Coming coincident with the Thursday release of the Center for American Progress’s plans to assault conservative talk radio, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and Barbara Boxer (D-California) were overheard discussing the need for a “legislative fix” to the problem.
This information was relayed to radio host John Zeigler of KFI 640 AM Los Angeles by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) who witnessed the Senators talking about something that they heard on talk radio which upset them so that they said:
We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.
For those interested, an audio of this discussion is available here, with the transcript to follow:
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE (R-OKLAHOMA): I was going over to vote the other day, and I was walking with two very liberal gals that were, they didn’t pay any attention to me being with them. They were outraged by something you said, or Rush Limbaugh said. Somebody said something that upset them. They said, “We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.” And as we got off the elevator, I said, “You gals don’t understand. This is market driven. And there’s no market for your liberal tripe.”
And that’s in, so I see…
JOHN ZEIGLER, HOST: You can’t tell us which Senators they were Senator? You can’t tell us who they were? Was that Boxer and Feinstein?
INHOFE: Uh, you’re halfway there. The other one’s running for president. You figure it out.
ZEIGLER: Oh wow. So, it was Boxer and Hillary. Boxer and Hillary told you that, you overheard Boxer and Hillary saying…
INHOFE: No, they were talking, they were complaining about the uh, talk radio.
ZEIGLER: And they were saying that we need to do something about talk radio.
INHOFE: Oh, yeah. Well, they do that, this is common chatter.
ZEIGLER: So, Hillary and Boxer were conspiring to end talk radio.
INHOFE: No, not to end talk radio. They just want to influence it. Anyway, the point is the market’s still out there, and it still counts.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.













Comments Policy
Heil Hitlary! Viva la Boxer!
June 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by ckc1227Heil Hitlary!
Viva la Boxer!
The new "Axes of Evil", battl
June 22, 2007 - 12:50 ET by JerryThe new "Axes of Evil", battle-axes, that is.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
More Hitlary on tape
June 22, 2007 - 20:49 ET by botgMore Hitlary on tape
A 'legislative fix'???!!! I
June 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by kathleenirishA 'legislative fix'???!!! I'm all for it. It's called, "losing the next election" you banshees. Voters, we've got to get out there and send these socialists packing for Siberia, where they belong.
Wait. That would be too cruel. For the people of Siberia.
Stop the Wenches!!!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
So if you can't through the f
June 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by dscottSo if you can't through the force of reason convince people of your agenda and politics you force them via legislation to silence the opposition. Since the MSM is failing in it's mission to be an effective mouth piece for the Dem party we need to help them by limiting what people want to listen to. Socialism for the debate of ideas, the bad ideas get equal time to propagandize and the public/advertisers are supposed to pay for this. Boy, Chavez would be proud.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
A demolib victory = hello soc
June 22, 2007 - 10:06 ET by FastEdA demolib victory = hello socialism.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Dissent must be silenced! Tha
June 22, 2007 - 12:58 ET by JerryDissent must be silenced! That's how we achieve consensus.
Section 12, article 3 of the DNC handbook.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
}}----> Noel, you missed it
June 22, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Cool ArrowNoel, you missed the real story the MSM will report.
Sexism at the highest levels of Government
Senator Inhofe refers to female Senator as "very liberal gals"
Incensed (D)Harry Reid and (D) Barney Frank demand apology
Cool
June 22, 2007 - 10:10 ET by Noel SheppardCool,
I agree. If this gets reported at all, it will be the obvious sexist misogyny demonstrated by Inhofe. :-) ns
I'm not quite sure how the tw
June 22, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Prester JohnI'm not quite sure how the two senators in question could ever be referred to as "gals".
C'mon PJ - this ain't a "
June 22, 2007 - 11:33 ET by FastEdC'mon PJ - this ain't a "gal"?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Clinton & Boxer dicuss fix
June 22, 2007 - 10:52 ET by misterbee241We can sit here and make fun of this all we want - I
like humor too. But the fact of the matter is, this is dead serious.
With Hillary in the White House and a Democrat majority in Congress, we
conservatives had better keep our heads down and our butts covered.Hillary
has always been a socialist if not an outright communist. She's
become brazen enough to talk socialism in her campaign speeches because that appeals to her base. And now she
wants to put limits on free speech just like any other good
liberal-socialist.The bad part of all this is,
they will work within the Constitution to get their agenda across so it
will all be above board and "Constitutional".We had better stand up now and get a clue.
