Peroutka bombed on Medved

I enjoyed being on the Michael Medved Show this afternoon despite the fact that it was, to say the least, an antagonistic interview.

Although I certainly don't mind mixing it up and taking some punches if I have to, I was disappointed in the boorish behavior of Mr. Medved. He was insulting and derogatory in personal ways which is often a sign of intellectual dishonesty or impoverishment.

As I was writing this report for the blog, Chris V. wrote in to give me the benefit of his view. Here it is:

Mr. Peroutka,

I heard you on the Michael Medved Show today and I just wanted to say that I thought you handled yourself well. Even though you did NOT get fair treatment. The audio was bad and he cut you off in mid point. The responses I could here were great.

As a talk radio junkie, I have been listening to Michael Medved since I got XM about eight months ago. I really like his show, especially because he directly confronts the loony left. Lately though, I don’t know what has gotten into him. He is normally a huge ally in the culture battle. But, last week he absolutely skewered one of its best warriors, Dr. Alan Keyes, for his decision to run for Senate in Illinois. And did it in most unkind and vitriolic way. He went off in ranting impersonations (very good ones, I might add) and even called him a victim of psychosis. Many of his patriotic listeners called in to express total incredulity over his treatment of Keyes. Now this week, he was no friend to you. I don’t get it. But I will say that you did well. For what it means, I am proud of you.

Chris V.

SOURCE

 

I have never heard of Michael Medved, so I didn't hear the show.

 

CGM, is the Michael Medved show broadcast locally here in INDY? I used to listen to him on the net, but firewalls now prevent me from streaming audio.

 

You've never heard of him?

 

Michael Medved is a shill for President Bush, just like Sean Hannity, and some other talk show hosts.

Fortunately, Michael Medved is not on either of our radio talk show stations locally, since Sean Hannity is already filling the Bush shill role locally.

 

You've never heard of him? </font>[/QUOTE]No, I have never heard of him.

Does that mean that he is not a serious talk show host, since I have never heard of him. Others have said that Peroutka is not a serious candidate because they have never heard of him.

 

Medved is definitely a minor leaguer among radio talk show hosts, NetPublicist. In minor league baseball he would be at best AA. He used to sub for Rush years ago but I haven't heard him sub for Rush in the last few years now.

 

Well, I'd argue that if you are intellectually engaged in cultural and political issues, you'd know who Michael Medved is. I would venture that his listership/readership would be higher per capita than would Peroutka's polling numbers. Medved is someone fairly well known in conservative ranks.

Does that make you a moron? No, no more than not hearing of Peroutka makes someone a moron. I was just surprised, that's all. I'm a wonk with no life, I guess

 

Michael Medved is also a staunch believer in the idea that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition, and therefore a vote wasted. And I agree with him.

 

I am sure there are millions of people who are "intellectually engaged in cultural and political issues", who have no clue who Michael Medved is.

 

Agree Debby!

Diane

 

I am sure there are millions of people who are "intellectually engaged in cultural and political issues", who have no clue who Michael Medved is. </font>[/QUOTE]That's kinda like saying there are real baseball fans out there who are diehard fans of the American pasttime who have never heard of the Cleveland Indians It does kinda beg the question, but I do get your point. I hope you know I mean no ill and am not trying to be negative my friend.

 

For what it's worth, I'd be interested in hearing the Medved interview with Peroutka.

 

That is a really stupid statement for anyone to make, including Michael Medved the Bush shill. I hate to see such political ignorance spread by anyone. Acting on such a foolish idea is why the Republican Party led by George W. Bush has become basically a liberal lite echo of the Democratic Party.

Also, "the opposition" depends on one's point of view.

Using that logic, a case can be made that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for George W. Bush, if one looks at it from the perspective of a John Kerry supporter.

 

Except that the Cleveland Indians are much, much more well known than Michael Medved. If I had not heard him subbing for Rush years ago, then I doubt I would have heard of him.

There are lots of radio talk show hosts that most people have never heard of. One of my favorites right now is Tammy Bruce on Talk Radio Network. How many people have never heard of Tammy Bruce? I imagine most people haven't.

 

Using that logic, a case can be made that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for George W. Bush, if one looks at it from the perspective of a John Kerry supporter. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you're starting to get the point, Ken. Congratulations.
Actually, I disagree with Medved. A vote for Peroutka is NOT a vote wasted. It's the same as a vote for Kerry. That's not just wasteful, it's counterproductive (at least for someone who is able to see that despite his significant flaws, Bush is a far better president than Kerry would be).

 

I find it difficult to believe that anyone with enough intelligence to type on a computer keyboard truly believes such tripe.