Ed Morrissey has blogged at Captain's Quarters since 2003, and has a daily radio show at BlogTalkRadio, where he serves as Political Director. Called "Captain Ed" by his readers, Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather.
Alert The Media, And CQ Shutdown FAQ
I will join Duane Patterson on the Hugh Hewitt show tonight at 6:40 pm CT to discuss my move to Hot Air. Hugh's on his Hugh Cruise, and Dean Barnett took suddenly ill, so Duane gets the center seat tonight.
In the meantime, I want to address a few of the most asked questions in comments and e-mails today.
Q. You're going to change your style.
Not if Michelle and I both have our way. Michelle wants my voice at Hot Air, not for me to adopt someone else's voice. I plan on writing in the same way that I have for the last four and a half years; I doubt I could write in any other fashion. I certainly wouldn't want to. I wouldn't have taken the job if I couldn't write the way I like, and Michelle wouldn't have offered it if I did.
The best I can do to alleviate those concerns is to tell people to keep reading me and keep me honest.
Q. What about your personal posts about the First Mate and Little Admiral?
I'll be doing those at Hot Air as well. I'm also bringing the AOL Hot Seat Poll on those days when I write the question. I'm bringing the whole deal with me when I go to Hot Air. Well, except for the mess in my office, which the First Mate insists I jettison.
Q. Can't we just cross-post to Captain's Quarters?
As you might imagine, I would have loved to keep CapQ going. However, the idea here is to help build the Hot Air blog, and it makes sense to redirect the traffic from CapQ. I'll keep the archives live permanently.
Q. I can't read Hot Air at military facilities.
We need to ask the DoD about that one, don't we? I'm sorry that will be a problem for some, because I know I have a lot of military readers. Hopefully it won't always be a problem.
Q. What about BTR?
Please see this post. I'm sorry to leave; I think they're terrific.
Q. Don't you think blog consolidation is a problem?
Not really, no, not when it produces better results and stronger voices. If I didn't think that would be the result of this move, I wouldn't do it.
Q. The comment section at Hot Air is too restrictive.
As long as people don't get personally abusive, I don't think that anyone at HA has a problem with dissent. I'm hoping that all of CapQ's commenters comes with me to Hot Air, so that we can continue to debate each other in a much wider pool of responders.
I'll add more as issues come up. Many thanks to all who have sent or posted their congratulations.
Alert The Media
It's been a long and eventful day, but nothing beats ending it with a few friends. I'll talk with CHQR's Rob Breakinridge for The World Tonight to discuss Mitt Romney's withdrawal and the apparent clinching of the nomination by John McCain, and what it means for Republicans and conservatives. I'm on at 10:35 pm ET, and you can catch me on CHQR's Internet stream.
Rush Endorses Romney
Well, well, well. This makes it nearly unanimous among the conservative talk-radio leaders, with only Michael Medved dissenting. Rush Limbaugh, who had long resisted direct involvement in primary politics, has gone one step further than the anti-endorsement for John McCain that he has been delivering for the past couple of weeks (via Hot Air):
RUSH: I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.Of course, the foreign policy crowd is obviously what it is. I don’t think there’s anybody on our side who doesn’t care about national security, which is why I found it amazing that McCain gets the bulk of those, because the idea that Romney or Huckabee are going to punt national security? In Huckabee’s case, you might just say the things he’s saying about it represent an ignorance born of inexperience in the subject. I don’t think Huckabee has any deleterious intentions about the country. When it comes to the fiscal side, you cannot say — you just cannot say — that John McCain is interested. He’s even admitted he’s not interested in the social side. He’s not interested in the economic side. He said this, and when he has spoken up about it, he sides more often with liberal Democrats on fiscal issues than he does with his own side. That’s problematic.
This is why I think — and why I have said — that the Republican Party, not conservatism, but the Republican Party is in big trouble if it is empowered and gets elected by attracting people who also hold liberal Democrat views simply because they like McCain because of his character, his honor, his prisoner of war story, and they don’t like Hillary or Obama.