You're so right, misterbee. H
June 22, 2007 - 13:03 ET by QueenMumYou're so right, misterbee. Hillary's ultimate goal is to be President for life. Once in office, she's likely to do everything in her power to see to it that she can remain in power - even to changing the Constitution to extend the number of terms the President is allowed. In fact, she's already expressed interest in such a proposal, hasn't she? She's so delusional that she thinks only she and Bill know what's right for America. They're not much different from Saddam and his sons, IMO.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Ha, right, that's just rich
June 22, 2007 - 14:16 ET by CatHerderHa, right, that's just rich. Yes, Hillary will make herself President for life, just like Bill did, and did you also know that Bush personally blew up the WTC?
Get a life. Get over your Hillary Derangement System and focus your anger at the unconstitutionality of the fairness doctrine. You're making yourself look ridiculous.
It's great to see Hillary try
June 22, 2007 - 15:14 ET by TruthMongerIt's great to see Hillary trying this - fantastic repub promotion...
CatHerder: Calm down. I was e
June 22, 2007 - 18:15 ET by QueenMumCatHerder: Calm down. I was exagerrating and my commentary was based on what I believe is Hillary's motivation. She is obsessive about gaining power. Her positions on anything change with every poll. If she truly wanted to be the POTUS because she thought she could make a difference, she would take a stand and stick with it. I understand how the Constitution is amended.
Bill's long goodbye also leads me to believe that, if it were possible, he would love to live out the rest of his days in the White House.
BTW, Hillary did suggest that she would like to see the Constitution amended to extend the term limits of the President. She may have been joking. Hard to tell.
It seems you make the mistake of believing that everyone on this site who criticizes Hillary has no basis for such criticism other than she's a liberal Democrat. You're being just as narrow-minded.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Queen,Who is this cat herder
June 22, 2007 - 18:31 ET by BlondeQueen,
Who is this cat herder and why has he hijacked my profile?
Please don't tell me it's a new little dkos poster. I'd hate to have to change my profile. I like it the way it is.
misterbee241 Says: But the
June 22, 2007 - 16:26 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsmisterbee241 Says: But the fact of the matter is, this is dead serious.
It is deadly serious.
We have people who call themselves Democratic Americans who want to put laws on the books that will make freedom of speech illegal.
This is a tactic of oppression used throughout history to gain power.
The people proposing this know that.
Next will be the "re-education" camps.
Guess what follows that?
D
Go here and here to let your reps know what you think!
Actually Barney demands and
June 22, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Right2thePointActually Barney demands and upgrade to 1st class with a mandatory cavity search.
Barney, an apology
June 22, 2007 - 13:15 ET by PawpawNBarney Frank would only need an apology because he also is a gal!!
Too many lies are being exp
June 22, 2007 - 10:07 ET by JDWToo many lies are being exposed. It's so crucial that Iraq be lost and columns such as Peters yesterday permitted conservative talk show hosts to elaborate on the current efforts which have created success.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Hillary other concerns
June 22, 2007 - 10:08 ET by LionKingPerhaps Hillary should worry less about suppressing free speech and captialism. She should worry more about her potential 2 felonies.
The "good" news i
June 22, 2007 - 10:10 ET by sarcasmoThe "good" news is that they're attacking a target of the past, and YouTube is the future. The bad news is that YouTube is next.
JMR
They already have people work
June 22, 2007 - 11:10 ET by nnptcgradThey already have people working on You Tube. Why else is it that conservative videos are marked as hate speech and jihadi videos last for months?
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
sarcasmo Says: The "g
June 22, 2007 - 16:19 ET by DontFeedTheTrollssarcasmo Says: The "good" news is that they're attacking a target of the past, and YouTube is the future.
Dunno sarc 'boy'. Radio is here to stay for now, I can't see having YouTube in my car till they make a car that drives itself (I know, I know, there are some out there in testing)!
Yes, YouTube (or it's better) is the future in the home starting now.
PS You can call me 'boy' anytime.
D
Go here and here to let your reps know what you think!
802.11 is only the beginnin
June 22, 2007 - 16:25 ET by sarcasmo802.11 is only the beginning...I fully expect morons with heads-up displays to be surfing the 'net on I-95 as we drive together within 5 years. Already Verizon has a network (Windoze-only, dammit!) that allegedly extends out of Orlando from Brevard to the Tampa/St.Pete area, so it won't take much... Anyway, I hereby predict that YouTube will affect this coming election (good or bad I won't predict, though) and further predict the YouTube phenomenon will lower some talking heads' salaries (that's an absolutely good thing, in my book).
JMR
Talk Radio
June 22, 2007 - 10:12 ET by River CityOK, I'm sick of being polite. I am going to be blunt. These two women are not friends of democracy. Hillary has been making more and more statements that are communist sounding. More democrats are in bed with Soros and he is financing a lot of them and the 529 groups that support them. Using the government to silence anyone is censorship. Communism by any other name is just being polite. Let’s call it what it is.
