Young Turk says Conservative Host is a Sissy

[fred flintstone]

I made a similar post on the Philadelphia Board (because the topic involves a local talk radio host) but I think the subject has national talk radio implications as well.The following is from a column by co-host of the "Young Turks" (the first national progressive talk radio program, carried on Sirius and streamed online) Cenk Uygur:

Michael Smerconish is a (sissy)*. A big gaping (sissy)*.He loves to talk tough from his comfortable reclining chair about death penalties and the war on terror - and how tough he would be in killing people. Yeah, I know, you're really tough. I'm sure Al Qaeda is quaking in its boots thinking about big, tough Smerconish.I keep hearing him talk about how the country is sissified. He loves that term. I don't know why, but it keeps going in and out of his mouth. Back and forth, back and forth.He says we're a country of sissies because we didn't execute Zacarias Moussaoui, who was involved with 9/11. You know what else happened on 9/11? Hundreds of brave firemen and police from liberal -- and hence sissy -- New York went into a burning building and never came out. The passengers on United 93 risked their lives and ultimately died to save their fellow Americans. One of the men who led the charge against the terrorist on board was a gay American. What a sissy!I'm so tired of hearing these big, bad conservatives try to characterize decent people who try to do the right thing as wimps - and worse yet, in their world - gay! It doesn't take a genius to figure out where Smerconish is going with the sissy label, but in case you missed it, he hits you over the head with it by stating the definition in his latest post: A boy or man regarded as effeminate. ...READ MORE:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/michael-smerconish-is-a-p_b_20843.html

* I've substituted "sissy" in some places for another word Uygur originally used in the column.Smerconish is a personal injury lawyer who became a talk show host when his law firm represented the owner's of his former station. It seems he is not the only host to cast aspersion on the gender identity, intestinal fortitude, sexual orientation or "toughness" of those who do not share their views. This has become a talk radio staple in many markets. Progressive hosts talk about doing the right thing. Conservative hosts talk about being tough (often trotting out cowboy metaphors).

 

[sdwulfdawg]

>It seems he is not the only host to cast aspersion on the gender identity, intestinal >fortitude, sexual orientation or "toughness" of those who do not share their views. >This has become a talk radio staple in many markets. Progressive hosts talk about >doing the right thing. Conservative hosts talk about being tough (often trotting out >cowboy metaphors). Now that is painting things with a broad paint brush...especially "progressive hosts talk about doing the right thing." Gosh I guess do so-called progressive hosts have Jesus-like halos around there heads?? Just look at the hate-talk crap spewing from the mouths of those hosts on Air America Radio....and I'm a liberal...which is really boring and is accounting for their drop in the ratings in many markets.Talk radio is a schtick...nothing more...nothing less!

 

[Infidel]

I didn't get vary far into the article before profanity and blasphemy ended it for me."Progressive hosts talk about doing the right thing"Should read:"Progressive communist hosts talk about doing [what they perceive is] the right thing"Who is this clown? Try presenting a well-constructed argument instead of name-calling.

 

[keys2]

Fred, looks like you have assumed the role of board apologist for liberal talkradio. Btw, why are you and other so-called....ahem...."progressives" so afraid ofthe word "liberal?" Anyway, if memory serves me correctly, the police andfirefighters from NYC booed Hillary Clinton off stage when she shamelessly tried toscore political points at a post-9/11 benefit concert. Perhaps they are all commonsense conservatives, no?

Progressive hosts talk about doing the right thing. Conservative hosts talk about being tough (often trotting out cowboy metaphors).

What a silly comment. As if only liberals are interested in doing the right thing.Look, I have no problem with libtalk radio. I just think that most of it is prettybad. And no matter how much you try to convince us that it's doing well in theratings, the bottom line is that its numbers still don't come anywhere near those oftraditional and conservative talk radio.

 

[kaufcom]

I didn't get vary far into the article before profanity and blasphemy ended it for me."Progressive hosts talk about doing the right thing"Should read:"Progressive communist hosts talk about doing [what they perceive is] the right thing"Who is this clown? Try presenting a well-constructed argument instead of name-calling.

So let me see. You criticize someone for name-calling by dropping the C bomb. Very interesting.

 

[Infidel]

Baroosk, I'm not trying to return the favor by name calling -- I'm just pointing out that "progressive" is just the new term for communist, which is not a slander, just the facts. I'm not sure why the communists feel the need to keep coming up with new terms? It was liberal for a while, now it's "progressive."

 

[fred flintstone]

