[spacefreak]

Blitz on Rush Limbaugh to intensify on Thursday with charges of drug abuse.

After day of intense media bashing on limbaugh sports quotes, National Enquirer to push in Knife - allege in bombshell report: 'Rush Limbaugh in Drug Ring...Cop Probe Nails Him'

NY Daily News set to splash page one Thursday.

Housekeeper wore wire, supplied pain pills....Enquirer alleges abuse of tens of thousands of pills.

http://www.drudgereport.com

[BlackGriffen]

And people have believed what they read in the tabloids since... when?

I don't know about Rush's main audience, but I don't even read that crap, let alone believe it.

Looks like nothing to see here.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Its true. The media is out to get Rush. I overheard the Jews talking at the last meeting (I was helping print money in the basement of the Synagogue) and they are definitely going to drop the Kosher Hammer on his tubby goya ass.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its true. The media is out to get Rush. I overheard the Jews talking at the last meeting (I was helping print money in the basement of the Synagogue) and they are definitely going to drop the Kosher Hammer on his tubby goya ass.

And we have Wesley Clark and Howard Dean demanding that ESPN fire Rush for saying an opinion. So much for that free speech stuff.

Gore (w/ S. Jobs money) is in final talks to purchase a cable channel from Vivendi as we speak. Think he'll give Rush a slot?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So much for that free speech stuff.

How was he denied free speech?

There's a difference between being speaking and consequences from that action. Nobody prevented him from speaking. That would be a violation of his rights.

To expect people not to form an opinion based on that action is unrealistic and unpreventable.

For the record, I don't think he should be fired. It's up to ESPN to decide if they want somebody with his views to be a representative or not. They hired him because he was outspoken. Looks like they miscalculated how outspoken he can be.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So much for that free speech stuff.

Dixie Chicks say, "Wha?"

BG

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Dixie Chicks say, "Wha?"

If people want to stop watching ESPN because of Limbaugh's presence, that is fine. That's their right. But I don't recall any top Republicans calling for their record label to fire them. In this case, however, we have top Democrats calling for ESPN to fire Limbaugh.

That's my gripe.

[clarkgoble]

Ratings are up 10% since he joined ESPN. I don't particularly like him myself. Too simplistic and tends to attack strawmen. But looking at what he said, I don't see the racism.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its true. The media is out to get Rush. I overheard the Jews talking at the last meeting (I was helping print money in the basement of the Synagogue) and they are definitely going to drop the Kosher Hammer on his tubby goya ass.

no wait, a double

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Dixie Chicks say, "Wha?"

BG

Seriously BG.

Don't you think it's naive for someone to say something and then not expect others to form or change their opinions based on those actions?

Granted it was over the top, shameful and ridiculous reactions. I don't condone any of it. It doesn't say much about the US, or humanity for that matter, but what do you expect? We shouldn't be surprised. We see people base their interests (music, politics, art) on the most trivial things every day.

I just think there's needs to be a distinction made between an action and the consequences. They weren't denied a right to voice their opinions.

Honestly. I wasn't around when the Dixie Chicks thing happened. I haven't heard or read a good discussion on it. Just as a practical matter what would you propose to do?

(Edited to add this: Sorry, BG. I just re-read your response. It was to spacefreak not me. Somehow I got my lines crossed. Not sure if it makes sense in the context of the discussion anymore. Nevermind. )

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Just as a practical matter what would you propose to do?

If I were the Dixie Chicks' manager, and they were my gravy train, I'd duct-tape their mouths when they weren't performing. When they do go on stage, I'd have the microphones turned off, and I'd make them lip sync.

That's only if my livlihood depended on them.

Generally, there's not much you can do. They have the right to speak their opinions, and their customers have the right to take their business elsewhere if they disagree and/or are offended.

[OldManMac]

Rush has already resigned over this issue, which is what he should have done sooner!

[The Mick]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If people want to stop watching ESPN because of Limbaugh's presence, that is fine. That's their right. But I don't recall any top Republicans calling for their record label to fire them. In this case, however, we have top Democrats calling for ESPN to fire Limbaugh.

That's my gripe.

