I think of all of them Beck is equally hysterical and sometimes overly dramatic but at the core he thinks both parties are screwing up in a big way. I totally agree with that concept and think that the parties do not represent what most people think.

I know I will get hell for this but I like listening to Mark Levin. Loud, boisterous and very opinionated and one sided but for the most part he provides documentation for the rant of the day. Some times he provides more documentation sometimes less but it allows you to check out the basis for what ever he is yelling about. A lot of the others just say what they want or use information out of context which is even worse. I agree that using a section of an article to make a point that is totally contrary to what the writers view is, is flat out dishonest.

I do not listen to Rush but I did hear all of what he said that included the I want Obama to fail and it also was really taken way out of context. When W was trying to get us to go into Iraq and if you were against it at that time would you find fault if some newscaster said that I think going to war in Iraq is wrong and I hope W fails in convincing the congress and the public to go to war. Rush said that he did not want Obama's socialist policies to succeed. You can argue if the policies are actually socialistic and they certainly lean that way, but I just think this is one more example of phony outrage at a misused quote.