Exactly... The jizzing here for Dan is weird... I've listened to him for years but he basically avoided the voter fraud, bangs on about midterms like elections will ever matter again, pretends Parlor weren't harvesting user data and then in the next breath says any free product means you are the product etc etc etc.. There are so many examples of him avoiding big topics just to ensure he isn't banned everywhere.
He has a lot of good material as well so don't get me wrong but he toes the line like everyone else.
I disagree about steyn being too smart. We shouldn't be dumbing it down. We should be putting it all out there. Let the left be the ones who speak to everyone as if they are retarded three yr olds. I could see left leaning management choosing Dan over steyn because they prefer the meathead who has no experience with random callers, to the smart guy who can effectively debate on air.
Wasn't he told, along with Mark Levine, that if they pushed the voter fraud issue, they'd be taken off the air? So, if he's staying with that network, it doesn't really matter what time slot he gets. That was part of Rush's genius - he didn't answer to anyone. He talked about whatever he wanted to and discussed whatever the callers wanted to discuss.
I agree with the comments below, about Mark Steyn - he'd be the best to cover the 12-3 slot, on Rush Radio. Whoever ends up permanently filling in for Rush, or even if they keep rotating different people to speak into the golden EIB microphone, will be who I listen to. They'll have the freedom to discuss whatever they want and won't have to answer to some PC corporate talking head.
There is a certain irony in having a British person broadcasting every day about freedom, liberty and American greatness!!
For those that have long memories Mark was Rush's friend who would always send him info. He didn't mentioned him by name in the 90's but Mark is who he was talking about
He acknowledged it pretty well when it was still a possibility Trump would pull out the w. Watch his CPAC speech for why he hasn't been focusing on it too much. I don't necessarily agree with his thinking or anything and I have my questions (question) about Bongino and him being held back by Fox's rules for contributors (a personal experience), but he's one of the best we have. He has the potential to sway a lot of minds.
The boomer conservatives were ok with up and comers being shut down when that meant not having to compete with young folks. Today that means no one coming up behind them to fill thier shoes, because they got in and shut the doors behind them.
For years now the only paths to anywhere in media have been to be a liberal or to be a conservative who doesn't give the old head conservatives a run for thier money. That's what got us here. The best we have to fill rush's shoes is a relative non entity. A guest star at best.
New generation conservative personalities didnt get where they are by pushing limits or thinking for themselves. They avoided third rails altogether and stroked the egoes of the legacy conservatives by singing thier songs instead of generating original ideas and actually challenging liberals.
Not to mention, as a former officer himself, he immediately jumped on the anti-Chauvin bandwagon. That’s what made me stop watching him. He pre judged when he could have just kept silent until all facts were known.
This predilection towards surrendering the narrative thrust, argument direction, and parameters of the debate is a major weakness among all conservatives. Bongino should know better as he has discussed this very problem.
That said, we passed the point where we have the luxury of demanding 100% correctness from the public figures fighting for the Right — if anything we should be more forgiving of errors and more rewarding of brutal truth-tellers who make mistakes.
For example, I’ve previously mentioned how Bongino and Carlson have routed around Fox’s apparent stifling threats on the topic of the election fraud by largely concentrating their commentary on only one of the 6 avenues — tech/media censorship, bias, and lies. While it’s not a fulsome discussion of the whole scheme, it is one of the primary factors.
Akin to a coast guard unit concentrating on shore defense and ignoring the details of an enemy land push, they still deserve credit for being in the fight even if they are subject to limitations of the operating environment medium where they conduct themselves, regardless of whether those limitations are justified.
Similarly, while fighting to restore election integrity is paramount (the fight to overturn the fraudulent result is already lost), the battle to win any restored election has to be waged in parallel, even before election security is acheived. Therefore the criticism that they “are acting as though elections make any difference”, while presently true, is nevertheless irrelevant and not a very good criticism.
I would have preferred Mark Stein. I think he's got a better presentation and doesn't compromise his principles (as far as I've seen). Edit: HA, didn't scroll down to see the Stein comments until after posting mine.
Stein has a greater sense of humor and wit — Bongino is great for distilling and delivering understandable debate facts and digging into issues, but not as purely entertaining.
Rush was a master of mixing facts and reason deep into the batter of conversational charisma and engaging charm. And Trump proved that entertainment value goes a lot further than factual correctness when it comes to achieving results.
Stein's humor and wit really drives home many of his points while keeping your interest, much like Rush. I find Bongino frequently boring. I wish him success, but I just don't think he's got "it". So I think we're on the same page.
Bongino dropped the ball (mostly) on voter fraud. To play it safe for this radio money? Or because he was too weakened by lymphoma?
Let’s hope it was the cancer.
Exactly... The jizzing here for Dan is weird... I've listened to him for years but he basically avoided the voter fraud, bangs on about midterms like elections will ever matter again, pretends Parlor weren't harvesting user data and then in the next breath says any free product means you are the product etc etc etc.. There are so many examples of him avoiding big topics just to ensure he isn't banned everywhere. He has a lot of good material as well so don't get me wrong but he toes the line like everyone else.