I suppose it's since the Dixie Chicks aren't political analysts moonlighting as recording artists. Rush is a political analyst moonlighting as a football analyst. ESPN has issued a statement wherein they described his comments as "insensitive and inappropriate". He has now rightly resigned from his new job.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Rush has already resigned over this issue, which is what he should have done sooner!

The people who actually watched the broadcast weren't offended, and the Democrats didn't organize their destruction effort and begin the attack on him until Wednesday (the comments were made at noon on Sunday). So until this firestorm, there was no reason to resign sooner.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by The Mick:
I suppose it's since the Dixie Chicks aren't political analysts moonlighting as recording artists. Rush is a political analyst moonlighting as a football analyst. ESPN has issued a statement wherein they described his comments as "insensitive and inappropriate". He has now rightly resigned from his new job.

The Dixie Chicks are recording artists moonlighting as political analysts.

12 hours before that ESPN statement, ESPN earlier said "ESPN hired Limbaugh for his passion and his ability to express opinion and spark debate as a football fan. In just one month, he has certainly delivered."

Score yet another personal destruction victory for the liberals. But it's not over. They are foaming at the mouths now, venom dripping from their teeth as they get ready to unveil Day 2 of the Limbaugh destruction effort.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Dixie Chicks are recording artists moonlighting as political analysts.

12 hours before that ESPN statement, ESPN earlier said "ESPN hired Limbaugh for his passion and his ability to express opinion and spark debate as a football fan. In just one month, he has certainly delivered."

Score yet another personal destruction victory for the liberals. But it's not over. They are foaming at the mouths now, venom dripping from their teeth as they get ready to unveil Day 2 of the Limbaugh destruction effort.

Personal destruction victory? I didn't see anyone else on that broadcast playing the race card when discussing the bad start to McNabb's season. Rush did, then went on his show Wednesday and said that he does not have to defend his allegations since he has the right to freedom of speech. It's a cowardly defense of an indefensible bigoted opinion, and one which he himself has criticized in the past. Any destruction that befalls Limbaugh has been brought down upon himself with his own loose lips. If sparking debate was what he was after, he could have simply said that McNabb was overrated and the defense is what made the Eagles successful. Bringing the man's race into the fray seems to have given us all a little glimpse of his personal racial attitudes, which thankfully have no place in our society.

On the radio in Denver Wednesday, the story was all over the sports and political stations. As usual, the conservatives were rallying to cover Rush's ass, and the liberals were all up in arms. But what got to me were the sports show hosts, who run the gamut of the political spectrum, they were all upset about Rush's assertion that they, being members of the media, were biased towards black athletes. And how arrogant is it of Rush to criticize "the media" when he himself is one of the most powerful people in "the media"?

[Spliffdaddy]

Sounds like Rush delivered a direct hit.

[Millennium]

Of course the Left wants to destroy Limbaugh. Just like the Right wants to destroy Moore.

And frankly, they're both right. A bigger pair of pompous, pretentious jerks is hard to find. Maybe if they implement my idea of shipping Sharon and Arafat off to an island somewhere, we can get them to ship Limbaugh and Moore there too.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Of course the Left wants to destroy Limbaugh. Just like the Right wants to destroy Moore.

And frankly, they're both right. A bigger pair of pompous, pretentious jerks is hard to find. Maybe if they implement my idea of shipping Sharon and Arafat off to an island somewhere, we can get them to ship Limbaugh and Moore there too.

They'll probably never be able to destroy him (Limbaugh) either. And as much as anybody hates to admit it, Rush is articulate, clever and a skilled broadcaster. He is the mouthpiece for the militant Right. An audience who will accept ANYTHING he says as gospel truth. Some people hear only what they want to and Rush serves that purpose perfectly.

I'm sorry. I don't know who this Moore you're referring to is.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by vmpaul:


They'll probably never be able to destroy him (Limbaugh) either. And as much as anybody hates to admit it, Rush is articulate, clever and a skilled broadcaster. He is the mouthpiece for the militant Right. An audience who will accept ANYTHING he says as gospel truth. Some people hear only what they want to and Rush serves that purpose perfectly.

I'm sorry. I don't know who this Moore you're referring to is.

