The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Where the votes are
: Joe Trippi says at MSNBC that he’s sick of pols trying to find votes in cute places — among soccer moms — when the key is youth in “unlikely places:”
: Howard Stern. Recent polling suggests that fully 4 percent of the electorate are paying attention to what Howard Stern says and are inclined to follow his lead when it comes to who should be our next President. And these are 4 points who have never voted before
Fine, Jeff, I’ll check back.
If Kerry wins, you get back to me in four years and tell me if it worked out.
The keys to this election may well be in the hands of Howard Stern
By the way Jeff, you should really answer this already (it’s from another thread, but it spiraled off on tangents, so here it is):
Jeff, answer the question when you get a chance: Why are you – as a hawk on terror- voting for Kerry, given his dreadful selections of advisors in Berger and Wilson (who would most likely have held positions in Kerry’s govt in the event of election if they hadn’t been exposed)
Jeff, please tell us why you feel Kerry would do a better job on Terror?
Stand and deliver
Now I realize you’ve been interested in Stern for 1st Ammendment reasons, but you’ve been listening to his show way too much. Put down the Kool aid. Howard Stern is quite unimortant in most every way. His best days are behind him. He’s the equivalent of the aged movie star who keeps trying out for younger parts. He doesn’t have the face for it anymore.
Only the tiniest of tiny percentages of his listeners will show up at the polls because he said so. Some of them will be too high to remember who he told them to vote for. Most of his other listeners will say “You tell ’em, Howard” and then do absolutely nothing. You are giving him too much importance. You almost think he’s as important as he thinks he is.
If the keys to the election are with Howard’s fans, they’ll get pulled over for drunk driving.
Give us a break already with this Stern voting crap. Do we really want to have people deciding the election because they listened to what Howard Stern said? As Trump said, that should scare the hell out of us. Stern is one of the loudest misinformed people on the airwaves today. His politics are ridiculous.
So Jeff, how did you reconcile your thoughts last week when Stern had Mr. Propaganda himself, Michael Moore, on last week and pretty much proclaimed him a god? Why no post about Stern on that day? Would have been nice to see you diss Stern and his politics after that love session. But no, you are so awestruck by Stern you give him a free pass when he props up a man you have rightfully taken to task for his crockumentary.
And again to second Trump’s question, considering your broad range of readership on this blog, it would be helpful for you to explain why you will be voting for Kerry instead of Bush and how that coincides with your hawkish war on terror view. After reading your blog for some time now, this seems very contradictory.
It’s pretty obvious it’s incumbent on defenders of Bush to say why exactly we should give him four more years to screw things up further. I suppose demanding accountability from our elected politicians only applies when it’s your opponent.
Regarding the Stern voters. It seems unlikely they’ll prove an uplifting force in this nation’s political discourse, but they will vote for an important reason: to tell busybodies to mind their own business, and stop trying to impose their tastes and standards on a nation. As if it needs saying, a sentiment I’m happy to agree with.
God knows, no, we shouldn’t let Stern listeners vote. Better to have people who listen to professional propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, that’s the ticket.
Howard Stern hasn’t been a political force since the 94 election seasons, and he gets far too much credit for Pataki and Whitman and Guiliani’s victories than he deserves.
> Now I realize you’ve been interested in Stern for 1st Ammendment reasons
Jarvis isn’t interested in the 1st amendment except as it pertains to boobie speech by media types. He’s never expressed any discomfort with restrictions on political speech by not-media.
While Jarvis talks about the 1st amendment, the only restrictions that he’s ever complained about are on boobie-speech by media types such Stern.