Intellectual Republican Reporter and Commentators

[DarkWizard12]

Since Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Oreilly, and by god, every Fox news commentator that others here reference, are called nothing but "neocon, racist, bigot, stupid, lying, unintellectual, assholes who only want to make money and make other people stupid. I thought, I might leave it to some of the more moderate to even liberal people here to please tell me of any republican or conservative people in the media do they consider to have "intellectual opinions" and/or a "credible sources" and/or "good political commentary".

You know, a conservative media person who you wouldn't spit on and ridicule other conservatives here for referencing them positively.

Please, list their names so that conservatives here can watch their news shows and reference them more.

 

[Morality Games]

There aren't any. The Republican Party is too populist. Populism is only as intellectual as the average IQ of its sum.

EDIT:

To be fair, the United States itself is not intellectually-inclined for the most part. Its prevailing middle-class values are based more on pragmatism, trial-and-error, and industry than abstract reasoning, analysis, and theorizing. The Republican Party took it a step further and made not being intellectual a point of American pride.

Anyway, intellectualism is not conventionally exciting and is therefore not economical.

 

[akyron]

took it a step further and made not being intellectual a point of American pride.
.

correction:

took it a step further and made not being an intellectual jackass a point of American pride.


It is possible to use your superpowers for good not evil. People forget that.

 

[Morality Games]

correction:

took it a step further and made not being an intellectual jackass a point of American pride.


It is possible to use your superpowers for good not evil. People forget that.

No.

They made not being intellectual a point of pride. No one stopped to make any qualifications. The capability of the TV personalities mentioned to make qualifications is very low because such nuances of thought greatly reduce their dramatic power, and hence would negatively impact their ratings.

I suppose local media (like radio) I have heard some intellectually-inclined Republicans, but they don't exist in the national media.

'Jackass' is subjective anyway. Most people who don't have an inordinate amount of patience will feel like someone who consistently makes what they think and believe seem shallow or off base is a jackass. Such upheavals in understanding are an intrinsic part of intellectual development.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No.

They made not being intellectual a point of pride. No one stopped to make any qualifications...

As opposed to the qualifications of a liberal?

 

[Morality Games]

As opposed to the qualifications of a liberal?

Its a matter of degrees. Even the closest thing to a liberal equivalent of a right-wing TV personality (Al Franken for example) is capable of making some favorable remarks about some Republicans and believing that the perceived wrongs of conservatism are incidental rather than deliberated; in contrast, I think every right-wing personality has attributed a high degree of intentioned and organized evil to the left-wing at some period, with Ann Coulter being the strongest proponent of this view (liberals are literally in an alliance with terrorists or are terrorists) and Bill O' Reilly being the weakest. The possible exception is Michael Moore, but you can't trade in a single Michael Moore for decades of Rush Limbaugh's.

Regardless, what a liberal's nearest-to-equivalent to Rush Limbaugh thinks is less important because their audiences are generally smaller. At his height, half a million would be a usual number for Al Franken. Millions take their cue directly from Rush Limbaugh, and his attitudes and opinions reverberate throughout the Republican Party and the conservative ideology. Liberals, overall, are less amused by hyper-partisan displays -- or at least they get their kicks from things not visible in the market. "Democracy Now" is the closest thing I can think of to a liberal Fox and hardly anybody watches that.

 

[CriticalThought]

I don't know of many intellectuals who are partisan.

 

[Oftencold]

. . . their audiences are generally smaller. . ..

Careful meditation upon this phrase will bring wisdom.

Either the Liberal Hordes are uninterested in the words of their national proponents, have a limited attention span or the spokesmen do not make arguments that withstand lengthy consideration. Then again it could be a combination of all of these factors.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I don't know of many intellectuals who are partisan.

Only that guy who brags on TV every night about his degree from Cornell :roll:

 

[DarkWizard12]

Its a matter of degrees. Even the closest thing to a liberal equivalent of a right-wing TV personality (Al Franken for example) is capable of making some favorable remarks about some Republicans and believing that the perceived wrongs of conservatism are incidental rather than deliberated; in contrast, I think every right-wing personality has attributed a high degree of intentioned and organized evil to the left-wing at some period, with Ann Coulter being the strongest proponent of this view (liberals are literally in an alliance with terrorists or are terrorists) and Bill O' Reilly being the weakest. The possible exception is Michael Moore, but you can't trade in a single Michael Moore for decades of Rush Limbaugh's.