Moore, as in Far Left

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2228-5129r.htm
"The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."

Hipocrite

"They would use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have," he told ABC in November about Saddam's counterattack. He now criticizes Mr. Bush for relying on the same intelligence.

Ambassador Moore.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Moore, as in Far Left

I'm sorry I still don't recognize the name. I don't think I've heard him speak or read anything he's written.

I mean, I'll take your word that he's on the Left. I'm just not familiar with him.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Of course the Left wants to destroy Limbaugh. Just like the Right wants to destroy Moore.

And frankly, they're both right. A bigger pair of pompous, pretentious jerks is hard to find. Maybe if they implement my idea of shipping Sharon and Arafat off to an island somewhere, we can get them to ship Limbaugh and Moore there too.

Throw in Coulter (to balance out the weight difference) and you've got a deal!



BG

[Timo]

My guess would be that the so-called Left (and all the stereotypes that implies) are happy enough to let Limbaugh destroy himself.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Timo:
My guess would be that the so-called Left (and all the stereotypes that implies) are happy enough to let Limbaugh destroy himself.

No one should ever be happy to let someone destroy themselves with drugs, even if the person opposes your political viewpoints.

[thunderous_funker]

If it weren't for the "liberal conspiracy", Rush wouldn't have a job. He's made a career out of playing the victim card as the lone warrior standing up to the "liberal media".

Now he puts his foot in his mouth on ESPN, stirs the muck some more and gets to claim he's being persecuted for his race, politics, religion, weight, etc ad nasuem.

Boohooohooo, Rush. No one has suffered like poor you.

He's laughing all the way to the bank as his ratings jump over the "controversy" and his regular fans rally around their poor fallen hero who the the Left is out to get.

Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaaa. Some people are such suckers.

[Timo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No one should ever be happy to let someone destroy themselves with drugs, even if the person opposes your political viewpoints.

Of course not. If he has some kind of addiction, of which I have no knowledge, he should get help, and I would wish him a speedy recovery, were such the case.

I was referring to letting him destroy himself via the consequences and implications of his own rhetoric.

Funny how one can bounce back from a drug addiction, but I wonder can you ever recover from the destruction of your reputation?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Timo:
Funny how one can bounce back from a drug addiction, but I wonder can you ever recover from the destruction of your reputation?

He's a man who entertains through political commentary on the radio. Entertainers can and have bounced back from drug problems.

If he were the head of the GOP, or an Administration official, then I'd say that I doubt he could bounce back.

[Timo]

I dunno. While he's an entertainer, he's also a political pundit, opinion-maker, heir to Paul Harvey, I imagine. I'm wondering how the weight of his words, the authenticity so many people feel when they listen to him (that "dittoheads") thing, would be affected.

FWIW it's this weight, ability to convince and ability to articulate what lots of people think that gets people like Al Franken in a tizzy. When he says Limbaugh is a "big fat idiot" he's not just talking about the man.

[clarkgoble]

Actually I think both he and Al Franken are pretty similar in terms of content and ability to communicate, often in parody, a political point. And Al Franken has had his own set of problems with "lies."

The worry I have is that both tend to create strawmen. Rather than lead people to thoughtfully consider issues, they move people into an "us vs. them" mentality. By demonizing the other side politically I also think they lead to the dehumanizing of the political arena. And that, to me, is sad. I much prefer someone who thoughtfully disagrees with me than someone who believes me because I'm part of the "right group." (No pun intended)

[Timo]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No one should ever be happy to let someone destroy themselves with drugs, even if the person opposes your political viewpoints.

I think he meant that metaphorically, as in "destroy his own career".

[NYCFarmboy]

The drug thing...well.. I think it obviously has something to do with his recovery from his surgeries on his ears to restore his hearing.

Remember that he was basically deaf for a while and had to have very special surgery on his inner ear to restore partial hearing.

Anyone who has ever had an ear ache can only partially imagine the continual pain that Rush had to deal with.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I think he meant that metaphorically, as in "destroy his own career".

No one should be happy to let someone destroy their career with drugs.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The drug thing...well.. I think it obviously has something to do with his recovery from his surgeries on his ears to restore his hearing.