None of them are. Hillary
June 22, 2007 - 14:20 ET by CatHerderNone of them are. Hillary is a proponent of censorship and socialism. Bush is a proponent of secrecy and cronyism. Vote out every single incumbent, that's the only way to change things.
No doubt they will ask for a
June 22, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Prester JohnNo doubt they will ask for a "legislative fix" so that the evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, NPR etc can be "influenced" to provide the American public a more balanced view of the world.
talk radio
June 22, 2007 - 10:21 ET by texan1953what is the difference in what these "ladies" want to do and what Hugo Chavez is doing? If this isn't enough to get real conservatives out to vote then this country is truly doomed.
This should also get people w
June 22, 2007 - 11:23 ET by mattmThis should also get people who think they're Liberals (because they've been brainwashed by the public schools, the universities and the MSM - including the entertainment business) to have an epiphany and come home to liberty.
How long will it take them to
June 22, 2007 - 10:22 ET by Airforce_5_OHow long will it take them to go after blogs on the web? Liberal Talk radio has failed. Air America went bankrupt and is barely hanging on. Any liberal on a regular radio program is on late at night because there is no day time market and it doesn’t make money for them.
It is simple. Talk Radio works and it just pisses them off.
I thought I heard that Hillar
June 22, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Phan of TruthI thought I heard that Hillary wanted some type of censorship on the internet. My guess is that that wouldn't be for true obscenity either.
Well, if she ever exposes her
June 22, 2007 - 10:22 ET by GalvanicWell, if she ever exposes herself to a non-biased interview, here's the question to pose to the Senator:
"Senator Clinton, do you believe that a 'legislative fix' is required to curb or somehow control the free speech of talk radio?"
If she says "Yes," they the questioning continues to pull that thread for specifics on scope and application, with her explanation about why we need to fix radio and not NPR and Network TV.
If she says "No," she's on record, and probably alienating more Far Left Dems.
}}----> Galvanic
June 22, 2007 - 10:28 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe she should "expose herself" to Frank DeFord and I could get my sports section back.
Oh Yuck Cool.....you just mad
June 22, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Airforce_5_OOh Yuck Cool.....you just made me sick...OH NO...Can't get image out of my head...
AF, you think that's bad?
June 22, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Cool ArrowCheck out Joy Behar's humor
Ok Cool, I got to go lay down
June 22, 2007 - 10:38 ET by Airforce_5_OOk Cool, I got to go lay down now...that was sick.
Hillary's a lawyer ... She wo
June 22, 2007 - 10:47 ET by drillanwrHillary's a lawyer ... She would never answer that question with a plain "yes" or "no" ... She would hop, skip, jump, and loopty-loop so much that you'd forget what the hell you even asked. I always laugh how Bill Clinton is hailed as such a great speaker, and Pres. Bush is a stumble-bumble. Yeah, and used car salesmen can sell you your own car if you stand there and listen to them long enough.
The left needs mind control over the masses. Oh, you're depressed? Take a pill. Your kid won't sit his ass down in class and pay attention? Give him a pill. People are turning off the MSM and looking for news in other sources? Silence the opposition.
I'm telling you ... We may have to bring home our troops to bring this country back to the Constitution. You know, when the lion's away the rats will play ...
Hillary keeps saying they have to "take back America" ... Take it back to where, Hillary? Take it back to what? Seems Hillary's intent in government is to take whatever, whenever she feels necessary. IF the Republican candidate who runs against her does not utilize that "take" tendency of hers, and the democrats, they are not only missing a great opportunity, but putting this country in major jeopardy of becoming slaves to the government.
The government serves the people ... The people do not serve the government in this country. G-d! How I am eager for the debates.
Senator Clinton is first and
June 22, 2007 - 16:39 ET by GalvanicSenator Clinton is first and foremost a liberal, and the liberal political philosophy is that government is the means by which human misery and inequality are eliminated. She and the other liberal elites convince themselves that if government is in their trusted hands, then it can accomplish the goal. Of course, we know that no matter how much the libs promise to make government work to fix things, it seldom does, and when it does, it's usually very inefficient.
So, when she says "Take back America," she means take back control of the government. She also means for government to then take back control of our lives.
The candidate who's most honest about it is Kucinich. I listened to one of his speeches this week, and he made Huey Long sound conservative. Kucinich wants universal, single-payer health care, a 21st Century of the New Deal's WPA, and a "WGA" (Greens) modeled after the WPA, yadda-yadda-yadda. He doesn't even address how one pays for all this stuff, but it doesn't matter because it's all about government taking control of our lives.