"Progressive Talk" is the commonly-accepted generic name for the format. Clear Channel Radio came up with it and the people who run Clear Channel are generally considered a very Bush-friendly conservative bunch. The Right has worked hard for the last four decades to turn "liberal" into a pejorative. The word is also imprecise and mostly improperly used. "Progressive" was the original name for the political movements now generally called "liberal." Within the Democratic party there is a group which calls itself "Progressive Democrats" (represented in the most recent election by Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich), in contrast to the so-called "Moderate Democrats" of the Democratic Leadership Council (including Gore, Kerry, Lieberman and both Clintons). To be accurate, most "progressive talk shows" are really DLC/moderate talk shows.I realize this is a little too complicated for fascists and neo-cons, since it would require you to give the matter a little thought. And you all do so hate thinking. The basic appeal of the neo-con political movement is to greed, pride, anger and arroagance; the more hateful attributes of human nature. By the same token, being able to grasp the distinction between the progressive tradition and Marxism is a little too deep for neo-cons, too. It's why all you are capable of is flag-waving and name-calling. But congratulations, you've dragged DLC talk radio down to your level.The term "conservative" has also been much abused, so real "conservatives" now must call themselves "libertarians." They can't go back to the original term to describe their political philosophy - "liberal," from the Latin word for "free." That's been pre-empted, too.And now I am the "apologist" for progressive talk radio? ???It wasn't so long ago so many of you were putting me in the same boat with Brian Maloney.I am relieved to be out of that boat.I don't think my views have changed. I still say AAR is bad radio (whatever I think of their politics). Maybe some people's listening has changed.

 

[talkjim]

And no matter how much you try to convince us that it's doing well in theratings, the bottom line is that its numbers still don't come anywhere near those oftraditional and conservative talk radio. Keys 2,With one simple sentence, you have managed to ridiculously simplify a complex issue. As an admitted apologist for progressive talkradio, let me give you some much-needed help. First of all, in most markets-especially the larger ones-the battles between so-called "conservative talkradio" and "progressive talk" are really about competition between very well entrenched, big-signaled heritage news/talk stations with large and usually talented news, sports and traffic operations, veteran local talk hosts, and large promtional budgets. The progressive stations usually have the disadvantage of being newcomers, often with weaker signals, little or nothing in terms of local services, heavily dependent on syndication, and usually very little in terms of promotion. So your comparsion is not valid--the two formats are hardly on a level playing field from the get-go. If I were programming progressive talk today, I think I would try to make a virtue out of smallness-position the station as an "upstart", a "rebel" "fighting the establishment"--people of all ideologies and personality types tend to respond to that kind of positioning--it's uniquely American. But in spite of progressive talk's notable disadvantages, it has managed to score some substantive, but largely under-promoted victories. In New York, Randy Rhodes has beaten Sean Hannity in 25-54 Male AQH--the core of the advertiser-friendly talk demo, on WLIB/New York. The rapid-fire success of KPOJ/Portland, both in terms of cume and AQH is well-known and well documented. Ditto for KPTK/Seatte, which manages to do it without a shred of local prorgramming--imagine what this station might do with the addition of a locally oriented morning show. There are other emerging success stories that have been discussed widely on this board, and I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are progressive stations still trying to figure out how to best present this format, and are still finding their way.In addition, there are markets like Albany, New York, where progressive talk shows in the past have rolled up significant numbers, but where no one sees fit to give a prog-talk format a shot. Two all-sports stations in the one-share range, and another sports-heavy station, but no progressive talk. Go figure.

 

[fred flintstone]

I haven't seen anybody in this thread trying to "convience" you "how it's doing well in the ratings." Neither am I convinced that talk radio ratings have any political implications.That said, the only valid ratings comparisons are between progressive talk stations and Salem in a given market.

 

[keys2]

I realize this is a little too complicated for fascists and neo-cons, since it would require you to give the matter a little thought. And you all do so hate thinking. The basic appeal of the neo-con political movement is to greed, pride, anger and arroagance; the more hateful attributes of human nature. By the same token, being able to grasp the distinction between the progressive tradition and Marxism is a little too deep for neo-cons, too. It's why all you are capable of is flag-waving and name-calling. But congratulations, you've dragged DLC talk radio down to your level.

My gosh your arrogance is astounding. Your condescending, hateful comments represent what many moderates and conservatives dislike about liberals. Stop painting everyone, conservatives and liberals, with a broad brush. "Progressives good, conservatives bad." I've always tended to believe that conservatives think with their minds while liberals think with their emotions...apparently just the opposite of you. So two can play that ridiculous game. While granted I lean conservative, I acknowledge that we need both types of people to balance things out. Your constant assertion that conservatives have sinister motives while only liberals have good intentions is simply absurd. Maybe one day you'll open up your mind and realize that we are all trying to do what we think is best. We have different ways of going about it and we disagree. Are you able to live with that?

 

[keys2]

With one simple sentence, you have managed to ridiculously simplify a complex issue. As an admitted apologist for progressive talkradio, let me give you some much-needed help.

I'm perfectly aware of everything you said, talkjim. But you left out one major fact. It's about the bottom line. If the big-signalled stations felt that liberal talk would make them more money than what they are doing now, they'd switch in a heartbeat. Btw, our local liberal talk AM is 50,000 watt WCKY 1530....a pretty decent signal, and it is still getting lower ratings than just about every signal that manages to penetrate this market.

 

[Infidel]

Fred,I'm not sure at whom your rant is directed, but my point is not to turn "liberal" into a bad word. I'm just pointing out that the left is constantly seeking out new words to describe itself. Why is that? "Conservative" stands for conserving the Constitution. Although you could argue that there are shades of gray, at the end of the day you're either a Conservative or a Communist.

 

[robbbc]

Conservatives are fascists and Liberals are communists! It's a win-win situation!Jeeze- what a pathetic thread this is. Guys- talk about radio and drop the stupid wrangling and phoney pretense at being offended or hurt. No one is buying what you guys are selling.