As to radio talk shows:

I heard Hannity was the one harping on this Dijon issue the most. I don’t listen to Hannity. I used to, but I got tired of his show. He isn’t very thoughtful and is repetitive and seems to have a need to hog air-time with his few callers, who usually aren’t that insightful.

He has on hard-left guests and debates them, which is not enlightening and is conducted like a show-trial. The only reason these guests come on his show is because they are relative unknowns, and they are willing to get beat up for the exposure.

The interesting guests he does have on, Gingrich or Rove or Morris, he presents them with paragraph-long questions, essentially repeating the same points Sean made earlier, trying to get them to comment on his own perspective rather than allowing them to simply present their case.

Hannity also has too many questionable Republican politicians on who he gives relative softball questions. IE Huckaphoney.

Lastly (for now) I have tired of his endless self-promotion and his hyper-excited vocal antics, along with the heavy handed over-produced intros.

Limbaugh is smarter, funnier, has great callers and doesn’t interview Pols promoting their agenda or debate fringe leftists.

Levin is a master. Brilliant, fearless and he has the best callers.

So there is some nuance for you guys who like to expound (from ignorance in many cases) on monolithic “talk radio”.

It just snowballed from there.

Muddying up the waters again. I never said McCain didn’t completely mishandle the economic crisis. That was one of the reasons I called him pathetic. The intital bailouts may have been necessary, I really don’t know, but the continued borrowing and subsequent meddling is alarming and unnecessary. We are seeing Chrysler, already lavished with taxpayer dollars, declaring bankruptcy anyway.

“Then in September, the financial markets fell off a cliff (something the hard-core right-wingers still have trouble acknowledging was the case).”

Excuse me? Like McCain listens to malkin

“If TARP is what it takes to keep the economy from collapsing, then let it collapse!

To risk the collapse of your nation for the sake of a principle, is the act of a fanatic.”

Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sacks is not “our nation”. And the government, in case you didn’t know, cannot produce wealth. They can print money and they can try to avert disaster temporarily but they can’t do much more.

TARP and the Obama bailouts are postponing and aggravating problems and prolonging bad times, so I don’t see government intervention, even when somewhat justified, as any panacea.

And isn’t this thread supposed to be about mustard?

After the successful GOP convention last August, the polls showed McCain actually pulling slightly ahead of Obama–and Dems were getting nervous. Many of the wilder attacks on Sarah Palin had backfired.

Then in September, the financial markets fell off a cliff (something the hard-core right-wingers still have trouble acknowledging was the case). McCain’s bizarre response to that–he suspended campaigning, flew back to Washington, accomplished nothing, resumed campaigning–together with his erratic performance in the debates with Obama, were what caused him to lose the election.

THE REPUBLICANS BLEW THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.

That’s why McCain lost.
Bush did a better job comprehending the magnitude of the crisis–and acting to fix it–than McCain did.

Last September, the financial markets seemed on the verge of seizing up, taking the U.S. down with them. The stock market reflected this, and fell off a cliff. The numbers and trends really were starting to suggest a possible depression.

TARP was a necessary evil. I don’t like Obama’s approach; I would have preferred more tax cuts and less pork. But doing nothing would have risked a depression.

In the debate over TARP last year, the House Republicans, backed up by the hard-right echo chamber like Michelle Malkin, first denied that anything was really wrong with the financial system. And then they fell back on nihilism: If TARP is what it takes to keep the economy from collapsing, then let it collapse!

To risk the collapse of your nation for the sake of a principle, is the act of a fanatic.

This statement reveals a bias that a real independent wouldn’t have. It shows a certain animosity toward Republicans , while not holding Democrats to the same standard. That is not being “independent” – that is being intellectually dishonest with yourself. It also, for an independent, shows ignorance about the Democrat agenda. Just because they have “plans” does not make them better. The plans are pretty controlling, to say the least.

The right-wing media are destroying the Republican party. If they actually took the opportunity with mundane things like this to be Fair and Balanced, people might be more inclined to take them seriously when they present their side of truly divisive issues.

It is very very simple. As an independent and speaking for other independents that I personally know who have the same views as myself, the GOP will not get my vote unless they provide some beef (with or without ketchup). That’s it in a nutshell. I don’t care how bad the Democrats are, unless I see an alternative I will either sit out the election or give the Democrats more time, or perhaps vote for myself.

Now there are many here and elsewhere that can call independents names like RINO, or liberal or something else, but it will not change how many there are of us.

The GOP portfolio of ideas consist of single obsession – hoping Obama fails because that’s the only way they can win. The reality is that Obama will not fail but will be less successful than he and many others hope. Still maybe Bob Steele and company can spin that into a failure – sort of like “Mission Accomplished”