Should Obama talk to Hannity or Limbaugh?
 

I've caught a few minutes of these talk shows on the radio last week and both of them would like Obama to come on. Probably because their ratings would be triple what they usually are. But Obama would be able to talk to a group of people who he needs to win over. Or that group will nitpick every little thing he does wrong without offering a real plan to fix the problems in a way that is fair for all, not just the people who have been successful in the past 8 years.

I also thought Bush should have gone on The Daily Show or SNL. They would have made a few jokes, but he could have explained what his plans were to a large group of people that didn't always hear the other side of the reason behind things.

Or have these people already made up their minds and it would be too risky to go on any of these 'gotcha' media shows?

There's no such thing as "gotcha journalism". Palin was and is a complete idiot, and when confronted with even easy questions she made a deer in headlights look like it was giving arguments to support it's doctoral thesis. "What newspapers do you read?" "Um...err..."

Obama isn't stupid. He can answer questions, be they good or bad.

he already went on O'Reilly and came off really well, I thought. it's easy for the hot-heads to criticize all morning when the guy isn't there to defend himself. i'd imagine Hannity would be far more willing to have him on than Rush

I don't know. Part of me thinks that the illusions that Rush peddles would require that he stay as far away from portraying Obama as an actual person.

Hannity? That might be interesting. I'd like to see Obama on Hannity.

I think a Hannity appearance would be much like the O'Reilly one. First, it would be taped and edited, not live. Second, Hannity would suddenly become extremely respectful and not so much of a blowhard. Of course he'd trash him later...

I think if he did do something like this it would have to be live and unedited that way they couldn't snip out the 10 words that offend them and ignore the rest of the hour.

I'd like to see him go on Hannity, just because Limbaugh makes me laugh when I look at him. And that would be distracting.

Then Obama needs to go on Real Time With Bill Maher, sitting right next to Sam Harris and Roseanne Barr.

Obama needs to run the country, he's got plenty on his plate without engaging in comedy shows. He should stay away from side show freaks on both ends of the US political extreme.

QFT. I'll just leave it at that in honor of the super boll.

Yes, but I think if he's officially asked to go on either he pretty much has to say yes, or else he'll be painted as a "coward who's afraid of coming on my show".

In that case, I formally invite the POTUS to TFP.

make sure it's a certified letter so you know if he got it

what tully and ms media said.

let them float into irrelevance on their own.

unfortunately, these idiots have a pretty decent influence on a lot of public thought. I think it's worth playing ball with them if you can set the right conditions. they are going to pan you either way, so it's a matter of whether you want them to do it with impunity or if you want to defend yourself

the ideological situation is changing around these nitwits.
so there's no reason to help them stay afloat by breaking the heremtic space they've constructed. limbaugh in particular.

live by the sword, die by the sword.

Obama's actions will speak for themselves. Reaching out to the far right in the media without changing his politics will not make any progress.

I view it as the duty of journalists and alternative media sources in the US to cirticize government officials. Keeps us actively engaged in the political process. Gives us something to think and talk about.

For the record - while I don't enjoy listening to Hannity and Limbaugh, I do think they have the concept of freedom of speech down pat.

No. There would be no point to it. Also, haven't we had enough of Obama's rhetoric? I think the nation would be better served if he started trying to do what he said he was going to do. The sooner that happens the sooner we can get people focused on what is real rather than general platitudes. He is going to change the culture in Washington??? He issues an executive order on lobbyist then picks a guy like Daschle who was paid $5 million by a private equity group including $220,000 coming from the healthcare industry, oh and let's not forget this is another guy who can't figure out how to do his taxes. We don't need Hannity or Limbaugh for him to address these kinds of contradictions between his rhetoric and what is happening under his watch.

nice that you're focused on the big picture ace.
jesus.

For the time being, Limbaugh and Orly have large, neoliberal audiences. The neoliberals are Obama's stanchest critics. Should Obama really just ignore them? Isn't that what Clinton did?

Nope, not at all, after listening to shrub stumble through one syllable words for 8 years, it's nice to see America has a president who can speak properly.

