content.

I wouldn't have it any other way. :-)

I think of Ann Coulter as sort of like a nuclear weapon. The world would probably be better off without any of them, but as long as the other side has theirs (Al Franken, Bill Maher) I want some too.

Bob, I don't know why, but that cracked me up. ;-)

Personally, I'll listen to Rush or Hannity in the car if they're on, but don't make it a point to hear either of them at any time - so I guess I'm not a fan.

Like everything on TV/Radio/Internet, I think you just take them with a grain of salt. I think that both of them have good ideas, at times, and much of the criticism in this thread, I believe, is valid. Specifically, the repetition of rants, mean-spiritedness towards those who disagree, etc.

I've heard Hannity on multiple occasions, take a "liberal" caller and they bring up a good debate point - one that could easily start an intelligent conversation, but he starts arguing about a different topic, ignores their question, ends up muting their sound and talking down to them.

Something else that bugs me - everyone who calls into his show is a great american. I don't know if that's true.

Someone mentioned saying things for attention - I think that's true, to a large extent. They have to give you a reason to listen each day, so sometimes they go excessive or hyperbolic on minor details that end up derailing the conversation.

The bigger the target the more fire it draws. Take Microsoft and Walmart. They're huge in their industries and therefore attract the most criticism. They may not get a greater criticism to customers ratio than their competitors, but they certainly get the most criticism by shear volume. The same is true in the talk show industry. Limbaugh and Hannity are #1 and #2. They are the biggest targets!

There is also a tendency to envy and criticize those who are successful. It's hard to admit, but true. It's like lobsters in a bucket -- the guys at the bottom are always trying to pull down the ones at the top.

Lastly, there is a tendency for disagreement and criticism to rise above agreement and praise. We could all sit down and have a nice little chat about things we like and agree on, but it would be pretty boring. Start a knock-down drag-out fight and people pile on and page hits soar.

Another thought that I had: Do you dislike Keith Olberman (sp?) or other similar liberal talking heads JUST for their political views? Or do you dislike them for their tone, their tactics, because they are a jerk, etc.?

If I'm going to criticize Olberman for tone, tactics, general jerk unfairness and one-sidedness then I'm pretty inconsistent if I don't criticize conservatives who display the same behavior just because I like the views they are espousing better.

I find the post very interesting. I'm not going to label most of the commenters hear, but you are clearly not representative of conservative / evangelical America. That group is totally in the tank for Limbaugh and even more so for Hannity. I could just as easily go down the list of the current 2008 talkers chart and show equal representation of audience for nearly all hosts re: conservative evangelicals.

So, your dislike of the two big dogs (and I suspect many other for the same reasons, like Savage, Boortz, Liddy, Schlessinger, Gallagher, O'Reilly, Mike Reagan...) comes as a surprise to me. What I find EVEN MORE interesting, however, is just how popular these 'talkers' are with the majority of conservative evangelicals.

As such, I'm writing a paper on it for one of my grad classes at Wheaton this term. I won't go into too much detail and bore you all, but basically, the question I'm trying to answer is: Why is one of the largest demographics of conservative talk radio made up of conservative, evangelical Christians when so few of the 1MM+ audience talkers espouse Great Tradition orthodoxy? In other words, the biggest names in talk radio are not Christian (and don't even claim to be), yet Christians make up such a huge listener demographic.

My paper won't go so far as to say that these talk show hosts are 'false teachers' or 'false prophet,' that would stand academically. I am trying to expose what I believe a huge problem for conservative evangelical's in America - the problem of who we listen to and why.

DJ

AMDG

It's all schtick...on both sides...get a grip...

"Why is one of the largest demographics of conservative talk radio made up of conservative, evangelical Christians when so few of the 1MM+ audience talkers espouse Great Tradition orthodoxy? In other words, the biggest names in talk radio are not Christian (and don't even claim to be), yet Christians make up such a huge listener demographic."

I was finishing up my comment because I owed a response to an earlier one. But this is a great question! I am eager for you to disclose what you find out.

In other words, the biggest names in talk radio are not Christian (and don't even claim to be), yet Christians make up such a huge listener demographic.

I've heard Rush claim to be Christian several times. Hannity is a Catholic. Not sure how devout, but he is definitely unapologetic about it.