Remember that he was basically deaf for a while and had to have very special surgery on his inner ear to restore partial hearing.

Anyone who has ever had an ear ache can only partially imagine the continual pain that Rush had to deal with.

Actually, its coming out that hearing loss is a side effect of heavy painkiller use. So, as the ever-building theory goes, Rush's heavy use of painkillers is likely what caused him to lose his hearing.

While tragic (anyone abusing drugs is tragic), it's no coincidence that this story also came out on "Dirty Thursday".

I also find it crude that Liberals and Democrats are rejoicing because someone with opposing views is a drug abuser. If Rush were an elected official, i could understand the uproar. But he's an entertainer who happens to use politics as his subject.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sometimes it's as though we've been transported back to the 1940's or something.

You mean... a person in the entertainment industry might have actually *gasp* at some point abused... d-d-d-drugs!?



Gee whillikers! That's SHOCKING! Say it isn't so!

Perhaps it's time to organize screenings of Reefer Madness and restore puritan order once more!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I also find it crude that Liberals and Democrats are rejoicing because someone with opposing views is a drug abuser. If Rush were an elected official, i could understand the uproar. But he's an entertainer who happens to use politics as his subject.

It's not the fact that he's political (although, for some, that's reason enough to hate him) - it's the fact that he's made a career out of self-righteously insulting people on issues like crime and drugs. If these charges have any truth to them, I'll have sympathy for him as an individual but I'll cry no tears if it forces him to change his tune.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/209binrw.asp

WHY IS RUSH particularly vulnerable to a full-on, extended, Al Franken-hosted variety-show scandal? Limbaugh, more than anyone, is responsible for beginning what might be called the Coulterization of the American right. Conservatism as partisan sport--the opposite of principled, ideological debate--has become major entertainment and helped debase much right-aisle political debate into an undifferentiated noise of team-rooting.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's not the fact that he's political (although, for some, that's reason enough to hate him) - it's the fact that he's made a career out of self-righteously insulting people on issues like crime and drugs.

Domestic and Foreign Policy, and Politics are the issues and subjects Rush commits 99% of his time covering. All it takes is a look at his website and archives to see that he has not made a career out of discussing crime and drugs.

Take a look for yourself at his stack of stuff.

Crime and drugs barely (if at all) show up on the radar. It's nowhere near the making "a career" out of it that you and the left fraudulently claim.

Nice spin attempt.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh, not to mention, since when did talking about drugs or crime become only a 'right wing' thing anyway?

By the way, who would be 'insulted' over a discussion of either issue, and why?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Domestic and Foreign Policy, and Politics are the issues and subjects Rush commits 99% of his time covering. All it takes is a look at his website and archives to see that he has not made a career out of discussing crime and drugs.

Take a look for yourself at his stack of stuff.

Crime and drugs barely (if at all) show up on the radar. It's nowhere near the making "a career" out of it that you and the left fraudulently claim.

Nice spin attempt.

Yeah, OK, crime and drugs aren't the only things he's made a career of, just a part.

From the very first item to come up in a Google news search:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...056158,00.html

Among his many complaints down the years was the alleged failure of liberal politicians to crack down on the drug problem. 'There's nothing good about drug use. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up,' he once told his listeners.

'When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honoured like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack.'

'I am appalled at people who... look at all this abhorrent behaviour and say, "People are going to do drugs anyway - let's legalise it." Those who are for it are 100 percent selfish.'

'Ted Kennedy, whose liver is said to be shaped like a Chivas Regal bottle... '

Personally, I hope the allegations aren't true. But if they are true, it'll be interesting to see if it teaches him any humility. However, I wouldn't bet on it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh, not to mention, since when did talking about drugs or crime become only a 'right wing' thing anyway?

That wasn't the point. The point is Limbaugh's credibility.

By the way, who would be 'insulted' over a discussion of either issue, and why?

If you wouldn't describe his style as insulting, suit yourself. I quote again from the Weekly Standard:

Limbaugh, more than anyone, is responsible for beginning what might be called the Coulterization of the American right. Conservatism as partisan sport--the opposite of principled, ideological debate--has become major entertainment and helped debase much right-aisle political debate into an undifferentiated noise of team-rooting.