I think the cognitive dissonance here is based on the fact that some folks consider Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to be journalists.

I fully support Obama being vocal and visible to the public sector, but I think it would be a huge mistake (both politically and - to my mind - in the much wider sense of our society's very legitimacy) to validate these morons by giving them the President of the US to yammer on with. To do so will be a capitulation to crass vulgarism that makes me sick to think of.

I also don't like the sense of people being proud of our president because he can 'talk good.' All of the presidents I know of up to GW did indeed 'talk good' to an acceptable extent - some better than others. GW was an aberration and it does the office a disservice to measure its literacy against the presidential equivalent of the dodo bird.

They're given legitimacy by their viewers/listeners, and there are enough of them that Rush and Bill being ignored can't marginalize them. It emboldens them by allowing them the dishonest claim that they're somehow too real or too honest for the president.

If BillO only got a few hundred thousand viewers (instead of the several million he regularly gets), then I'd say ignore him. If Rush was only aired regionally (instead of internationally), I'd say ignore him. Let's just be honest, though. People listen to them. Old people, especially. And these people all vote.

Am I the only one who finds Hannity far more annoying and vapid than Limbaugh? Don't get me wrong, Limbaugh is annoying and vapid as well, but it's no contest in my mind who wins the Conservative Bill Maher Award.

I'd prefer someone halfway decent, like Medved or Beck. But I'd have no real complaints if Obama just avoided the talk show circuit altogether.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 03 : 07 : 54-----
Christ, I don't like Limbaugh, but he really, really doesn't need anyone's help in staying afloat. He'll do fine.

Yeah, I'm right there with you FTA. I don't know exactly why, but Hannity does manage to somehow be more annoying than Rush. Maybe it's because we actually have to see his smug, arrogant face when he talks? Rush is just some annoying voice over the radio.

Yes, that's probably it: Hannity offends more senses.

It could also be that you felt badly for centrist Colms.

+ 1.


Also, why intentionally sit on a bed of ants when you can avoid it?

I don't care how many morons hang on their every word, that doesn't make them legitimate as journalists or as the moderators of circumspect public opinion. I care about the level and legitimacy of discourse in this country, don't you?

I may not have the same definition of journalism as a professional journalist might have. I consider anyone who reports any form of news in a media outlet, no matter how biased, to be a journalist.

I'd like for you to clarify your definition of journalism a bit more, mixedmedia. I am embarassed about my confusion on the matter.

If Obama were to respond at all to the Limbaughs and Hannitys, I would suggest he invite a group of the "talk show" personalities from across the political spectrum to the WH and take questions for 15 minutes and tell them all they are free to air it on their shows with the hope that his responses will not be edited for political expediency.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 06 : 37 : 54-----
I would sugges the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, most notably when considering "talk show" personalities:
IMO, editorial writers, talk show personalities, most so-called "news" bloggers and other self-proclaimed opinion makers are not journalists.

But one could suggest that few journalists meet all the standards in the code.

On a regular basis. If he can talk to Iran, why shouldn't he talk to Rush. To serve the national interest, right? I think Obama should make the rounds with a few of the top conservative pundits on a weekly basis and talk publicly about the fundamentals - and not-so-fundamentals - of contemporary politics, and the state and nature of the world these politics operate within. Sunday morning punditry, without the pundits. Straight to the source. This country needs to be made more aware of world politics in an increasingly interconnected world.

Are you really suggesting that Limbaugh and Hannity are a better or more objective 'source" or outlet to raise awareness of "world politics" than the pundits?

I'm not sure anything more than further polarization would result by sitting with either. Both sides will claim victory and continue the divide.

If he sat with a major conservative player, I think the # 3 (conservative talk) Glenn Beck would be the best choice. Limbaugh and Hannity are Republican and very partisan. Independent (conservative/libertarian-leaning) Beck seems to be willing to engage in true conversation. Granted, he doesn't agree with Obama's politics (as with Bush's), but he respects political leaders that truly believe what they say. He seems to have a more moderate following and is usually willing give people of opposing views room to make their point...as long as they come to exchange, not spin.

The problem Obama may have in the Beck arena is that he (Beck) is hard to predict.

