OReilly, Colmes, Gallagher talk about AAR

[clichemoth]

I think you hate Colmes becuase he exposes how shallow your intellect is. He proudly calls himself a 'liberal' , and chastises those that would relabel themselves 'progressives'. He wrote a book titles 'Red,White, and Liberal' for petes sake. He is watched by 2 million people everynight and is on WWRL in the #1 radio market....Wonder how his numbers fare next to AAR in his time slot?

No, they hate Colmes because he doesn't hit Hannity back.

Unfortunately, that's the way the show is set up. However, I frankly happen to think Colmes has the upper hand in his debating tactics on the TV show: he makes his point, then sits back and won't argue it when he knows he's done so. If you're actually paying attention, it makes him look like he knows he's won the argument (even if he's wrong and/or you disagree with him).

Hannity, while I agree with him much more often than I do Colmes, has a tendency to beat his point into the heads of anyone who disagrees with him on the show. He doesn't do so that much on his radio show... while it does happen, more often he'll just sit back and let whoever is arguing against him stumble all over themselves. Why he doesn't do that on the TV show I'll never understand.

But Colmes, to me, comes across as less vitriolic and smarter than his partner on the TV show, simply because he does what Hannity does on his radio show: once he feels he's proven his point, he moves on. It's not that he doesn't "hit Hannity back," he just feels his point has been made, he's correct, and that it's time to move to the next topic.

Again, I think it makes him look more intelligent.

Exactly. That's why he and Hannity are paired together. Fox viewers love bluster, so if you take a reasoned, thoughtful liberal like Colmes and put him with a blowhard like Hannity, the primary viewer base doesn't hear what he's saying. However, if you're not one of their P1s, his message comes through loud and clear.

And when Colmes is working solo on radio, he's the best lib host out there. He doesn't bite into wacky Art Bell conspiracy theories like the AAR folks do. Even at the height of Rush's Clinton-bashing popularity, he didn't really give any creedence to the "Clinton killed and raped people" stuff. He talked about things that actually affected us (well, with a side of Monica and Paula, but those were very public and credible stories). That's what Colmes also does and it's a shame the average lib won't give him a chance because he's on Fox.

 

[kaufcom]

And when Colmes is working solo on radio, he's the best lib host out there. He doesn't bite into wacky Art Bell conspiracy theories like the AAR folks do. Even at the height of Rush's Clinton-bashing popularity, he didn't really give any creedence to the "Clinton killed and raped people" stuff. He talked about things that actually affected us (well, with a side of Monica and Paula, but those were very public and credible stories). That's what Colmes also does and it's a shame the average lib won't give him a chance because he's on Fox.

If Colmes is so good, why is his show banished to the wasteland of late night talk, when TSL's rates a fraction of what they are during the day? I haven't listened to Colmes radio show for awhile, but the last time I did, his whole show was taking phone calls from listeners. (Ironically mostly conservatives.) There was not much content. Yes, the daytime hosts are slightly into conspiracy theories "Bush lied and people died," and "the 2000 and 2004 were stolen." Also, they spend too much time Bush bashing. But at least they are offering up the red meat subjects that liberals want to hear on talk radio. The topics that they can't here on cable news channels.

 

[fred flintstone]

If Colmes is so good, why is his show banished to the wasteland of late night talk, when TSL's rates a fraction of what they are during the day? I haven't listened to Colmes radio show for awhile, but the last time I did, his whole show was taking phone calls from listeners. (Ironically mostly conservatives.) There was not much content. Yes, the daytime hosts are slightly into conspiracy theories "Bush lied and people died," and "the 2000 and 2004 were stolen." Also, they spend too much time Bush bashing. But at least they are offering up the red meat subjects that liberals want to hear on talk radio. The topics that they can't here on cable news channels.

In all fairness, Baroosk, you didn't talk about Malloy being "banished to the wasteland of late night talk."

However, for whatever reason, Lionel appears to be king of that particular "wasteland."

And what's the problem with whole show taking calls from listeners? Calls are content. Rush built his whole show - and his career - on only taking calls from listeners.

Yes, there are some "red meat" liberals. They are the same ones who want Colmes to be more like Hannity and out-Hannity Hannity, rather than take the high road. There are white meat liberals and tofu liberals who prefer a less strident, less arguementative, more thoughtful approach. That's why public radio's news-talk stations consistently beat commercial progressive talk stations in markets which have both. That's why Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem see an opportunity for their network. Given the proportion of liberals (and progressives) in the 12+ population, progressive talk radio under-performs greatly; attendance at choir practice is pretty low compared to the right wing choir. And may - just maybe - as others have pointed out, it has something to with AAR trying to do right wing style talk radio with a liberal spin. It's like putting Top40 jocks on a Country station.

 

[dampier]

You're the only one taking "cheap shots" Colmes is not more "entertaining" than AAR hosts because you say so. The reason "lefties" don't like Colmes is because he has sold his soul to the devil (Fox News) and Sean Hannity. Most observers agree that he is used as foil to react to Hannity's blustering on Fox. He has spent the last five years (during the first three he was the only "liberal" syndicasted talk show host) blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio while he was cleaning up as the token liberal talker. Is it not surprising that liberals on this board can't stand Colmes, and convervatives like you love him. Think about that one.

As Bill likes to say, "BINGO!" In fact the only one not taking cheap shots on Fox News is Alan Colmes. Hannity and the rest of his guests like Mann Coulter are permitted to toss as many boners into the ring as they want, and Colmes just sits there. Occasional pulse checking would have been in order had we not realized he is a Fox Collaborator, dependent on them for his paycheck and understanding that, sells his soul for his cash money. That happened in France in WW2 as well, which is why I consider him the Vichy of liberal talk.

His radio show is marketed to conservative talk radio stations, and the liners are marketed to conservative listeners who are invited to "give Alan a piece of your mind," and although he has a better opportunity to actually speak for a change, to many conservative listeners, he's the epitome of the weak-kneed liberal curiousity that is fun to hear from time to time, but only to laugh at.

The only way he will ever have any respect on the left is if he finally blows a gasket and calls out Hannity one night and quits the following day. Trust me, his presence on Fox News was carefully done to reinforce the notion Ailes likes to put forth of what a liberal looks and sounds like.