Regardless, what a liberal's nearest-to-equivalent to Rush Limbaugh thinks is less important because their audiences are generally smaller. At his height, half a million would be a usual number for Al Franken. Millions take their cue directly from Rush Limbaugh, and his attitudes and opinions reverberate throughout the Republican Party and the conservative ideology. Liberals, overall, are less amused by hyper-partisan displays -- or at least they get their kicks from things not visible in the market. "Democracy Now" is the closest thing I can think of to a liberal Fox and hardly anybody watches that.

So you're saying that MSNBC would not be considered a left-wing fox? really?

 

[Erod]

Yeah, Nancy Pelosi is an intellect of the highest order. Those Obama supporters on inauguration day looked like they couldn't wait to recite the Pythagorean Theorum. LOL

We all know where the truly intellectual, straight-forward, no-nonsense, common-sense Americans hitch their wagon. It ain't with Obama.

The petulant "intellectuals" you see on MSNBC and throughout the party are the all-talk and no-resume types that have it out for those that have been stuffing them in trashcans since the third grade. Nothing more.

 

[Morality Games]

Careful meditation upon this phrase will bring wisdom.

Either the Liberal Hordes are uninterested in the words of their national proponents, have a limited attention span or the spokesmen do not make arguments that withstand lengthy consideration. Then again it could be a combination of all of these factors.

The first one. Most liberals don't like demagogues. Al Franken books are entertaining enough and Michael Moore films at least define certain problems, but the left-wing does not share the right's enthusiasm for political theater and drama. CNN and the New York Times are good enough.

We all know where the truly intellectual, straight-forward, no-nonsense, common-sense Americans hitch their wagon. It ain't with Obama.

Intellectuals exist mainly in academia and academia tends to the left and with Obama. Self-made intellectuals exist outside academia, but they are not a considerable number and are mostly invisible. I don't know what qualities you project to be in intellectuals. Maybe someone is an intellectual by virtue of being a Republican, and no other criteria is required.

So you're saying that MSNBC would not be considered a left-wing fox? really?

Between there not being many liberals in the United States (maybe 20% of the population) and liberals not liking demagogues, MSNBC has no reason to emulate Fox's marketing program; it would not be profitable. There is an asystematic liberal tendency at MSNBC, but the shows are not carefully designed to be consistent with liberal sentiments. Take Hannity and Colmes, where everything about the liberal 'Colmes', from his meek appearance and his rhetorical style, were selected to stroke the conservative audience's egos rather than encourage productive debate. It's like a soap opera, or wrestling.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Only that guy who brags on TV every night about his degree from Cornell :roll:

He only talked about his degree from Cornell to show that that bag of baseball bats, Ann Colter, was lying. I don't know why he bothered. Even her fans know the odds of her lying goes up 100% whenever her lips move. :mrgreen:

 

[hazlnut]

please tell me of any republican or conservative people in the media do they consider to have "intellectual opinions" and/or a "credible sources" and/or "good political commentary".

Bill Oreilly
Pat Buchanan
George Will
Peggy Noonan
Bill Bennet
Joe Scarborough
Mike Huckabee (on the Bass guitar)

William F . Buckley

The Economist

I've been watching O'Reilly on and off since he first went on FNC. I don't agree with him 100% of the time. He goes through cycles -- one month he's right of center, the next he's leaning a little more to the right. He's the closest thing to a centrist they have on Fox. IMO he spends too much time focused on what the New York Times or NBC is or isn't covering.

 

[Z3n]

The economist is good, and there was some guy that was "in for Rush" on talk radio that was decent, to the point where his response to a moral critique or argument wasn't to turn the volume up to 11.

 

[washunut]

Since Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Oreilly, and by god, every Fox news commentator that others here reference, are called nothing but "neocon, racist, bigot, stupid, lying, unintellectual, assholes who only want to make money and make other people stupid. I thought, I might leave it to some of the more moderate to even liberal people here to please tell me of any republican or conservative people in the media do they consider to have "intellectual opinions" and/or a "credible sources" and/or "good political commentary".

You know, a conservative media person who you wouldn't spit on and ridicule other conservatives here for referencing them positively.

Please, list their names so that conservatives here can watch their news shows and reference them more.