Thank you for following up on that in my absence, dc.

That is exactly what I am referring to. Used to be, there was a bar of legitimacy and at least a semblance of neutrality that one had to meet in order to be taken seriously as a journalist.

It's sad to see yet another stake in the underpinning of American culture be so willingly flushed down the toilet.

I agree they're morons. Believe me, I know. They're morons that vote, though. They're the morons that could mean the difference between Obama 2012 and Palin 2012. If President Obama speaking directly to these people can in even a small way reduce the number of right wing extremists, it's worth a try.

Doesn't matter who, any prominent figure who can articulate conservative values and viewpoints.

MM.....Somehow, while we were sleeping, our "respected" news reporters morphed from Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite and even investigative print journalists like Jack Anderson to... Limbaugh, Hannity and townhall.com.

Bring back:

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/13-baxter.jpg

lol. yez, stop the world, I want to get off.

the problem with limbaugh is not that his audience is stupid--i don't think that's the case---the problem with limbaugh is that he offers 3-4 hours of entirely self-enclosed infotainment based largely on riffing from newspaper articles and other published material that he cycles through, interpersed with little comedy segments and such. but it's infotainment. and he's good at it. it makes little sense to underestimate the guy because you disagree with his politics--and i totally disagree with his politics. but he's good at what he does.

personally, i think he is an important element in what was the conservative ideological system. i think his influence on it has still not been entirely appreciated. for example, when the right was in opposition last time out, under clinton, limbaugh was able to perfect a self-enclosed, self-referential little world made up entirely of glosses on other's people's research. people seemed drawn to its internal coherence---but most of the folk i know who were sucked into that world were sucked into it because they found it entertaining. the comedy lead, the politics followed--the self-enclosed character of the world limbaugh made was of a piece with the dissociative conservative politics he advanced and so on and so on.

i don't see any reason for obama to interact with limbaugh. i don't see anyt reason for limbaugh to interact with obama either--limbaugh never allows coherent oppositional voices on his program. if you know that's the case, why would you bother?


i don't see limbaugh as a journalist--i see him as a smart and effective entertainer who happens to be quite good at articulating a kind of politics i find to be beneath contempt.


hannity, on the other hand, is just a fool.

I watched a segment of Hannity last night and it really was beyond belief. They were discussing the woman with the octuplets, and it devolved into a jihad on the welfare system

the big picture to me is not who interviews Obama but what he does:

Daschle unfit to serve | CharlotteObserver.com

If Obama is a man of his word he will do just fine, otherwise the attacks will never stop.

ace, darling, you're recycling of the conservative talking points of the minute really isn't interesting.
i don't know who you folks imagine you're talking to, where you think you're getting any traction.
and your post is a non-sequitor.

My post was in response to your sarcastic comment about me being focused on the big picture. What is the big picture to you? On this issue I gave a clear indication of my view in my post you call a non-sequitor.

not to mention that Daschle has already withdrawn his name for the job

ace--look at the op. the question is whether obama should engage with the right's talking head set, not whether you agree with particular talking points that originate with the right's talking head set. what you've been doing is substituting the latter for the former and acting as though it addresses the question. presumably, you take these talking points seriously and so think that they legitimate the sources (assuming that your sources can be traced back to limbaugh or hannity, which is what your actions here implies) and by doing that you undercut, in your world, the critiques of both as non-journalists.

well, ace, they aren't journalists, either of them.
limbaugh is at least smart and very skillful as a conservative infotainment relay system and radio talk show host.
on the other hand, hannity is a fucking idiot.

Poor Tommy Daschle...he seemed to me like the nice, smart, quiet, industrious boy down the street with the paper route since he was seven. He said such nice things about Obama, for so long. He fought so hard to be a part of the inner circle, put in his time. A man of the people for 30 years. Shaking hands in diners, soft-spoken, well-mannered. Did all the right things. 30 years of public service, and he's sunk by his limousine driver. Brutal.