I love Steyn, but he's too 'smart' for the mass common american audience.
He needs a podcast. Steve Bannon is all I got atm and hes still waiting two more weeks.
I disagree about steyn being too smart. We shouldn't be dumbing it down. We should be putting it all out there. Let the left be the ones who speak to everyone as if they are retarded three yr olds. I could see left leaning management choosing Dan over steyn because they prefer the meathead who has no experience with random callers, to the smart guy who can effectively debate on air.
Lol. Holy shit.... your name is disgustingly brilliant
I think he's too sarcastic.
Agree. Steyn was the obvious choice.
I like him but he has a British accent.
Just like Raheem I couldn’t listen to an hour of that. Lol
Absolutely.
Wasn't he told, along with Mark Levine, that if they pushed the voter fraud issue, they'd be taken off the air? So, if he's staying with that network, it doesn't really matter what time slot he gets. That was part of Rush's genius - he didn't answer to anyone. He talked about whatever he wanted to and discussed whatever the callers wanted to discuss.
I agree with the comments below, about Mark Steyn - he'd be the best to cover the 12-3 slot, on Rush Radio. Whoever ends up permanently filling in for Rush, or even if they keep rotating different people to speak into the golden EIB microphone, will be who I listen to. They'll have the freedom to discuss whatever they want and won't have to answer to some PC corporate talking head.
There is a certain irony in having a British person broadcasting every day about freedom, liberty and American greatness!!
I always thought Mark was Rush’s favorite guest host. If it was a planned day off it was Mark behind the mic.
For those that have long memories Mark was Rush's friend who would always send him info. He didn't mentioned him by name in the 90's but Mark is who he was talking about
Toes on the APs line? Why is it always narrative vs. controlled narrative? Or why always the Hegelian dialectic..Oh! That's right...
He acknowledged it pretty well when it was still a possibility Trump would pull out the w. Watch his CPAC speech for why he hasn't been focusing on it too much. I don't necessarily agree with his thinking or anything and I have my questions (question) about Bongino and him being held back by Fox's rules for contributors (a personal experience), but he's one of the best we have. He has the potential to sway a lot of minds.
don't forget he still goes on Shamnity all the time to jerk each other off.
He hammered fraud hard for months and shut up about it after they threatened to pull his show if he kept talking.
The boomer conservatives were ok with up and comers being shut down when that meant not having to compete with young folks. Today that means no one coming up behind them to fill thier shoes, because they got in and shut the doors behind them.
For years now the only paths to anywhere in media have been to be a liberal or to be a conservative who doesn't give the old head conservatives a run for thier money. That's what got us here. The best we have to fill rush's shoes is a relative non entity. A guest star at best.
New generation conservative personalities didnt get where they are by pushing limits or thinking for themselves. They avoided third rails altogether and stroked the egoes of the legacy conservatives by singing thier songs instead of generating original ideas and actually challenging liberals.
Not to mention, as a former officer himself, he immediately jumped on the anti-Chauvin bandwagon. That’s what made me stop watching him. He pre judged when he could have just kept silent until all facts were known.
This predilection towards surrendering the narrative thrust, argument direction, and parameters of the debate is a major weakness among all conservatives. Bongino should know better as he has discussed this very problem.
That said, we passed the point where we have the luxury of demanding 100% correctness from the public figures fighting for the Right — if anything we should be more forgiving of errors and more rewarding of brutal truth-tellers who make mistakes.
For example, I’ve previously mentioned how Bongino and Carlson have routed around Fox’s apparent stifling threats on the topic of the election fraud by largely concentrating their commentary on only one of the 6 avenues — tech/media censorship, bias, and lies. While it’s not a fulsome discussion of the whole scheme, it is one of the primary factors.
Akin to a coast guard unit concentrating on shore defense and ignoring the details of an enemy land push, they still deserve credit for being in the fight even if they are subject to limitations of the operating environment medium where they conduct themselves, regardless of whether those limitations are justified.
Similarly, while fighting to restore election integrity is paramount (the fight to overturn the fraudulent result is already lost), the battle to win any restored election has to be waged in parallel, even before election security is acheived. Therefore the criticism that they “are acting as though elections make any difference”, while presently true, is nevertheless irrelevant and not a very good criticism.
I would have preferred Mark Stein. I think he's got a better presentation and doesn't compromise his principles (as far as I've seen). Edit: HA, didn't scroll down to see the Stein comments until after posting mine.
Stein has a greater sense of humor and wit — Bongino is great for distilling and delivering understandable debate facts and digging into issues, but not as purely entertaining.
Rush was a master of mixing facts and reason deep into the batter of conversational charisma and engaging charm. And Trump proved that entertainment value goes a lot further than factual correctness when it comes to achieving results.
Stein's humor and wit really drives home many of his points while keeping your interest, much like Rush. I find Bongino frequently boring. I wish him success, but I just don't think he's got "it". So I think we're on the same page.