Ingraham and Chavez

I finally listened to the Laura Ingraham-Linda Chavez confrontation last night. I must say I was extremely unimpressed by Ingraham. She was intellectually lazy and unfocussed, kept going off into side points, and failed to respond directly and effectively to most of Chavez’s blatantly false and crazed statements. For example, Chavez, as proof of how “racist” the opposition to the bill is, wanted to talk about her “racist” e-mails, and Ingraham, instead of saying that this is not about e-mail smearers but about the bill’s establishment-conservative opponents all of whom Chavez said were bigots, went off into a wordy riff about how she receives lots of nasty e-mail too and it doesn’t prove anything. Later in the show, Chavez again brought up her nasty e-mails, and again Ingraham said that she gets lots of e-mails too. The same with Chavez’s repeated references to the connection between the Pioneer Foundaton and FAIR. Instead of nailing Chavez on these points and on what she actually said in her demented column, Ingraham, who did not even once quote the column, offered lots of “attitude,” a kind of stern, even hostile “I’m not buying this” tone which I’m sure some conservatives found heartening but which failed to expose the precise things that were objectionable about Chavez’s article. Ingraham was presented with the fattest target that any conservative talk show host has ever had. She could have utterly discredited Chavez, and instead just had an emotional confrontation with her. Ingraham is smart, but seems to lack the ability to make logical arguments exposing her opponent’s false logic.

Also, Ingraham’s manner is off-putting. There is an unmodulated stridency in her voice, with little charm or personality.

- end of initial entry -

Andrea C. writes:

I agree. The thing about the right-wing talk show hosts and their support of Bush is they are political first, conservatives second. (Actually their own role as entertainers and entrepreneurs vies for first and second place, off and on.) This explains Rush “carrying water” for Bush as he so stunningly admitted last November. They supported Bush as the best means of victory for the Republican party. They supported Bush through all of his unbelievable liberal actions that they hated and that they in fact did yeoman’s work in exposing. These radio shows are good for getting the news from a conservative perspective (any one of these shows will often cover say 10 to 15 items in an hour where NPR or network news will give you four or five not to mention the bias), but that’s about it. For me, they’re invaluable for the sound bites that you won’t hear in the MSM. There are none that I can listen to constantly. They all have the ability to be, your phrase, “off-putting.” I believe they should not be seen as conservative leaders (because they really are not doing anything, they’re just talking. This has its place but there are people who are doing and those are the people to be followed and supported). I once hoped that they were leaders but they’re not.

P.S. If Harriet Miers had been nominated after the 2006 elections instead of before, Bush would not have withdrawn her nomination. He snubs the conservatives now because he no longer needs them.

LA replies:

“They supported Bush through all of his unbelievable liberal actions that they hated and that they in fact did yeoman’s work in exposing.”

That captures it perfectly.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 03, 2007 07:08 PM | Send