This was something I meant to address earlier and neglected to do so - somehow in the last 10-15 years or so...I'd say about the time Jerry Springer appeared on the scene...news became more densely conflated with shock media than it ever had before...not to say that it hasn't been a progression, I realize that, but it really seemed to pick up steam when the public tar and feathering seen usually late at night with the likes of Morton Downey, Jr. started working its way towards the mainstream during the day.

Combined with the need for material to fill the burgeoning 24 hour cable news channels and the fierce competition between them for ratings...it all comes together. In my head just now, lol.

I've noticed in recent posts that several of our members cant seem to focus on the OP but would bring Daschle into the discussion.

The same members are purveyors of IBD editorials, Hannity......

Hmmmmm....does right wing infotainment causes attention span deficit disorder?

know what hannity and limbaugh have in common: both only have highschool diplomas...


i would like to see obama on a live interview with hannity, just to shut him up. His appearance on o'really really seemed to impress a lot of people


that said, we just had 8 yrs of one of the least public and most private/secretive presidents ever..... we're already having a 'change' in that regard

When I've been able to catch O'Reilly, he has been doing a good job. Maybe even fair and balanced. It's ok to criticize, but offer a suggestion that will work better and help out the country. When O'Reilly discusses the spending bill, he nit picks the wasteful spending, but recognizes that something needs to be done. Limbaugh just tries to tear down any idea coming from the left as wrong through intimidation, name calling, and repetition. He doesn't offer a real plan for helping out all Americans, only the successful people (or people who think they might be successful one day), or people who hate government, making changes in their lives, sacrificing for the greater good, or helping out the less fortunate.

But listening to him tell his side of the story for 3-4 hours a day, is just as bad as only hearing the left side of the story for 3-4 hours a day. If Obama went on his show, he could at least respond to his statements and try and find a few things that they agree on.

Einstein didn't finish highschool, but later went on to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology... and we all know the rest of that story.

Perhaps there is still hope for Hannity, Limbaugh, and Obama to someday really do something of merit, honor, and substance with the rest of their lives. However (for the time being), they do put on a swell dog and pony show.

At least they're good for a few laughs.

Nothing would be served by it. It would be as if Bush sat down with the Daily Kos.

Nothing would be accomplished aside from giving un-needed legitimacy to detractors. I applaud Obama sitting in on O'Riley (sp?) as he stood by a promise he made. Both were respectful and I gained a lot of respect for him by doing it. However, I can't stand Limbaugh or Hannity and I'm not exactly liberal. The shock-factor they use leaves very little room for logical or reasonable discussion which is needed at this time.

Everything right except committing a federal crime?

Einstein did finish high school. And contrary to the popular belief, he actually was a pretty good student. He left his first high school for some unknown reason, though most speculate that he did not get along well with teachers there, but went on to finish his high school degree in Aarau. He actually graduated with the equivalent of As in geometry, algebra, physics and other similar fields.

In any case, that is beside the point, and somewhat irrelevant. But I find it funny that you think that what Obama, Hannity and Limbaugh have achieved in their lives is in any way similar.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 11 : 09 : 58-----
amending one's tax returns within the 3 year deadline is not a federal crime. The whole Daschle debacle was really much ado about almost nothing, and certainly much less severe than what Geithner did.

By the way, Daschle's tax problems are exactly the same as Palin's unreported per diems.

No they aren't, per diems aren't considered income.

And while not paying taxes on hired help probably goes on throughout the country, I'm more concerned with why the IRS hasn't gone after these people (and I mean all of them across the country). I mean, if I pay my taxes, but my employer doesn't pay their share, shouldn't a red flag go up at the IRS to look into this matter? Was the hired help not paying their taxes either? Were they told not to?

Per diems are taxable income if you are staying at home. Otherwise, everyone would convert part or all their salary to per diems and be tax free.

If you don't believe me, here is a document from the state of Alaska:
http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/tra...source/tax.pdf

"Per diem and other travel expense payments for most employees are nontaxable. However,
they are only nontaxable as long as the employee is away from their tax home"


And the thing is, it is exactly the same situation as Daschle's. One got a limo and driver to drive to and from work, the other got a per diem to offset living costs.

