I call myself a rocket scientist. That however, doesn't make me one

Boy that was weak. I'd say Lars' Obama case is far worse for America than your attempt.

Barak's ideas for America will mean an attempt at expanding the entitlement society far beyond the current chaos which the homeownership for the unqualified has created. But then we'll see more of this same thing locally as Deborah's Milwaukie attempts to use Urban Renewal and other tax monies to have government provide housing.

My response to Lars:

Would you make a man president…who makes an unrepentant terrorist his friend and ally…and lies about it Since he was named the Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1997 for his works, I suspect that people may change their ways over time. That era was unique to American history and should be judged as such.

Would you make a man president who believes health care is not an opportunity…it’s a right to be paid for my taxpayers Do you feel it is okay for a human being to die because they can't afford it?

Would you make a man president whose wife says “America is just downright mean” If this really bothers you, I suggest you "grow a pair."

Would you make a man president who believes this country can tax its way to prosperity Better than a man who would spend our country into poverty. Oops, too late.

Would you make a man president…who promises lower taxes to 95%...when 40 percent of working Americans DON’T PAY taxes ? Would you prefer that those 40% show up to your home for dinner every night or are you okay with them starving.

So, for all of Obama's faults, and there are many, I will vote for him. The reason is simple, I would rather go with the person I don't know than the person I do.

Lars is irrelevant.

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Larson, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.

So, let's look at what a REAL journalist writes about this election. I asked others if they are reading anything besides the press they abhor. No comment.

So... knowing it's awfully Lefty, but MY kinda journalism nevertheless... here is something I received as regards what we look like from the outside.

This fellow is on-staff with a correspondent of mine who was one of the two reporters who discovered the rape camps in Bosnia and was hounded by his own employers of the time for "losing his objectivity" in his impassioned determination to MAKE the world LOOK and stop lying about its' truth.... so that's the company MY kinda journos keep.

<hr/>

A succinct editorial from Jonathan Freedland of the British newspaper The Guardian on the upcoming US election.

"If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.

But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war.. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was 'Drill, baby, drill!', as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that 'the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race'.

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, 'historical decline'. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is 'not about the issues.'

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the 'candidate of Europe' and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.".

I'd like to know where he gets this comment from "... 40 percent of working Americans DON’T PAY taxes" ?

Lars must be on some other planet.

TLG

Lars is irrelevant.

In 2008, Talkers Magazine rated Larson as the 27th (of 4,000 nationwide) most important radio talk show host in America.

Lars is on 21 Oregon stations and averages more than 67,000 listeners a day

Lars is a predictible, arrogant unbearable ass. We may disagree with him, but unfortunately he is most certainly not irrelevant.

Yes S.D: you are correct. So let's clean up that verbiage the imprecise poster no doubt intended to this - "Lars spews irrelevancies".

“Lars just isn't listening.”

I’l bet he hears just fine, he just doesn’t care -- unless it lines his pockets.

And I’m also not too sure why I ought to care one whit about what Larson says or does, or even how many sad sacks actually take him seriously as a political commentator. He won’t run for any office because he know his political and social views appeal to a very small piece of the electorate and that he’d get run over in a campaign.

He is, as with all talk radio “commentators,” an entertainer first (and hardly a journalist), and uses his ugly schtick is to rouse the far-right rabble through class envy and anti-intellectualism.

Over the past 22 years, I have partied hardy with almost everyone at KXL, the morning kids, come and gone, evening crew, and weekend subs. Oh, the late nights at Mary's house in Mt. Tabor! With the D.A's drinking with both fists, too. Oh, hi C.W.!

They all agree that "Lars Larson" is an act, a bad one, but still, an act.

A showman turned shaman.

And, sadly, more brains than Sarah and that creepy Todd put together.

Murphy,

How conveniently presumptuous of you. Routine really for liberals. To think of themselves as caring and conservatives not so much. In reality you haven't the slightest idea what Lars cares about or what motivates him. The idea that only what "lines his pockets" interests Larson is empty partisan rhetoric.
You have zero understanding of how or where Larson lives, his priorities or lifestyle. But you imagine.