Try George Will who is on the ABC Sunday morning show

 

[CriticalThought]

I find it interesting that I type, "right wing intellectuals" into Google and the first result is the Wikipedia article for Anti-intellectualism.

 

[Hatuey]

Since Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Oreilly, and by god, every Fox news commentator that others here reference, are called nothing but "neocon, racist, bigot, stupid, lying, unintellectual, assholes who only want to make money and make other people stupid. I thought, I might leave it to some of the more moderate to even liberal people here to please tell me of any republican or conservative people in the media do they consider to have "intellectual opinions" and/or a "credible sources" and/or "good political commentary".

You know, a conservative media person who you wouldn't spit on and ridicule other conservatives here for referencing them positively.

Please, list their names so that conservatives here can watch their news shows and reference them more.

Henry Kissinger. Not really a commentator but a guy who when he speaks runs circles around the 5th grade understandings of any of those retards above.

Also, Karl Rove is pretty close to an intellectual. He's a dick. But a smart dick.

 

[ADK_Forever]

I find it interesting that I type, "right wing intellectuals" into Google and the first result is the Wikipedia article for Anti-intellectualism.

It easily could have landed you on dictionary.com with the definition of "oxymoron".

 

[akyron]

No.

They made not being intellectual a point of pride. No one stopped to make any qualifications. The capability of the TV personalities mentioned to make qualifications is very low because such nuances of thought greatly reduce their dramatic power, and hence would negatively impact their ratings.

I suppose local media (like radio) I have heard some intellectually-inclined Republicans, but they don't exist in the national media.

'Jackass' is subjective anyway. Most people who don't have an inordinate amount of patience will feel like someone who consistently makes what they think and believe seem shallow or off base is a jackass. Such upheavals in understanding are an intrinsic part of intellectual development.

Wrong again. If you don't know what it means don't make up pseudointellectual drivel and try to sell it. Just say you dont know. Its ok.
Most of us have a measure of understanding for the less informed.



President Obama calling Kanye West Jackass


"A male donkey
A stupid person or fool.
Fool is defined as a person lacking in judgment or prudence.
Thesaurus synonym: Idiot

A male ass or donkey.
A foolish or stupid person; a blockhead.
Thesaurus synonyms for definition 2 include: bozo, cuckoo, fathead, goof, goofball, zany, goose, fool, muggins, saphead, tomfool, sap – a person who lacks good judgment

Male donkey.
Jackass (noun) Silly person: A person who is a stupid, incompetent fool.
The Thesaurus synonyms include bozo, cuckoo, fathead, goof, goofball, goose and zany."

 

[drz-400]

Greg Mankiw is center right I believe and was one of Bush Jr.'s economic advisors.

He is not a reporter or commentator, but I read his economics blog and he sometimes has opinion articles in the new york times about politics.

He is a very respected name in macroeconomics.

Greg Mankiw's Blog

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/economy/11view.html

 

[Fiddytree]

George Friedman

 

[Ikari]

No.

They made not being intellectual a point of pride. No one stopped to make any qualifications. The capability of the TV personalities mentioned to make qualifications is very low because such nuances of thought greatly reduce their dramatic power, and hence would negatively impact their ratings.

This is unfortunately true. We have somehow demonized intellectuals in this country for the most part. It's rather damaging as intellectuals are usually the group best able to handle and analyze certain situations such as those of government concerns. Many of our founders were intellectuals. But people now see being an intellectual as some negative thing and it's quite perplexing.

Having intellectuals around doesn't necessarily mean that you can get better solutions. It's just that the intellectuals will on average going to yield much better results than non-intellectuals.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Careful meditation upon this phrase will bring wisdom.

Either the Liberal Hordes are uninterested in the words of their national proponents, have a limited attention span or the spokesmen do not make arguments that withstand lengthy consideration. Then again it could be a combination of all of these factors.

It tells me that conservatives are more emotional than liberals in their rhetoric and are more apt to flock to statements that make them feel good. Talk radio and fox news delivers those statements in abundance, therefore they get more ratings.

It has less to do with the value of the statements and more to do with people thinking "yeah! I hate those goddless liberals who are screwing up my country!" Which is a statement with no intellectual value but tons of emotional value.

Not to say that there aren't intellectual foundations, there are, but conservatives tend to be more emotionally invested in their viewpoints.

 

[RightinNYC]

Krauthammer
The Corner
Glenn Reynolds
Volokh Conspiracy