Interesting point on national security, and one that doesn't get aired all that often. I don't entirely agree with Rush on McCain's record on fiscal conservatism -- he has been both a budget hawk and an outspoken voice against pork-barrel spending -- but I'd say that he's correct about McCain's interest in social conservatism. That's the arena where McCain has taken some joy in poking fingers into the eyes of the Right.
The big question, of course, is the timing. Did this come one day too late, right on time -- or does this just confirm the direction in which Rush has been going all along? I think it's the latter. Rush's opposition to McCain probably has already created whatever impact it has for today. The bigger question is whether it can turn the race if Romney can keep it relatively close after tonight.
Alert The Media
I'll make a few media appearances tonight as the Florida primary figures start to materialize:
I will also be live-blogging the results as we keep an eye on the race. Keep checking back for more updates.
Alert The Media
I'll be on Hugh Hewitt tonight at 6:20 pm CT, presumably to discuss the latest in the presidential primaries. I'm now scheduled to do a regular gig with Hugh on the fourth Thursday of the month, so mark that on your schedules. Hugh has juggled the schedule tonight; usually I'd be on in the final hour.
Afterwards, I'll be live-blogging the Florida debate tonight from 8-10 pm CT at Heading Right, and holding a live wrap-up show at BlogTalkRadio's Debate Central from 10-10:30 pm CT. Don't miss any of the coverage!
Did Talk Radio Lose In South Carolina?
Michael Medved has a provocative column from this weekend arguing that the biggest loser in South Carolina wasn't Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. Medved, a Salem Radio talk-show host, says that the conservative endorsement of John McCain repudiated talk-show offensives against his campaign and exposed talk radio as a dying influence on the Right:
The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight.For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If you’ve tuned in at all to Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck. As always, led by Rush Limbaugh (who because of talent and seniority continues to dominate the medium) the talk radio herd has ridden in precisely the same direction, insisting that McCain and Huckabee deserve no support because they’re not “real conservatives.” A month ago, the angry right launched the slogan that Mike Huckabee is a “pro-life liberal.” More recently, after McCain’s energizing victory in New Hampshire, they trotted out the mantra that the Arizona Senator (with a life-time rating for his Congressional voting record of 83% from the American Conservative Union) is a “pro-war liberal.”
Well, the two alleged “liberals,” McCain and Huckabee just swept a total of 63% of the Republican vote in deeply conservative South Carolina. Meanwhile, the two darlings of talk radio -- Mitt Romney and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson—combined for an anemic 31% of the vote.
Medved makes a good point here, but I'd hesitate to call talk radio "damaged". As Medved's own support for McCain makes clear, the market has shown some diversity in opinion on this topic -- and it reflects the same debate Republicans and conservatives have had for the entire debate. Fred Thompson's departure will make it even more intriguing, and necessary.
Can one call McCain conservative? I think so, but that doesn't make Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh somehow wrong to disagree, and to disagree strongly. It's literally what they get paid to do. I'd also object to the notion that Rush leads a herd in this case, especially since McCain, for all his virtues (and they are many), has often alienated these conservative activists on both policy and tone.
However, in a larger sense and without the somewhat hyperbolic notion of "damage" to talk radio, Michael hits the nail on the head. In my opinion, the tone of this primary has strayed unnecessarily into negative attacks on valuable members of our own team. Instead of focusing on positive aspects of a favored candidate, too often our advocates have opted to seize on any criticism of others and make that their main message. That's not just true in talk radio, but also in the blogosphere.
It has led to what I call Ultimatum Politics -- where people start to demand that either their specific candidate gets nominated or they refuse to participate in the general election. That results from overcranked partisanship clouding mature judgment. In a general election, voters have to make a choice, and as Ronald Reagan warned, it's better to support a candidate with whom one agrees on 70% of the issues rather than allow a 30% candidate to prevail instead. Demonizing all of the other options (which Alan Keyes literally did at the CLC in October) paralyzes a political party.
We need to rationally discuss the benefits and risks of each candidate without looking to "gotcha" people we may need to support later. I don't think talk radio gets damaged by creating controversy, but we as a party can damage ourselves by allowing the rhetoric to get in the way of rational analysis.
Rush, Having Far Too Much Fun
I know we've all had our share of schadenfreude on the Right over the racial eruptions on the Left, but no one has had as much fun with it than Rush did today. He doesn't miss any of the points raised over the last couple of weeks, and emphasized that it only started happening because Barack Obama actually began to seriously challenge Hillary for the nomination. Bryan at Hot Air gives us the video of his opening monologue, in two parts:
Rush even gets to damn with faint praise: "[Obama] can deliver a hell of a vapid speech!" Watch him laughing with delight at the end of Part II. But he didn't stop with the monologue. He went into much more detail on Hillary's comments, and caught this interesting nugget from Hillary's Meet the Press interview yesterday:
HILLARY: And the point that I was responding to from Senator Obama himself in a number of speeches he was making, is his comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King. You know, Dr. King didn't just give speeches. He marched. He organized. He protested. He was gassed. He was beaten.RUSH: Stop the tape. Stop the tape. Stop the tape. Two things here. First thing, Mrs. Clinton is saying, "Obama, you are not down with the struggle. You are not down for the struggle. You can't compare yourself to King; you can't compare yourself to JFK, and you won't be able to until you've marched, organized, and been gassed, and then been beaten -- and we, the Clintons, might take you up on it."
HILLARY: He was jailed. He understood that he had to move the political process and bring in those who are in political power, and he campaigned for political leaders, including Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on what he had devoted his life to achieving. So I think it's important to set the record straight. Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this.
RUSH: Ah! There we get to the nut of it, ladies and gentlemen! This is a typical Clinton move. She is the victim of all this race stuff. Obama is deliberately distorting what she has said.
Rush has plenty more in his transcript, and all of it as excellent as it is hilarious. The Democratic primaries just got a lot more entertaining, even it is schadenfreude.
Alert The Media
I'll be on the Hugh Hewitt show tonight at 7:30 pm CT to talk about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Hugh's going all three hours on this topic; be sure to tune in to catch all the latest information on the terrorist attack.
Back In The Saddle Again
Don Imus made his return to the airwaves this morning, diminished but mostly unbowed, on WABC in New York City. The radio cowboy returns to the saddle months after his termination for using racially-insensitive criticisms of the Rutgers' women's basketball team, after which CBS Radio and MS-NBC both dumped him. While he says he learned his lesson, Imus also promises that the show itself will not change:
Don Imus returned to the airwaves Monday eight months after he was fired for a racially charged remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team, introducing a new cast that included two black comedians.As he did several times in the days after his comments, Imus condemned his remarks and said he had learned his lesson. ...
While Imus pledged to use his new show to talk about race relations, he added: "Other than that, not much has changed. Dick Cheney is still a war criminal, Hillary Clinton is still Satan and I'm back on the radio."
His return had been announced several weeks ago, and thus far has produced little protest. No one wants to defend his truly offensive remarks, but at the same time, a sense has coalesced that Imus got treated somewhat unfairly in their aftermath. When radio hosts cross the line in taste, they usually get suspended, not fired. As it turns out, that's what his contract said as well, and CBS had to eat an unspecified portion of it in a post-termination settlement.
I've never been a big fan of Imus, but his return to the airwaves should be seen as a return to common sense. Not every offense needs to result in a firing, especially when taken in the context of long record. The corporate impulse to avoid embarrassment makes everyone a hostage to a vocal fringe -- on both sides -- and that doesn't bode well for the moderating influence of a free-speech market. One offhand, unplanned remark should certainly be criticized and disciplined, but ending a decades-long career over it seems extreme.
Let the audiences decide whether Imus should have this second chance. If people want to listen, advertisers will buy air time, and Imus will prosper. If they don't, he'll be off the air faster than last year's rap single hit.
Andy McCarthy: Run That One By Me Again
Quite frankly, the entire pseudo-controversy over Rush Limbaugh's remarks headlined the Theater of the Absurd for the past week, and apparently continues its meager run on the stage. Michelle Malkin sees the strategy for exactly what it is -- a payback for the beating that MoveOn took over calling General David Petraeus a traitor on the pages of the New York Times. Andy McCarthy practically has to pick his jaw up off the floor over the target selection of the Left:
There really was a news story, generated by the mainstream media of all people, about phony soldiers — poseurs who falsely claim to have put their lives on the line in our country’s armed forces, at least some of whom engage the pretense precisely to libel real heroes as terrorists and marauders.Rush Limbaugh, one of this nation’s single-most ardent supporters of the military, was briefed on the news story by his staff and was, unsurprisingly, offended by it.
Rush alluded to the said phony soldiers during his hugely successful daily radio broadcast, prompted by what he reasonably believed was a caller’s reference to it.
As a result, he is being castigated for dishonoring authentic troops in a trumped up controversy generated by Media Matters — a left-wing propaganda machine with pockets lined by left-wing activists. The charge is being led by top Democrats who, when not busy defending other top Democrats for smearing our troops as “reminiscent of Genghis Khan,” terrorists, murderers, and comparable to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings,” fall mute when the vanguard of their hard-left base, MoveOn.org (abetted by the New York Times), describes the general heroically leading our forces in Iraq a traitor.
And this is a story?
Yes, this is a story. It's a story of intellectual dishonesty, partisan gunslinging, and distraction tactics designed to protect a major Democratic Party fundraiser. That's the real story behind this latest absurdity.
Let's start from Square One. In order to believe that Rush Limbaugh meant to slander the troops, one would have to believe that Limbaugh has some animus against the military. Anyone who has listened to Limbaugh even occasionally would laugh aloud at such a notion. Limbaugh has been one of the most vocal supporters of the American military -- much more supportive that most of the mainstream news agencies now reporting on this supposed slur issued by Limbaugh. How many defenses of the American military does one read in the New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle -- or Media Matters or Daily Kos?
The transcript of the show, as I wrote last week, shows exactly what Limbaigh meant by "phony soldiers", as Byron York points out. He meant the phonies like Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to have been in Iraq and never was, or Scott Beauchamp, who claimed to have witnessed atrocities that never occured. It has become such a phenomenon that ABC News reported on it a few days before Limbaugh discussed it. After taking a couple of calls, Limbaugh explained exactly what he meant.
This isn't about protecting the honor of American soldiers, a mission Media Matters has not exactly adopted in its reporting on Haditha, for instance. It's a blatant attempt to misrepresent what Limbaugh clearly meant and what he clearly said on his show in order to discredit him and dent his popularity. At the heart of it, it's about the fear that Media Matters has for Rush and the power he holds from the work he does on behalf of conservative causes.
The Theater of the Absurd continued yesterday, with Tom Harkin lashing out at Rush for possibly being "on drugs again". Harkin lied about his own service record when he ran for President in 1992, when he claimed to be a combat fighter pilot in Vietnam. Harkin flew jets and served honorably, but did so stateside; he never saw combat. Why he felt the need to lie about his otherwise outstanding service is anyone's guess, but clearly he's the last person to publicly render judgment on Rush's honesty.
This is all a stage, directed by Media Matters and its financial backers, and all of the Democrats howling about Rush merely its players. They may strut all they want, but they produce only sound and fury, signifying nothing -- and in the process, put their intellectual bankruptcy on display for all to see.
Live Blogging Hannity
Sean Hannity has joined Newt Gingrich for a portion of the Solutions Day event, and he's prerecording the last hour of his show here in front of a live audience. It's been interesting to watch Sean work the room, live, during his show. Radio tends to be a rather insular pursuit. One does not get a sense of audience while broadcasting, except at live "remotes" like this.
Hannity has been well received by this audience, which may indicate that Solutions Day hasn't drawn the bipartisan attendees here for the kickoff that Newt Gingrich wanted. He has drawn a number of reporters, including a couple from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I met Jim Galloway and Ben Gray from the AJC, which Hannity referred to as the "Atlanta Urinal", which got a laugh from the audience but not the media bench.
He seems to enjoy the audience. His reactions to callers seems broad and engaging, and the audience remains interested in what shouldn't really be all that visually fascinating. He did ask the audience whether they wanted another liberal caller (after two in a row), or "a normal American", which got the most applause. Hannity also paid homage to his partner Alan Colmes, saying "I know fear -- I stare down Colmes every night!"
One of his best segments had to do with Iran. He wondered aloud if one day we'd wake up to millions dead and be asking ourselves why we didn't take Ahmadinejad seriously when he proposed a genocide of the Jews and the triumph of Islam over the West. He wants America to remain strong enough to beat all comers and remain on offense.
Hannity provided the red meat to the Right on Solutions Day. That may allow Gingrich to reach across the aisle, as the event promised, later this evening at the kickoff speech at 7 pm ET.
Media Notes And Quick Links
I hope everyone had a chance to catch our weekly round-up with Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson on Heading Right Radio. We actually ran over our time by about twelve minutes, so be sure to download the podcast. Speaking of which, I know that the iTunes subscription has stopped working, due to a URL change on our podcast RSS feed. I will work on a new iTunes subscription feed, but in the meantime, the correct RSS feed can be found on my sidebar, just below the BlogTalkRadio buttons.
Tonight at 5 pm CT, I'll be back in the studio with Hugh Hewitt, appearing on his syndicated talk show. Hugh will have a segment or two with Mitt Romney, I believe, and I'll hang around and talk Pittsburgh Steelers football -- or perhaps a more joyful topic for Hugh. Be sure to tune in.
Also, a few bloggers got a chance to interview the President today. Read all about it at INDC Journal and the Victory Caucus. While you're at INDC Journal, be sure to throw a few bucks in the tip jar to keep Bill Ardolino afloat while he embeds with our troops.
Did Ed Schultz Assault A Woman In A Bar?
What is it with left-wing radio hosts? Al Franken squared off on Laura Ingraham's producer at the 2004 Republican National Convention and tackled a protestor at a Democratic rally. Now Ed Schultz apparently bruised a woman after arguing politics with her and her husband in a Detroit Lakes, Minnesota bar (via Power Line):
The conversation went sour when Nagle said he respects Joe Lieberman, the Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut known for supporting the Iraq war.Nagle said Schultz said he doesn’t like Lieberman, and then commented that if Nagle felt so strongly about the war, his family should go over and fight in it.
The daughter of Nagle’s fiancee serves in the Army and may soon go to Iraq. His fiancee’s son-in-law has served in Iraq.
“It was at that time that Mr. Schultz completely lost control, in my opinion,” Nagle said. “He became enraged, and then our interactions became far less civil.”
Schultz said the woman with Nagle addressed Schultz’s wife with profanity.
“If someone comes up to you in public and calls your wife (references to expletives), what are you going to do?”
Schultz said he engaged in harmless shoving with Nagle, whom he never named on his radio shows. Schultz said he knew if he hit the man, he could be arrested, which could sink his professional career.
Schultz claims that the couple would not stop harrassing him about politics, despite his requests to end the conversation. That's not exactly how Nagle recalls the interaction. Rob at Say Anything interviewed Nagle about the incident, and he claims that Schultz threw a punch that hit his wife, who had tried to step between her husband and Schultz when the host threatened them:
* At one point Schultz asked Nagle why he and his family weren’t over fighting the war in Iraq, and Nagle responded by pointing out that some of his family was, in fact, in Iraq. Or had been in Iraq. Schultz responded to this by saying that he hates “f***ing right-wing Republicans” and threatening Nagle to the point where the restaurant security began to take notice* Nagle responded to Schultz’s threat by saying he and his group were going to leave, at which point either someone from the hotel/bar or one of Schultz’s party (Nagle isn’t clear on this) grabbed his arms and pinned them behind him as Schultz approached with a fist cocked as though he was going to throw a punch.
* Before Schultz was able to throw a punch, Nagle’s fiancee stepped in and Ed’s fist grazed both her and Nagle.
* Nagle’s fiancee has bruises from this encounter.
Nagle claims that he has witnesses who can verify his account of the incident. He wanted to forget about his encounter with Schultz, but the talk-show host gave out his private nunber on the air in retaliation for the argument. At that point, Nagle decided to set the record straight.
It's always amusing to see the violence inherent in the anti-war Left -- or at least it's amusing from a distance. When was the last time a conservative radio host got into a barfight? Do you suppose Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, or Michael Medved would take a swing at someone in a bar over a political disagreement? If they did, it would make national headlines. I wonder if we'll see the same kind of coverage about Air America's star.
If you want to send your thoughts to Schultz's home station and its owner Jim Ingstad, you can e-mail him here.
Sneak Peek At The Thompson Interview
I'm at the Minnesota State Fair all day today, thanks to a couple of scheduling issues that came up over the weekend. The Fred Thompson campaign offered me a chance to get a quick interview with the Senator at midday, and as you will hear on today's show, it was fairly quick -- around five minutes, which is as long as we could go in this madhouse. However, I think you will find it fascinating, especially in regards to the tone of his campaign and his Indianapolis speech. Thompson has a few words about the importance of this election and why it's important to talk straight to the American people. You won't want to miss it.
I'm also including a recording of Thompson's press conference at the GOP booth here at the fair, in which he answers a lot of the questions asked by the readers here at CQ. He also gave his reaction to Alberto Gonzales' resignation today, which comes first in the press conference.
Later this evening and for the next two days, I'm doing drive-time radio at AM 1280 The Patriot from 5-8 PM CT. My NARN partner Mitch Berg joins me tonight and tomorrow, and Colonel Joe Repya joins me on Wednesday. CQ Radio will go at 1 pm CT the next two days in order to make sure I have enough time to get to the fair both days.
Maybe The Bill Had Something To Do With It
The Project for Excellence in Journalism conducted a study to determine why the immigration-reform bill died on the floor of the Senate -- and readers can guess who gets the credit and the blame. Their exhaustive study, apparently completed and published in six weeks, claims that conservative talk radio set off a frenzied mob by using the word "amnesty":
Opposition from key talk radio and cable TV hosts helped kill the immigration bill in Congress, a study out today concludes.“What listeners of the conservative talk radio media were hearing, in large part, was that the legislation itself was little more than an ‘amnesty bill’ for illegal immigrants, a phrase loaded with political baggage,” it says.
The study by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism quantifies what White House and Capitol Hill phone lines and e-mail inboxes already indicated: Talk radio focused on the immigration debate more intensely than the mainstream media did from April to June.
Conservative hosts touched off a brushfire in the Republican base that President Bush and other party leaders were helpless to contain.
The study concluded that talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage devoted 16% of their second-quarter airtime to immigration. Liberal talk-show hosts only devoted 5% to the topic. Using this calculation, the study concludes that the talk-radio shows overpowered liberals who supported the bill, and therefore foiled passage of the bill.
Well, maybe. However, this sounds like the study's authors confuse correlation with causation. They don't study how all of this chatter actually affected the Senate vote. We assume it did -- on that much we can agree -- but that's all this study does as well. No one studied the use of the word "amnesty", either. Did that really affect listener comprehension of the bill, and was it fair or unfair to use it when describing the bill?
The authors also fail to consider that the bill was just a poorly-written piece of legislation. Its sponsors and Harry Reid did whatever they could to jam it down the Senate's throat quickly enough to avoid scrutiny and to keep any amendments that could actually fix its myriad issues from succeeding. That backroom process angered many voters on its own, as well as a good percentage of the Senators who had to vote on it. Talk radio didn't have much to do with any of that.
Liberals weren't thrilled with this bill, either. People on both sides of the divide opposed it, although the most passionate were the conservatives. And some center-right talk-show hosts didn't oppose the bill, at least not outright, Hugh Hewitt among them. Some of the talk-show hosts wanted to work in some amendments that would make the bill palatable.
Why didn't they catch that? Their sample only included two conservative talk shows per day. They only tracked Rush Limbaugh every day, and then alternated between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. For liberal talk radio, their sample was even smaller; they sampled one show per day, alternating between Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes. The rest of their radio study consisted of ABC's headline service and NPR.
This study reminds me of CBS polling. It fails at the sample, and then draws a lot of unsupported conclusions.
Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easier to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.
Click on the section title to expand the list.