My biggest problem with the right wing hatemongers

The latest brouhaha over the most recent in the long line of inflammatory statements by Rush Limbaugh, as well as Ann Coulter continuing to be--well--Ann Coulter, has gotten me to think recently. Why is it that I--as well as most anyone else on this board--continue to be so upset whenever Rush or Ann or somebody of that ilk says something stupid, offensive or just plain hateful?

Is it the content of what is being said? Perhaps, but I don't think that's the whole reasoning behind it. What Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter say may be welcomed and believed by those on the far right. However, not only do all of us liberals disagree with what Rush or Ann say, but I would venture to say a vast majority of most moderates and politically apathetic people would believe as well. The size of the actually receptive audience of a Limbaugh or Coulter is much, much smaller than they in their egotistically driven minds claim to hold. These people are fringe thinkers, and I think most Americans would agree they are fringe thinkers. They are not normal. They are not accepted. They are not indicitative of the American conscience as a whole, no matter how much they may claim to be.

So what then is it? My answer is best pinpointed by a billboard I saw for an all-conservative talk radio station I saw a few years ago (which I'm happy to say has since changed formats.) It read: "WCON (or whatever it was called): Liberals hate it."

I've noticed whenever hard right conservatives praise Ann Coulter, they don't praise her writing "skills" or her "humor". Instead, they say one thing about her: "She drives all the liberals crazy." Similarly, Rush will be bloviating about one thing or another, and one of his "dittoheads" will call up, offer supplication to his ego, and then tell him that the reason he is so great is because of how angry he makes Democrats and liberals.

The thing that remains unsaid is why they make us angry. And why they make us angry is quite simple. They lie. They distort. They say provacative things they know aren't true just to draw attention to themselves. They are willing to sacrafice intelligent discourse and thoughtful ideas in the name of Arbitron ratings and book sales numbers. They mislead their audiences. They give this country the worst name and face that can possibly given to the rest of the world, and then they shamelessly wrap themselves in the flag and voiciferiously deny besmirching our good name so consistently despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yet they have become the face of the right. They have become the voicepieces, and their words are spewed forth by their audiences and their readers without an individual thought. True, there are a few on the right who do attempt to use their words to actually communicate their point of view in a rational and intelligent manner. George Will and William Safire come to my mind personally. But note that there isn't anything of the hightened degree of anger and disgust generated towards a Will or Safire as there is toward a Coulter or Limbaugh, and for good reason. While we may strongly disagree with the former's opinions, they at least do it as part of a reasoned discussion. But because people so often take intelligent thought and discourse for granted so much, and instead naturally gravitate towards the controversial and the obscene. So thus, we get these charlatians as the face of the right, and they are all too happy to take up the mantle in order to enrich themselves for the sake of making people angry.

This type of thought is generally not common on the left. When liberals communicate, whether through print, radio or television, it is typically in the interest of persuading people. It is to have those who have been fooled come to their senses. It is to show that the emperor has no clothes. To most liberals, there is no value in inflaming people and getting people to hate you. Liberalism by its own nature seeks to bring people together, not tear them apart. But in this day and age, that too often gets overshadowed. It is much easier to destroy bridges than to build them.

So what to do with these provocateurs? Is there any way to disrobe these vultures and show them for the devils that they are? We know that most Americans do not share their views. Yet they remain popular for the sole reason they intend to create hatred for hatred's sake, and no words will be left unspoken or unwritten in their attempts to do so. It is not the contents of the words that anger me. It is the intent of them, and the sheer uselessness of them in the long run.

I have never heard Limbaugh or Coulter speak as I have better things to do with my life than to get upset by a couple of loonies.

American public.

They do have huge ratings and many non-dittos believe the shit to some extent, especially after it is rebroadcast and re-rebroadcast by the echo-chamber of the rest of the corporate media.

The only effective way to deal with them is to Berg them. Anything less simply leaves them to continue their destruction of our democracy.

I have high blood pressure so why would I take the chance of raising my blood pressure just to listen to these sick bastards.

Bush is successfully destroying our democracy and I don't see anyone stopping him.

We gave that up a couple of hundred years ago.

What made me angry was their contant insults to me, my mother, my father, my wife and all good people. I got very angry when they trash Jimmy Carter, the most moral president in recent history, who has done so much for human rights.

But I just dismiss them now. They're a waste of energy.

Certainly they have an audience, and they are likely to hold onto that audience - and it's to our interest to keep an eye on them and highlight their distortions and deceptions. They are the face of modern conservativism, as you know.

But they aren't as influential as they claim to be.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Just ignore them. And cut off any debate with anyone who quotes them.

with "They say provocative things they know aren't true just to draw attention to themselves". For example, the other day on Morning Joe, Ann Coulter stated that Bush's "war on terror" has been - get this- magnificent, and that is one of the reasons he will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents. Now, I can't stand that piece of crap Coulter, but I don't believe she is stupid enough to believe what she said.

If you listen to him, Rush's style of speaking is much like the old fashion hucksters who would try and sell "miracle elxirs" to unsuspecting townsfolk, then hightail it out of town when the last dollar is passed before everyone realizes they've been duped. I mean that in all seriousness. From an objective, non-"dittohead" standpoint, you can clearly tell Rush doesn't believe most of what he is saying--he's got a very overdramatic, almost scripted speaking style. But he says it anyways because it brings in ratings and it serves only to rile up the anger of those of the opposing viewpoint, without bringing much, if anything, to the actual table of discussion.

I just don't get that way of thinking. For example, a lot of conservatives hate Michael Moore, but I don't like Michael Moore because conservatives hate him. Rather, I like Michael Moore because he produces what I believe to be interesting, thought provoking documentaries. I don't get the notion of liking someone for the sole reason that people who think differently than you do hate that person. It's a very foriegn and strange concept to me.

I came across these so called Republican baptists on a wordpress blog they need locking away and the key throwing away. They appear to be anti everything.
http://handsacrossoceanministry.wordpress.com/

Or at least I would certainly hope so.