If you disagree, that's fine. I've already wasted too much time on Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken and the rest. I hope they take lots of drugs and beat each other silly. I don't really care. I've gotta go study for my urine test . . .

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That wasn't the point. The point is Limbaugh's credibility.

Credibility on what? Did he lie under oath? Has he been disbarred? He is not an anti-drug crusader. He's a political entertainer.

Originally posted by zigzag:
Personally, I hope the allegations aren't true. But if they are true, it'll be interesting to see if it teaches him any humility. However, I wouldn't bet on it.

i don't know what you're trying to prove. That he has taken a public stand against drugs? Even the most dedicated addicts will tell you that drugs are bad. Heck, even smokers who have been smoking for 20+ years (and continue to do so) will tell others not to start.

My purpose in posting a reply to you was to contradict your statement that Rush made a career out of such a topic. The topics of drug abuse and drug crimes is far less than 0.5% of his body of work. Your portrayal of drugs being a main or minor topic of Rush's is completely false. A few token statements do not make a career.

If you had done that Google search a week ago, you'd have found next to nothing.

What i would bet on is that, following the resolution of the current investigation, Rush will come clean and take responsibility for whatever mistakes he has made. The article stated that he had been in detox 2 times already. If true, he's obviously been battling this for a while.

It won't change his opinions, however. Whether or nor is affects his popularity negatively (which was the ultimate purpose of the story) as the liberals would like is up in the air. People are often forgiving, and even supportive, of those battling addiction - unless the addict has views that oppose the left, then it's attack, attack, attack.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Credibility on what? Did he lie under oath? Has he been disbarred?

...did he drive his car off a bridge, drown his innocent passenger, and just walk away from it?

Part of my point about it not being the 1940's (or 50's or 60's) anymore, I believe it takes just a liiiiiiiitle bit more than allegations of popping a few pills to destroy a person's reputation or career anymore. Uh, that is unless we've actually elevated the title of 'Talk Show Host' above that of 'Senator'. Or 'President.'

Originally posted by zigzag:
If you wouldn't describe his style as insulting, suit yourself.

So because the Weekly Standard has a WAY overblown elevation of Rush's importance ("Rush Limbaugh single-handedly invented the American Right, and because he has a radio show the sky turned blue and the grass became green... blah blah blah de blah") discussing drugs and/or crime is insulting?

Once again, I have to wonder just what it is Limbaugh does that makes the left pee themselves over him so much, and elevate him to such mythic proportions? I can only guess that much of his opinions cut pretty close to home with some folks.

I don’t really like Phil Donahue all that much. Or Larry King. But I don’t pee myself over anything either of them has to say. I’m certainly not going to attribute to either of them the powers of carving out the entire scope of American leftwing politics! They’re just TALK SHOW HOSTS!

Maybe no one attributes such ridiculous power and influence to liberal talk show hosts, nor pees their beds quaking in fear of them- is because their message doesn’t resonate all that well with the masses, doesn’t inspire people one way or another, and in fact, puts a lot of people to sleep? Side topic I know, but just interesting to me.

[icruise]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I don’t really like Phil Donahue all that much. Or Larry King. But I don’t pee myself over anything either of them has to say. I’m certainly not going to attribute to either of them the powers of carving out the entire scope of American leftwing politics! They’re just TALK SHOW HOSTS!

Maybe no one attributes such ridiculous power and influence to liberal talk show hosts, nor pees their beds quaking in fear of them- is because their message doesn’t resonate all that well with the masses, doesn’t inspire people one way or another, and in fact, puts a lot of people to sleep? Side topic I know, but just interesting to me.

Hmm. Perhaps it's because those other guys aren't political pundits that made their careers out of saying what a lot people wanted to hear about the left? Or maybe it's because they don't have hundreds of thousands of fans who will take what they say about ANYTHING as gospel? Is this really that hard to figure out?

[ebuddy]

Hmm. Perhaps it's because those other guys aren't political pundits that made their careers out of saying what a lot people wanted to hear about the left? Or maybe it's because they don't have hundreds of thousands of fans who will take what they say about ANYTHING as gospel? Is this really that hard to figure out?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable (considering the size of his massive audience and the number of years he's successfully hosted a talk program) that most people agree with his positions? Rush's opposition love to throw out this notion that all listeners of Rush are like Borg or something. They all take every word as gospel. I might remind you of other successful Conservative hosts; Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Michael Reagan, Paul Harvey, Bill O'reilly, Ken Hamblin, Sean Hannity...I guess we would take all of what they say as gospel too. Seems to me their ideals are a little more popular than you think or want to believe.

Look, bottom-line; Liberals are rich people that live in gated communities and are waaayyyy out of step with what Americans want and need. Sorry, we're just not into that Communism ideal yet. Keep infiltrating the educational system, the legal system, and the media and maybe eventually we'll be a little more moldable, just the way you sappy liberals want us!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Look, bottom-line; Liberals are rich people that live in gated communities and are waaayyyy out of step with what Americans want and need. Sorry, we're just not into that Communism ideal yet. Keep infiltrating the educational system, the legal system, and the media and maybe eventually we'll be a little more moldable, just the way you sappy liberals want us!

ROTFLMAO!

paranoid much? Dude, you've been listening a little TOO much to rush and other conservative mindmelds. You start off your post saying conservatives are not mind controlled, and then spout the exact inaccurate paranoid rhetoric you're spoon fed from those same sources.

*shakes head sadly*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You start off your post saying conservatives are not mind controlled, and then spout the exact inaccurate paranoid rhetoric you're spoon fed from those same sources.

I will touch on his view of liberals infiltrating the educational system. There are studies that show that conservative-thinking academics are more discriminated against than blacks, hispanics, etc.

It's not the inaccurate rhetoric you portray. From Political Bias in the administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges

This report on political bias at 32 elite colleges and universities is the third in a series conducted by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and researched by Andrew Jones.

Methodology

The Center generated a list of 32 elite colleges and universities. We included the entire Ivy League, premier liberal arts colleges like Amherst and Pomona, well-known technically-oriented universities like MIT, highly competitive public institutions like the University of California at Berkeley, and other elite private universities like Stanford. We compiled lists of tenured or tenure-track professors of the Economics, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology departments - choosing these because they teach courses focusing on issues affecting the society at large. We compared these lists to the voter registration lists of the counties or states in which the colleges were located, and attempted to match individual names.

Summary of Results

In our examinations of over 150 departments and upper-level administrations at 32 elite colleges and universities, the Center found the following:

* The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).

* Although in the nation at large registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University where 80% of the faculty members we identified were registered Democrats who outnumbered registered Republicans by a ratio of 4-1.

* At other schools we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans:
Brown: 30-1
Bowdoin, Wellesley: 23-1
Swarthmore: 21-1
Amherst, Bates: 18-1
Columbia, Yale: 14-1
Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley: 12-1
Smith: 11-1

* At no less than four elite schools we could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:
Williams: 51 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Oberlin: 19 Democrats, 0 Republicans
MIT: 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Haverford: 15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

* Faculty registration is just as unbalanced at major research universities as it is at small colleges. At Columbia University, the Center could identify only 6 faculty Republicans. The Center could not locate a single Republican in the history, political science, and sociology departments. Cornell University was just as left-leaning: the departments of English and history were entirely devoid of registered Republicans.

* Administrators lean just as far to the left: at schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Melon, and Cornell, we could not identify a single Republican administrator. In the entire Ivy League, we identified only 3 Republican administrators.

Conclusion

These figures suggest that most students probably graduate without ever having a class taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint. The ratios themselves are impossible to understand in the absence of a political bias in the training and hiring of college instructors. They strongly suggest that the governance of American universities has fallen into the hands of a self-perpetuating political and cultural subset of the general population, which seems intent on perpetuating its control. This is an unhealthy development for the both the educational enterprise and the democracy itself.

Without further investigation it is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty why this state of affairs has come into existence, but there are many obvious factors that may be said to have contributed to it. Among them is the very exclusion of conservatives from faculty and administrative positions itself. This in itself creates a hostile environment for conservative students contemplating an academic career. This core hostility is amplified by practices that have been incorporated into academic life in the last several decades, including campus speech codes and politicized classrooms – both which represent radical departures from the pre-Sixties academic environment. A comprehensive study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (available at www.speechcodes.org ) found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech codes intended to ban and punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative, speech. (Cases available at www.thefire.org.) Student testimonies about in-classroom political indoctrination are available at www.noindoctrination.org.

The impression that conservative values and ideas aren’t welcome on campus is driven home daily to students until it becomes second nature. Professors generally do not grade politically, but a large enough percentage do that students – and not just conservative students – will take the prudent course of concealing what they actually think in order to protect their academic standing. This is obviously at odds with the educational mission of the university but academic authorities have done little to address the abuse.

All these factors exert a negative influence on the choices a conservative student might make about pursuing an intellectual career. But of all these factors the lack of conservative professors is the most significant. It serves to reduce the ability of the best and brightest conservative students to pursue graduate study even when they want to. Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching students with professors who have compatible interests. A student interested in pursuing a Ph.D. based on his or her interest in Austrian school economics, traditionalist literary criticism, conservative historiography or religious poetry will have a difficult time finding a professor who wants to take her on. In the social sciences, Marxists have an infinitely easier time finding good mentors than Hayekians or Straussians. The lack of conservative professors provides a ready-made excuse (professors don’t even think of it that way) for rejecting doctoral program applications for conservative students with stellar grades, recommendations, and standardized test scores.

For those conservatives who earn the doctoral “union card” necessary to teach at a major research university, a second obstacle awaits: hiring and tenure committees, which are stacked with their ideological and political adversaries. A number of high profile cases have occurred recently in which conservative scholars with significant records of publishing have performed according to the book and still ended up out of work.

The entire process of training graduate students, qualifying Ph.D. recipients, hiring junior faculty and granting tenure is hierarchical, arbitrary, closed to public scrutiny and designed to produce intellectual conformity in the best circumstances. Therefore special concern would be required to ensure that there are protections for students’ academic freedom and for intellectual diversity. Unfortunately, in the present institutional framework no such protections exist.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I will touch on his view of liberals infiltrating the educational system. There are studies that show that conservative-thinking academics are more discriminated against than blacks, hispanics, etc.

It's not the inaccurate rhetoric you portray. From Political Bias in the administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges

The study you cite has problematic methodology.

Also, backtrack through the homepage of the website. Not quite a balanced source, in fact, its a source with an incredibly pointed agenda. This goes beyond pointing out a bias. This is an agenda on one extreme of the issue.

If you could come up with another source, that would be helpful, but regardless, my original comments still stand. Conservatives are fond of pointing out what they consider paranoia in others, but unable or unwilling to address their own paranoid delusions.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The study you cite has problematic methodology.

Also, backtrack through the homepage of the website. Not quite a balanced source, in fact, its a source with an incredibly pointed agenda. This goes beyond pointing out a bias. This is an agenda on one extreme of the issue.

If you could come up with another source, that would be helpful, but regardless, my original comments still stand. Conservatives are fond of pointing out what they consider paranoia in others, but unable or unwilling to address their own paranoid delusions.

That study has been displayed in many publications and on many websites. I just chose the first result I found in a search.

I figured you couldn't (and wouldn't) try to refute the actual study, and the results shown. Why don't you show me a study that proves otherwise? Because you can't.

There is nothing delusional about those results. Perhaps one can refute elements in the conclusions (if you're statistically qualified), but the numbers don't lie.

Nice try.

[icruise]

I don't think it comes as much of a surprise to see that there are more liberals in higher education (I haven't really looked at the study in question, but this is something that I have thought myself). But so what? Is it because there is some vast liberal conspiracy to corrupt the minds of our youth? Or could it be because professors and others in higher education tend to be well educated and more open to other viewpoints?

Personally, I think there is a republican conspiracy to take over the minds of businessmen making over $200,000 a year...

[thunderous_funker]

This constant refrain of victimhood from conservatives is pretty tiresome.

Hold yourselves a bloody telethon and be done with it.

"Won't someone please think of the conservatives!!"