And I'm always intrigued by the liberal concocted notion that ALL the Lars and other conservative talk shows are all about their distribution to sad sacks listening. Of course that's nonsense. Those shows just like your own Thom Hartman, and others are discussion shows where ideas are exchanged. You may not like that the discussions on Lars' show (Rush, Hannity et al) are predominately from a conservative perspective but then left wing radio is the opposite. And to a much greater degree I would contend. I listen to Hartman, Rhodes, Ring of Fire, Schultz, Malloy etc. and rarely are their any discussions including conservative callers. Am I too think that those left wing show hosts are of a higher intelligence and their listeners not sad sacks? As far as Lars political and social views appealing to a very small piece of the electorate. That may be the case in Portland, or even with the caricature you've imagined, but in the real world the country is about split with many not realizing how left the Blue side really is. IMO. Yeah Lars would get run over in a campaign Portland, and the State dominated by Mult Co politics. That's obvious. Lars certainly has a substantial amount of journalism experience and skills despite your take that all things on the right do not.
And when you say "all talk radio “commentators,” are entertainer first I assume you are only talking about the right? And none of your lefty show hosts would use their ugly schtick is to rouse the far-left?

Sid, Everyone knows you hate Lars. So you're just a bit biased.
Your claim that "they all agree that "Lars Larson" is an act, a bad one, but still, an act" is ridiculous. "act"? As in Lars is pretending? Ludicrous.

And it's quite the typical stretch for you to pretend to know the magnitude of Lars', Sarah's or Todd's brains.

It almost makes it seem like you have more brains too. So I may be at a disadvantage.

I'd like to know where he gets this comment from "... 40 percent of working Americans DON’T PAY taxes" ?

He is referring to Federal Income Taxes and the last I heard, I think it is closer to 50% now. I think somewhere around 38% of taxpayer have a negative Federal tax rate as well.

You know what I find shocking.

Lars hasn't come on to respond yet. You know that guy google searches his name at least 4 times a day.

"You know what I find shocking.Lars hasn't come on to respond yet." What I find shocking is how many things libs say are shocking that aren't in the least.
In this case it's that Lars hasn't come on here to respond?

Respond to what? Blue Babble?

If Obama was all about change he wouldn't have picked life long politician and hack Biden for VP. He would have picked a young and up-coming democrat.

He's a charlatan and will be exposed as such, despite the media's attempts to re-make him as the next Messiah. Im not suggesting Obama is homo-sexual or a liar, just that the "sell Job" the media has done for Obama will be obvious.

/”In reality you haven't the slightest idea what Lars cares about or what motivates him. “/

Hey -- if he plays a different guy off the air, more power to him, but on air he’s comes across as an ideological bully and a terminal narcissist. And his politics are out of step with Oregonians (and I know you HATE the idea that that might include Portlanders, but that’s just too damn bad).

/”You have zero understanding of how or where Larson lives, his priorities or lifestyle.”/

I don’t care where he lives, (though I’m sure he’d be domiciled more happily in, say, Texas) but his priories are clear (unless he’s lying on the air). Let’s see: no civil unions or legal recognition of any kind for Gays and Lesbians; Women’s reproductive decisions the prevue of government; Government reduced to executing prisoners and bombing places he doesn’t like -- and of course checking up on the sex lives of women. Hmm -- anything else? Oh yeah, every bit of Portland reduced to a series of large parking lots connected by twelve-lane freeways, and every acre of forests logged. Oh, and let’s not forget, every suspected undocumented worker rounded up (with their kids -- whether born here or not) and tossed over the border. And free cigars for the under fives.

Does that just about cover it?

He's a charlatan and will be exposed as such, despite the media's attempts to re-make him as the next Messiah.

I know, I know, he is really UBL in disguise.