All pied-pipers with bags of magic twinkies for the useful idiots... one's just more hopey-changey than the others. It's arguable who is really most powerful on any given day.

Wow.

I love you too.

Let me connect the dots. An interview with Hannity or Limbaugh would focus on Obama's hypocrisy. Obama talking to these men would serve no purpose because of the developing mountain of contradictions between his words and his actions, on the day I referenced Daschel that bit of hypocrisy was front and center. These men will continually feed on Obama, it won't stop. He can not win them over, he can not explain away his hypocrisy - fans of Obama simply need to stick their head in the sand and ignore the fact that Obama has on core convictions and is mostly a man of style over substance.

Oh, and what did your post have to do with the OP? Nothing, just a shot at lil ol me. Do you suffer from attention sp...whatever too?

ace...you are right. I apologize for my feeble attempt at humor.

I still dont agree with your "Obama is a hypocite" charge....an easy partisan talking point. I would suggest that the vetting process has been sloppy at best for which Obama stood up and took the blame....that doesnt make one a hypocrite.

Or your "economic stimulus based on government spending will create jobs is a myth" charge.

Or your charges that economic studies that dont support your position are "smoke and mirrors."

Or your past charges of "all democrats in Washington are either ignorant or liars."

Perhaps this might help you understand why I often find it hard to take you seriously.

I am not clear on what his apology was for. Was it for nominating Daschel even though he knew about his lobbying connection and tax issues to spite his proclamations on change. Or, was it for not vetting thoroughly and not being aware of the lobbyist connection and tax issues? Or, was it regarding being dishonest about his proclamations of "change", and that now he is in office it is business as usual in D.C.?

Please understand the full context. The government can take a dollar from one person (or sector in the economy) and give it to another, creating nothing. Or the government can engage in deficit spending which will result in higher taxation or inflation in the future, creating nothing long-term. If government spending created growth or jobs, every nation on earth would have a very simple formula for creating growth and jobs. However, it is clear to most that it does not work.

I get very specific with studies, so you need to tell me what study I called "smoke and mirrors". I do remember when economists told us that the US consumer savings rate was too low and going to harm the economy and now we have economist telling us that US consumers saving more and paying off debt is bad for the economy. :orly::orly::orly: Things that make you go "mmmmmm", or at least me. I am sure most others just go along for the ride without question.

Every time I post that, it is with a specific point supporting my position. And I think it was clear the Democrats either did not understand the TARP legislation or knew about the flaws and are now pretending it was all the Bush administration's fault. Now, you certainly can not dispute that.

Perhaps, we can revisit this, when I care about you taking me seriously.

You should go study Keynesian economics and the tradition of economic theory both for and against Keynes over the last seventy years or so, and see if you still think the above paragraph holds water. I believe, if you engage honestly with the literature, you'll see it doesn't.

There are very good reasons nations don't try to spend their way out of recession. There are also very good reasons why it could work. It's nowhere NEAR as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.

your basic position, ace, is that there is no crisis in the economy, that the jamming up of credit, the ramifications of that, the spiking of the unemployment rate, etc etc etc are all normal. so you don't need to think real hard, much less question your assumptions about neoliberal dogma, to continue acting as though your positions make sense.

everything follows from that.

O.k., I simply don't get it then. If government spending is the key to job creation why doen't it work? Has it worked in California? Did it work in the USSR? Did it work in Cuba? Did it work during the Great Depression? Hey, perhaps we figured it out. Perhaps government creates jobs by going to war, like in WWII. I guess it goes to the question is being a soldier a job, or an adventure?
-----Added 9/2/2009 at 02 : 14 : 25-----
My basic position is we are in a recession. I think it is generally a normal recession combined with the complexity of a concurrent global recession. I think the market has to make adjustments for some recent excesses, namely the real estate correction and consumption based on false or inflated housing values. I think this adjustment will work through the system, will be painful, will happen regardless of government. Hardly "neoliberal dogma", more of an evaluation of past business cycles and how they compare to current conditions. I hardly believe you or many others really believe that if the government fails to pass a $1 trillion spending bill within the next few days we are going to go into a depression similar to the Great Depression.

Here is my hero: