Elites Are the Problem -- But That Doesn't Mean What You Think
Birtherism, as I’ve said here before, is a one-way ticket to a cul-de-sac. Obama is president, duly elected, duly sworn in and legitimately exercising the powers of his office. To waste time questioning a past-tense consideration — which is what the Birthers do — cannot lead to any effective critique of Obama as president, which is what the conservative movement needs to be doing.
— Robert Stacy McCain
That paragraph is worth a link. It appears in a post where RSM discusses how the right should handle its birther fringe. The belief that President Obama is a natural born Indonesian shouldn’t cause one to be purged from the conservative movement, he argues. “As always, no matter how much I share certain concerns of the intellectuals, my strongest sympathies are with the grassroots,” he writes. “Intellectuals need the grassroots more than the grassroots need intellectuals.”
This is perfectly defensible as a general statement. But I don’t think it applies very well to the subject that prompted RSM to write: Jon Henke’s efforts to persuade conservative organizations — under threat of boycott — that they should not associate with birther publication World Net Daily.
The way that RSM writes it’s as if Mr. Henke is going door to door, revoking the Republican Party membership of any Fox News watching retiree who doubts President Obama is a citizen. Actually he is targeting other elites like the Republican National Committee. The message: stop enabling the looniest parts of the grassroots to grow and flourish. I am behind that effort. There are worthy conservative causes all over the nation, most of which enjoy grassroots support of one kind or another. Insofar as groups like the RNC funnel resources to World Net Daily, as opposed to those sundry other efforts, they are exacerbating the movement’s woes.
I really appreciate that RSM wrote a well reasoned post that moves this conversation forward. But I often find myself driven crazy by his blog because what he apparently regards as loyalty to the grassroots strikes me as aiding and abetting their betrayal. Mr. McCain is a savvy Inside the Beltway presence, a capable reporter, and a political observer who has been around a long time. “You think you’ve got experience covering politics?” I can hear him taunting. “I’ve got tee-shirts older than you, boy.”
Thus I assume that Mr. McCain isn’t naive — he knows damn well that Human Events cynically sells out the best interests of its readership, that Joseph Farah isn’t engaged in a good faith effort to determine where Barack Obama was born, that Fox News regularly misleads its audience, and that Sarah Palin isn’t actually concerned that health care reform efforts will bring about death panels for down syndrome babies. Indeed, I presume that RSM is aware of far more pernicious examples of Inside the Beltway elites manipulating grassroots conservatives.
My idea of respecting the grassroots is writing about these cynical, dishonest elites, and the gulf that separates their rhetoric from what actually motivates them. Mr. McCain doesn’t ever do this kind of writing. To be fair, doing so consistently would jeopardize his ability to write for some movement publications, and he’s got a family to feed, so I can’t blame him entirely. But this same dynamic, spread across various right-of-center writers, means that there are all sorts of movement conservative elites in positions of power who sell out the base and never get called on it.
What really grates is that when writers try to take on those forces — and yes, I am including myself — Mr. McCain criticizes them as careerists who are disrespecting the grassroots! Questioning Mr. Henke’s boycott efforts, Mr. McCain writes, “I doubt I can be convinced that the greatest contemporary threat to the conservative cause is Joseph Farah.” This is pretty rich coming from a man who has dedicated thousands of words to criticizing Ross Douthat and I.
One problem on the right is that loyalty to the grassroots is defined by how shamelessly one panders to them. Thus a talk radio host who crafts an inaccurate news narrative that plays to the prejudices of his audience is deemed a loyal player advancing the movement’s ends, whereas a blogger who points out how his words mislead listeners about reality is considered an obstacle to the cause who is overly concerned about playing fair.
Unlike some in the media, I don’t regard the grassroots on the right as uniquely insane. I’ve done enough reporting at that level to know that most Americans on the right and left are reasonable people acting in good faith. The right’s fringe problem at this moment in time is one that elites have created as much as any crazy fringe righty. Outfits like Fox News, people like Glenn Beck, talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh — these outfits deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues. That ought to outrage anyone who actually respects the grassroots, and has their best interests at heart.
I don’t know, Conor. I think what you’re skipping here is the disproportionate effect that a GOP disassociation from publishers like WND and Human Events would have on the influence of socially conservative grassroots within the party, though I suppose some of their influence there might fall under what you call “shameless pandering.” However, I think both you and The Next Right wouldn’t mind that as an end result (I think Ruffini said a while back that Steele as RNC Chairman represents a “grassroots victory”).
— Tony Sifert · Sep 4, 11:46 PM · #
Tony,
How exactly does Human Events help social conservatives to wield influence? It certainly isn’t an influential publication among political actors. It doesn’t deliver particularly useful information to social conservative readers. And it abets efforts to fleece the most gullible among them of their money.
Can you point to any concrete benefit Human Events has provided to social conservatives in the last 10 years?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 4, 11:54 PM · #
I don’t really mean to dispute the relevance of WND, HE, Townhall, etc. among political actors within the party or to defend the way they make money; I just don’t see how you could drop them all without severely limiting access to (non-centrist) conservative content on issues like marriage, sex, education, immigration, Islam, etc.
— Tony Sifert · Sep 5, 12:33 AM · #
Conor’s new propaganda campaign: “Hey, guys! I’m the one who’s really, really, really fair. I’m the one who knows it all. I’m the smart one. Did I mention, I’m the only one who’s a really, really fair bloviator? Why do you listen to those other guys? I’m the one you should be listening to. Because I’m really, really fair. And objective. And accurate. And balanced. And not insane. And really, really fair.”
Geez, guy. Get over yourself
— johnmark7 · Sep 5, 02:06 AM · #
Exactly right, Conor. Well said.
— Jon Henke · Sep 5, 03:49 AM · #
This is the best post by you that I have read. The circle of grifters should be expanded however to encompass the entire leadership of the republican party.
— cw · Sep 5, 05:50 AM · #
Bravo Conor….but what do you do at this point?
I think you are going to have to let the Vampire House burn to the ground and rebuild.
You can’t possibly stake all the vampires in the heart at this point.
There are too many….like cw says, the entire leadership has has turned.
No one has the guts to do anything but pander to the Teabagger Demographic.
This started with Palinism.
You guys should have laffed her offstage last year when you had the chance.
— matoko_chan · Sep 5, 02:36 PM · #
“Outfits like Fox News, people like Glenn Beck, talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh — these outfits deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues.”
That is some statement. Rush has been a trusted source of information for decades. As a fan of Rush’s, I cannot think of anything that he has said that is not true. Too, Rush has a rapier wit and unmatched insight.
In the free market place of ideas, where the truth and truthfulness is the only valued currency, Rush is king.
If the no-named back bench low brow “thinker” of this claptrap article, Conor Friedersdorf, has some notable examples of Rush misleading anyone, then please bring them to our attention. Otherwise Conor Friedersdorf owes his readers an apology.
Saying that Rush misleads for profit is calling Rush a liar.
Henceforth, Conor Friedersdorf joins the ranks of clowns like Al Franken.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 7, 04:21 PM · #
Tom Rowan, that you think of Rush as the “king” of the free marketpalce of ideas, reflects very poorly on the low information conservative base. ;)
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
— matoko_chan · Sep 7, 10:27 PM · #
Talk about being blind.
Argue with free market princilples all you want. Rush has written the history of free speech radio. His voice and his views have dominated like no other voice in history. That is not conjecture. That is a matter of historical fact.
If you are that blind to the simple factual reality of Rush’s decade’s long popularity as determined by the free market you should not be legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 7, 10:38 PM · #
I drove my product to market twice a week on the east side of the Big Island, and many times the only radio station I could tune in, was airing Mr.Rush. You say Rush has written the history of free speech – really. When anyone would be clever enough to fake his way threw the screening, and challenge Mr.Rush on the air, he was normally cut off quite promptly. Then Mr.Rush spent the next fifteen minutes putting down the caller (this he calls tongue in check humor,like when he calls someone a nazifeminists ect…) I thought he was going to have a heart attack, in fact I somewhat
sadistically listened to see if the vicodins were going to push him over the edge. My bad. Aloha
— puarau · Sep 8, 03:51 PM · #
All good in theory. But I think you’ll find that the harsh reality is that if it comes down to a choice between insane elites like Beck and smart conservatives who are unwilling to compromise their sincerity, the grassroots will pick Beck. You can laud the grassroots all you want. But if you go after Limbaugh or Beck too hard, I think you’re in for a surprise. They will not laud you in return.
What you miss is that the worldviews of people like Limbaugh and Beck are entirely self-aggrandizing and self-sealing, and their listeners are far more loyal to them as people than they are to any particular set of policy principles. Try to argue with them on facts or even ideology, and you’ll lose every time.
— Drew · Sep 8, 03:53 PM · #
One small problem with your lede, methinks. The birthers are a creation of the Clinton campaign, not the right wing. The people still pushing it? Clintonistas, not right wingers.
— Charlie · Sep 8, 05:19 PM · #
The only true grassroots groups the right has is the american nazi party and the KKK,the rest are corporate shills.You really think people on medicare and who use the VA if informed would be against national healthcare?And how many of the most vocal opponenets had no healthcare insurance at all?OPEN your eyes.
— jean power · Sep 8, 05:44 PM · #
@Tom Rowan:
Where did you get this crazy idea that “truth and truthfulness is the only valued currency”? It is a well-documented pyschological fact that people will seek out, retain, and value information that conforms to their beliefs more than they will information that challenges their beliefs. This phenomenon has a name, Confirmation bias, and it explains why Rush Limbaugh can be both popular and, at best, someone with no concern for the truth.
You asked for examples of Rush misleading his listeners, but it’s obvious that you don’t REALLY want to know. If you did, you would have simply searched the Internet for some variation of “Rush Limbaugh lies”. Fortunately for Rush, that kind of independing, skeptical thinking is not present in many of his followers, who happily call themselves “Dittoheads” because they blindly regurgitate his words without thinking.
Here are a few simple examples that I managed to find with my brief search. These are all culled from the FAIR Report, although many other sites offer their own examples. I chose to cite these because Rush responded to the FAIR Report, and FAIR’s response to his non-response (their words) shows just how little Rush cares about concepts like “truth”.
* In 1993, Rush claimed that banks should be allowed to profit from student loans because “they take the risk in issuing student loans”. He was completely wrong, because all student loans are completely insured by the federal government. What’s more, banks can still try to collect on defaulted student loans even after they are reimbursed by the federal government.
* Rush stated on his radio program that Sidwell Friends, the private school attended by Chelsea Clinton, made its 8th graders write a paper on “Why I Feel Guilty Being White”. Rush claimed the CBS News network as the source of this story. However, CBS never aired such a story, and Sidwell Friends does not require its students to write anything like what Rush suggested.
* Rush claimed that condoms have (or had, at the time) a 20% failure rate against AIDS. This claim was not supported in any reputable scientific journals at the time, nor was it believed by any reputable doctors or scientists.
* Rush claimed that the 1993 budget deal included an increase in beer and alcohol taxes. There was no such tax increase in the budget. His excuse for this lie, when challenged by the FAIR report, was that those taxes were “considered”. But Rush made his original claim AFTER both the House and Senate has passed their budget deals, and neither version included the alcohol taxes.
Rush’s problem is not just that he says a lot of false things, although that is a problem. But even worse is the contempt for truth and honesty that he displays when he is challenged about his inaccuracies. At best, he is an intellectually-bankrupt tool of the “elites” that Conor complained about. At worst, he is one of those morally-bankrupt “elites” that spews lies for personal profit. Either way, the misinformation that Rush spreads poisons the dialogs and policy discussions that are necessary for the health of our democratic nation.
— Eric · Sep 8, 06:25 PM · #
People for years have been underestimating the influence of talk radio. Talk radio is the republican party at this point, they completely own the agenda, both in terms of opinion and in terms of facts that listeners believe. There is absolutely no way in which you can ever hope to take control of the republican party from this group. They are far far too smart, too experienced and too interconnected at this point.
The quicker you come to this realization the happier you will be.
— josh · Sep 8, 07:04 PM · #
Where did you get this crazy idea that “truth and truthfulness is the only valued currency”?
No one likes to be lied to. Do you? This is why Rush is popular and Conor Friedersdorf is a hack with about 12 people looking at his baseless smears.
As for the rest of your gobbly gook, I could really care less what you think. Most Americans consider themselves convervative and have shared values and insights. Rush obviously shares these values and insights.
This is why Rush is king and hacks like Conor Friedersdorf try to eek out a living by biting on the heels of giants.
Truth hurts, eh?
— Tom Rowan · Sep 8, 07:08 PM · #
I’m torn. I also think the fringe problem is at least partly the responsibility of elites, who do enable, exacerbate & manipulate the worst impulses of the grassroots. But at some point you’ve got to hold people, including ordinary ones, responsible for their views. It’s patronizing not to. And I’m afraid all too many people want their basest impulses aroused, want to be told false, inflammatory stories that rationalize those impulses. If Glenn Beck, Fox News, & Rush Limbaugh suddenly began acting responsibly, part of their audience would just drift away, & new demagogues would arise to tell them what they want to hear.
— K · Sep 8, 08:57 PM · #
All I can say is thank god we ignorant rubes have you looking out for us, Conor, with nothing but our best interests at heart.
I can rest easy now, and leave all that hard thinkin’ and cogitatin’ to you.
Keerist, what a dick.
— West · Sep 8, 10:20 PM · #
I could really care less what you think.
Don’t you love it when they say that on their third post?
— Tom Meyer · Sep 8, 10:45 PM · #
Tom Rowan says: “Rush never lies!”
Eric says: “Yes he does!” and provides verifiable examples.
Tom Rowan says: “LALALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!” with fingers in his ears.
since when is willful ignorance a conservative value? wowsers.
— brooks · Sep 8, 11:58 PM · #
Tom Meyer –
And for my fourth post;
I could really, really care less care less what you think.
Are you starting understand what conservatives think of you tiny little bands of idiots who, gasp, dare to criticize Rush?
You are merely joining the chorus of larger bands of idiots like Bill Clinton, Obama, the Nutroot left, and MSNBC.
No lying smear Friedersdorf can come up with is new, exciting, clever or true.
If you small band of idiots want to make money scribbling like Democrat Talking Point Puppet Dummies then good luck standing in the unemployment line.
Conservatives have endured baseless smears since before Reagan. They are nothing new. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason for any thinking American to really, really, really care less what you think.
Again, if you had anything really valuable to say then advertisers would pay you to say them. Lies don’t sell well…try another line of work.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 9, 02:43 PM · #
Brooks –
“Tom Rowan says: “Rush never lies!”
Eric says: “Yes he does!” and provides verifiable examples.
Tom Rowan says: “LALALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!” with fingers in his ears.
since when is willful ignorance a conservative value? wowsers.
— brooks · Sep 8, 07:58 PM · #”
Brooks, perhaps you cannot read. So I will help you.
I asked the author of this piece of crap, Conor Friedersdorf, to give us some examples to support his contention that Rush misleads his listeners for profit. I did not ask Conor Friedersdorf to hide behind the skirt of “Eric.” Any chimpanzee with a computer can google and regurgitate swill.
So, Eric, Tom, and Brooks, let me repeat. I could really care less what you have to say. Conor Friedersdorf can speak for himself can he not?
He is perfectly capable of slander.
Don’t you think Conor Friedersdorf’s cowardly silence is a bit predictable?
No examples to back up his slander and no apologies to his tiny little merry band of blistering imbeciles.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 9, 02:59 PM · #
Lies don’t sell well…try another line of work.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 9, 10:43 AM · #
________________________________________________________
Apparently, lies sell very well. Look at how much Rush and Beck make. Their lies are not about the best interest of their listening audience. It’s about their own best interest.
— paddy · Sep 9, 03:09 PM · #
Tom Rowan’s ironic posts about “truth” make me shake my head sadly for the future of conservatism in this country. Presented with clear evidence of the sort he challenges Friedersdorf to produce — of the sort, Eric points out, Rowan could easily find himself if he had a good-faith interest in the answer — he simply ignores it and clings harder to his imaginary “truth.”
And then he accuses Friedersdorf of “cowardice”! As if facts aren’t facts simply because Friedershof has better things to do than to be the one to quote them for someone clearly not willing to believe them.
Well, Tom Rowan, by the same logic, you can shut up now. Those of us who think Rush is dishonest won’t be convinced until he comes to our houses personally with compelling evidence, so no need to waste your time typing on his behalf.
— frippo · Sep 9, 10:14 PM · #
Actually, wait — you cling to your statements in the face of evidence to the contrary, which you counter only by insults: maybe you ARE Rush Limbaugh. Carry on, then.
— frippo · Sep 9, 10:19 PM · #
Frippo –
Perhaps you need help with reading too.
I did not write the article, Conor Friedersdorf did.
I merely asked the author to back up his writing with notable examples:
Conor Friedersdorf: “Outfits like Fox News, people like Glenn Beck, talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh — these outfits deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues.”
Tom Rowan: If the no-named back bench low brow “thinker” of this claptrap article, Conor Friedersdorf, has some notable examples of Rush misleading anyone, then please bring them to our attention. Otherwise Conor Friedersdorf owes his readers an apology.
Fairly straight foward, eh? I challenge his contention and all I’ve witnessed is a bunch of crickets chirping in with their own thoughts.
I told them all and I will tell you, I do not care what you think.
I asked the author to provide examples of his sweeping slander.
Friedersdorf makes a totally unsubstaintiated slander, fails to back it up with examples in his own article, then lets others defend his slander with calls to “shut up.” Wow. I will bet you believe in global warming too.
Okay, I will show Friedersdorf how to respond to criticism:
Friedersdorf claims “(Rush) plays on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues.””
Tom Rowan: “If (Conor Friedersdorf), has some notable examples of Rush misleading anyone, then please bring them to our attention.”
Chirp, chirp, chirp………..
Eric : *In 1993, Rush claimed that banks should be allowed to profit from student loans because “they take the risk in issuing student loans”. He was completely wrong, because all student loans are completely insured by the federal government. What’s more, banks can still try to collect on defaulted student loans even after they are reimbursed by the federal government.
Tom Rowan: Rush seems to be offering an opinion Eric. You just disagree with Rush that banks take all the risk in making loans. This is not a notable example of Rush playing on worst impulses, stoking paranoia, or misleading for profit by conjuring a false reality for profit.
Eric: * Rush stated on his radio program that Sidwell Friends, the private school attended by Chelsea Clinton, made its 8th graders write a paper on “Why I Feel Guilty Being White”. Rush claimed the CBS News network as the source of this story. However, CBS never aired such a story, and Sidwell Friends does not require its students to write anything like what Rush suggested.
Tom Rowan: CBS Morning Resource radio is the source Eric. And you should really put quoatation marks around require…“require.” (Like the website you pasted this from.) So Rush is repeating what CBS Morning Resource said on the radio. So? If CBS Morning Resource is lying take it up with them. Again, this is not a notable example of Rush playing on worst impulses, stoking paranoia, or misleading for profit by conjuring a false reality for profit. This is Rush repeating what CBS Morning resouce said.
Eric: * Rush claimed that condoms have (or had, at the time) a 20% failure rate against AIDS. This claim was not supported in any reputable scientific journals at the time, nor was it believed by any reputable doctors or scientists.
Tom Rowan: Okay Eric, what is the failure rate of condomns that is supported by anyone? This is not a notable example of Rush playing on worst impulses, stoking paranoia, or misleading for profit by conjuring a false reality for profit.
Eric: * Rush claimed that the 1993 budget deal included an increase in beer and alcohol taxes. There was no such tax increase in the budget. His excuse for this lie, when challenged by the FAIR report, was that those taxes were “considered”. But Rush made his original claim AFTER both the House and Senate has passed their budget deals, and neither version included the alcohol taxes.
Tom Rowan: Wow Eric…did ya know I smoke & drink? True. Obama said he cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. He has repeatedly said he would not raise taxes on the “middle class.” Three months after Obama took office cigarettes cost about $2 more per pack and beer costs about 1$ dollar more.
That is not an opinion, that is a fact. BTW – After House & Senate bills are passed they go to committee where anything, including taxes that were considered can go back into bills. Like “Fair” you are grasping at straws Eric. And again you or Fair dissagreeing with Rush is not a notable example of Rush playing on worst impulses, stoking paranoia, or misleading for profit by conjuring a false reality for profit.
Eric: Either way, the misinformation that Rush spreads poisons the dialogs and policy discussions that are necessary for the health of our democratic nation.
Tom Rowan: So you dissagree with Rush. In my opinion, none of your examples show a pattern or to back up the slander that “(Rush) plays on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues.””
So perhaps when Conor Friedersdorf takes time to slander someone in the future he will take the time to back up his contentions. He has not here, or in his article, and I suspect he never will in the future.
This not only makes him a clown and a coward, in my humble opinion, it makes Conor Friedersdorf a liar. Perhaps he should run for Senate in Minnesota.
So….there you have it frippo…not too hard. But it appears you would have anyone who dissagrees with you to not be heard and to shut up. No questions for the author of false allegations.
Friedersdorf serves up some pretty cheap Kool-Aid. But what the hey; one man’s Kool-Aid is another man’s swill.
Lap it up frippo!
— Tom Rowan · Sep 10, 02:06 PM · #
Love it when these thread turn into pissing matches. Tom Rowan is a perfect example of what Friedersdorf is talking about. Facts don’t matter. It is a matter of faith to Mr. Rowan that Rush is a paragon of truthfulness, and if you disagree with him, you must be a liberal.
— Gus · Sep 10, 05:29 PM · #
Hi Gus.
Nice to meet you online. I am single & have a girlfriend. My girlfriend & I have been together for the last 8 years. Whether you or Conor can say the same remains to be seen.
I don’t think I ever wrote the term “liberal” in this mess. Maybe as my new onling friend you can point that out to me. You seem so interested in “facts.”
You do not want to ever challenge me in a pissing match. I drink beer & have bigger nuts than you have ever dreamed of.
And what do you have against against faith? After all, you are putting your faith in Conor are you not?
Perhaps you should seek the truth young man. Catch the train. It is profitable for those who catch it and is is disasterous to miss.
Conor Friedersdorf is proof of that, eh?
— Tom Rowan · Sep 10, 11:41 PM · #
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
Nothing is more deafening than the silence of a coward, eh Conor?
— Tom Rowan · Sep 10, 11:58 PM · #
http://conorfriedersdorf.typepad.com/telegraph29/2008/04/parsing-rush-li.html
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 11, 07:38 AM · #
A rehash of yet another clap trap article? The only rational thing one could possibly glean from your April 8th, 2008 article is that you are suffering from some sort of pathological and chronic Rush envy.
For a moment I was led to believe Conor Friedersdorf would either offer examples to back up his slander or apologize to his readers.
Directing his readers through yet another Limbaugh ankle biting article about all I can stomach.
Apart from being an envious baffoon, Conor Friedersdorf is obviously not that bright.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 11, 05:28 PM · #
Gee, Tom. How can I counter such impeccable logic? After all you have big nuts. And you drink beer! My what a man. I feel for your girlfriend.
— Gus · Sep 11, 06:36 PM · #
Gus,
The sad truth is that there really is an alternate reality to the truth. Conor Friedersdorf’s thoughts prove it. He lives it. He writes about it. The only problem is that Conor Friedersdorf lives in the alternate reality where the truth is the lie. Folks gutsy enough to call him on it are hated because they expose the con man for what he is; a born liar.
People are sick of being spoonfed lies. From Social “security” to Mediscam, from globalony to Conor Friedersdorf. I know a ponzi scheme when I see one and I know a con man when I see one.
If you want to judge anyone by their fruits, or nuts, look at Rush & Conor. One is flourishing and one is a bitter and talentless ankle biter.
Which reality do you live in Gus? Conor?
Sad sacks.
— Tom Rowan · Sep 12, 06:39 PM · #
Limbaugh Soars in August Radio Ratings, But When Will MSM Catch On?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/09/15/limbaugh-soars-august-radio-ratings-when-will-msm-catch
— Tom Rowan · Sep 15, 07:08 PM · #
Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: 1 Million Sold
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/levins-liberty-and-tyranny-1-million-sold.html
— Tom Rowan · Sep 16, 03:01 PM · #