I would have thought the GOPers could do better.

Sid, please tone down your excitement as you get lost in the roll of your own words. Happy for you that you have partied with all the important people, we are all comforted to know that they are not fooled either... but "Shaman" has nothing to do with this guy, and it's really an abuse of an authentic... role, I guess you would call it, although it is NOT something you can decide you will be or develop into (no matter what Mike Harner wants folks to pay him to believe)... nor is it really something "the people" elect you into.

After you have met one or two bonafide "energy masters" you stop playing with that word. You is or you ain't.

Please. Choose words more-carefully. Some of them matter, not just from a stupid PC place. Just a thought.

Many thank yous, Becca

Slappy and Rebecca. I must respectfully disagree.

Lars is the local Rush Limbaugh. Both preach to an ever decreasing choir of right wing lunatics. Both Lars and Rush have lost significant market share in local radio books over the last four years. Their market share will decrease further as a result of the colossal failures of the Republicans over the last eight years and their own lame predictions failing to materialize again and again.

Neither Lars nor Rush is going to convince anyone to vote for a Republican or a Sizemore/Mannix/Parks initiative that wasn't already going to vote for it. At best they are just the messengers that tell the faithful what to think and how to vote.

I believe Lars is irrelevant.

Ummm.. Jumbo? I was simply correcting someone else's statement for them..... "they MEANT to say......", kinda like that.

Thanks.

Lars is on 21 Oregon stations and averages more than 67,000 listeners a day

Lars, Limpbag, O'LIElly, Hannuty and their ilk are part of our national problem but the smaller part. The real problem comes when 67,000 tune into Larson's claptrap each day and many more thousands suck up the vile and squalid drivel that comes out of the mouths of the rest of them. It is long overdue but the American education system needs to look at providing mandatory courses in ethics for its high school and college students.

Oh man, Hal, you sound so grumpy.

Here's the peace and unity crowd on display. This is what the progressive idea of unity is. Libs - watch with pride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

unity == eliminate of dissent.

I love the way the party of exclusion tries to accuse others of stifling dissent. When one momentarily considers the politicization of the justice dept. by the repub admin the projection becomes transparent. Unity means accepting others whose views may be at variance with yours. It's a difficult concept for the true believers to accept. It's a difficult accusation to make when we all see that Obama selected a former adversary as his VP though. "Team of Rivals" by Doris Goodwin is instructive reading for those of you in the party which once believed in unity, but lost the plot somewhere along the way.

What is "eliminate of dissent" meant? Me no do understanding.

Lars' years as a teevee "journalist" (actor) prepared him to play his current role. He's great at making it sound like he knows what he's talking about, and he understands how to manipulate a debate without having to make a solid argument. He's perfect for talk radio. He gives the fans lots of "gotcha" moments in interviews, recycles the usual basic subjects, and, like O'Reilly, pulls off a conservative populist "common sense" shtick that keeps 'em coming back. Is he changing minds? Nah. He's entertainment. Like most of talk radio of all political stripe.

I believe Lars is irrelevant.

Then lets stop talking about him. If lars were irrelevant would spend no time or energy on him or his views, the # of responses to this post, simply reinforces to me that he is relevant.

If he convinces any of those 67,000 people to call, become more involved, tell a neighbor, or send an email that influences us as citizens, which he does, then he is relevant.

It is crazy to think that he is simply entertainment! That is a thought process we can not afford. They influence many thoughts and ideologies around this nation, in a way that is not good for the little guy.

I know plenty of non conservatives that listen to Lars, Rush et al to get a feel where the political winds are amongst the conservative set. WE ARE A BLUE STATE. Think of the impact he has in RED states.

ryan,

I'm not grumpy. And I'll bet you rarely listen to talk radio. It's simple to echo the entertainment bromide but the fact of the matter is many in depth discussions take place on talk radio, left and right. Identical to the discussions on blogs. Anyone who listens knows this. But of course blues only criticize and dismiss conservative radio. When in fact the most biased and vitrolic radio is on the left. Even surpassing Michael Savage.

Becca,

There is reading, and there is comprehension.

I never, ever said the people who run this town hate Lars.

We just know it's an act. A lucrative one, but still, a show.

Of course, I ran CNN for a while, around the world, so while we're on the subject, what's your national and international media exprience, since I never ever heard of you.

Lars was married to a Becca, wife number three or four, like all good Republicans, so is that you?

Hal wrote:

Am I too think that those left wing show hosts are of a higher intelligence and their listeners not sad sacks?

...only if you want your thinking to reflective reality.

Who's Lars Larson? I don't thank I have ever herd of him.

Well Tom, probably unlike you, I actually listen to the other side on a daily basis.

If you think the discussions on 620 include no bizarre and kooky theories, speculations and explanations then you are one of their sad sacks. From Hartman to RFK jr the content wanders off into the wacky world of the conspiracies every week. I especially enjoy the left's analysis of the Republican minds and motivations.
It's amazing how you know and share the inner working and plots of Republicans.

When I hear one of you say "what they're really doing is,,," my ears perk up because I'm about to hear some real loony stuff. And of course it's all delivered with this weird acceptance of total certainty and common knowledge. The width and depth they travel as they make up their descriptions is unlimited. They take some miniscule item and extrapolate out vast meaning as if they have the inside goods. Funny stuff.

I listen to talk radio on both ends of the political spectrum about 2 hours a day, Hal. Sorry, no echoey bromides here, but thanks for making an ass out of u and me. So, what do I win?

Sorry, dude, but Savage is the worst, in my opinion. At least Malloy has a sense of humor. Savage actually believes everything he says, and it's downright nasty on a daily basis. Except that you claim it's "a fact" that he's not the worst. Funny, I don't remember that study...

Anyway, although there are some great ideas bandied about all over the airwaves, the need to sell ads will always win. Every talk jock knows he has to be interesting, not just informative, in order to keep enough of us listening. If you believe that they don't have the ad department in the other ear of the headphones, you're perhaps a tad too credulous. I learn stuff all day from all kinds of talk radio, but I keep the salt handy.

Lars is not irrelevant. Every candidate he has endorsed on his radio show loses. Nearly every measure he has supported loses. He has a loyal cadre of rabid righties that "ditto" him for several hours a day, and thinking people realize that he's just a showman.

Let him go after Obama; it will only help in the end.

Sid Leader wrote:

Of course, I ran CNN for a while, around the world, so while we're on the subject, what's your national and international media experience, since I never ever heard of you.

Sid, that's a heavy-handed response to concerns about your word choice, isn't it? Shrub, after all, can claim he ran the world for eight years. That certainly would not make him right about much.

Slappy, you're right that Lars isn't irrelevant. People do listen to him. And, because we live in the USA, he gets to say pretty much what he wants. I'm all for it. I also get to disagree. And I disagree with you, in that he is largely entertainment. Sure, there's some discussion generated, but I don't think there's much changing of minds, just reinforcement of current thinking. Should those who disagree voice an opinion? Heck yes. But I think pointing out that Lars isn't so much a great philosopher as he is a showman is as good an answer to those who regularly and unquestioningly listen. Taking him too seriously is as dangerous as not taking him seriously enough.

"As far as Lars political and social views appealing to a very small piece of the electorate. That may be the case in Portland, or even with the caricature you've imagined, but in the real world the country is about split with many not realizing how left the Blue side really is. IMO."

No, you right-wingers don't realize how far out of the mainstream you are. Look at the polls on just about every issue -- Iraq, the economy, health care, abortion, etc. -- and a large majority of Americans align with Democrats rather than Republicans. Most dramatic example: Only 25% of Americans still think Bush is doing a good job as president, but 70% of Republicans do. If you took Republicans out of the poll sample and counted only Democrats and independents, Bush's approval rating would be close to single digits.

The Republicans are out of touch, and are about to be out of office -- in massive numbers.

I believe Lars is irrelevant.

This and similar has been said about many people in the past who went on to gain national and international stature. I hope I won't be misunderstood as equating Lars Larson with the following, but to illustrate my point let me give you two examples: (1) After the First World War Adolf Hitler spent a lot of time ranting and raving in the streets of Vienna where he was regarded as something of a crackpot. (2) Winston Churchill was consider irrelevant for a time between the two world wars. He referred to that period as the years he was in the wilderness.

Lars doesn't have much of a claim on fairness but to be fair to him he is not alone in assuming the role of an advocate for an ideology. Nor is this flawed behavior limited to people on the right. It happens across the political spectrum with commentators pushing some point or issue and refusing to admit to being wrong. They do, however, occasionally reveal they recognize they are wrong by smiling when their opponents in a debate get a point up on them.

This flawed behavior has been a characteristic of many commentators on this web site when they were called on comments they made and exposed themselves unable to admit they were wrong. To try to win an argument they proceeded to change the subject which often proved to be as much as a loser as the previous.

Actually, Hal, I do listen to conservative [sic] radio and TV quite often. I admit I can manage only half an hour or so at a time, or else the nausea becomes overwhelming. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Larson - good god - I wouldn't trust them with a leaky water pipe, let alone the weighty issues of the day.

Even the brightest of the right's pundits have been relative lightweights. William Buckley, who at least had good command of the language, was so intellectually out dueled at the 1968 party conventions that he resorted to calling Gore Vidal a queer and threatening to punch him in the face. The journey from Buckley to O'Reilly is not so far in substance - and infantile bullying has always been at the ready.

You're wrong, Bill. Admit it.

Just kidding.

You're wrong, Bill. Admit it.

If you go back in the archives you will find I have admitted to being wrong on some occasions and to not being as precise as I should have been on others.

Unfortunately, admitting to being wrong is not practiced as much in these United(?) States as it should be and could lead us into a very nasty situation in the not-too-distant future. Consider this article on America’s Political Cannibalism - a potential psychotic condition stimulated by right-wing talk show hosts, other charlatans in the media and surrogates for McCain. Unfortunately, the best that can be said of Obama is that he is the lesser evil.

If you followed the link to Chris Hedges' article you will notice, "It was the collapse of the Weimar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler." The collapse of the Weimar Republic was accompanied by the collapse of the German economy. A similar failure of the American economy could lead to the final days of what little is left of the American republic with a dictator installed with the aid of right-wing snake-oil salesmen massaging their egos without regard to the nation. Some patriots!!!

Poor ol' Sid. That was kind of mean, fella.

Did it make you feel better? :)....

Becca

I thought this was cogent and on point.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors

... and I suppose, while we are at it, could you focus for a while? What does "running CNN worldwide Huzzah! Huzzah!" have to do with knowing shite about shamanism?

:).... holy bejabbers.

Hey rw and becca,

Count me among the 86 percent of America that says we are on the wrong track.

Count me in as the citizen who was worried, in 2000, that dried-out ol' W would wreck the nation.

I was wrong.

He wrecked... the world.

See you at the Palin baby baptism!

NOT at the inaugural, obviously.

Boy o boy, that Sid is vicious. :)... I'm a terrible lowlife, ain't I?

To get back to Lars, his fellow talk show hosts and political operatives are there any ways other than ignorance, whoring, narcissism, pathological mendacity or congenital lying to explain the capacity some people have for making public statements that are blatantly untrue? Media Rip Palin For Lying About Troopergate Report, But Campaign Keeps Lying

"Count me among the 86 percent of America that says we are on the wrong track."

Hey Sid, did it ever occur to you that half of those think the country is moving too liberal?

Actually, 90 per cent of the Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and answers to other polling questions suggest too much liberalism is not what is bothering them.

Hal, your worldview has been discredited by the dipshits in power who share it.