The problem is that no democr
June 22, 2007 - 10:53 ET by alcatrazThe problem is that no democrat has evered answered a "yes" or "no" question with "yes" or "no".
Gee, I thought they were 's
June 22, 2007 - 10:23 ET by WiggyGee, I thought they were 'supposed' to be the party of tolerance. Guess not!
extreme right wing radio - no way
June 22, 2007 - 10:26 ET by florida_chadTalk radio is mostly conservative, no question about that. But to lable it extreme right wing shows how out of touch theses women are. This is along the lines of democratic thinking that liberalism is mainstream and anything to the right of that is EXTREME. We need to contact our Republician congressmen and let them know our feeling on this matter, as we did on the immigration bill.
Don't forget Trent Lott's bad
June 22, 2007 - 10:31 ET by drillanwrDon't forget Trent Lott's bad-mouthing of conservative talk radio last week re: the shamnisty bill ...
I know Lott was suppose to be
June 22, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Airforce_5_OI know Lott was suppose to be on Sean's show yesterday but I didn't get to hear it.
Anyone catch that one?
He tried to explain away his
June 22, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Prester JohnHe tried to explain away his remark by saying what he really meant was that the people on talk radio just didn't understand the details of the immigration bill, blah blah blah.
Pretty unimpressive.
}}----> Trent's Lott
June 22, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Cool ArrowTrent Lott used to be plainspoken and straightforward. He might be again if he would say some words he really believed.
Freedom of the Press is the first casualty of a Soprano style government. Down with Antifrees Monty Hall - Let's Make a Deal
This is why they (big governm
June 22, 2007 - 11:30 ET by mattmThis is why they (big government politician types- especially on the Left) hate talk radio and the Web: It's two way communication which includes the people in the debate. They don't like that. It reminds them that they are not our rulers, but merely our representatives.
Of course, the problem is tha
June 22, 2007 - 13:42 ET by dahliatraversOf course, the problem is that opponents understand the details of the bill very well indeed.
Lott is a pork-barreller, and
June 22, 2007 - 16:52 ET by GalvanicLott is a pork-barreller, and therefore, not a conservative.
again, typical of the left
June 22, 2007 - 10:33 ET by c5thenTheir ideas cannot hold up to free and logical debate so they want to legislatively force their ideas on others. They talk about "free speech" until it is speech that is opposed to their views, then it is something that must be stopped.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
c5then..."Their ideas ca
June 22, 2007 - 10:50 ET by jpatchc5then...
"Their ideas cannot hold up to free and logical debate, so they want to legislatively force their ideas on others."
Exactly, exactly, exactly. This is the same thing I run into when I try to talk to some of my friends and family members - as soon as you do something as simple as ask them a question concerning their beliefs, they are instantly emotionally charged, and can barely carry on a coherrent thought. The only way they operate is to try and destroy opposing ideas, despite the fact that the majority of the opposiition bases their ideas in fact, not in emotion.
The reason liberals are unsuccessful on talk radio?
June 22, 2007 - 11:00 ET by RJThe reason liberals are unsuccessful on talk radio?
I heard a guest on a talk radio show yesterday say he believes that the the medium requires listeners to be able to deliver and understand arguments intellectually. Conservatives, he said, are generally able to do this, which accounts for their talk radio success.
On the other hand, he believes that the reason liberals are unsuccessful on talk radio is that the majority of liberals need the simplification that visual aids offer.
Interesting theory....
Another possibility
June 22, 2007 - 11:06 ET by LionKingA few days ago a liberal enlighten us...the only way to convert a conservative to becoming a liberal is with a lobotomy.
RJ
June 22, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
I don't like that argument, because it's too antagonistic and stereo-typical. Liberals aren't all stupid and incapable of understanding arguments intellectually. I know a lot of extraordinarily bright libs who could debate with the best cons at this board and do quite well.
I think the problem the libs have on talk radio is that the content is too invective-filled. The reason why Rush is the best on both sides of the aisle is because regardless of how the media depict him, he really is a cordial, pleasant, friendly host. His criticisms of the left though frequent are still done with some respect. As a result, Rush's audience, though certainly conservative, is also comprised of moderate Reps and moderate Dems.
By contrast, the Al Frankens and Randi Rhodes of the world are so filled with hatred for the right that only the people on the very far left are going to enjoy the content. What people forget about talk radio is that conceivably only a small percentage listen for reasons of information gathering. Most people are looking for some entertainment as well. And, a host just viciously lambasting America, Americans, and all politicians that disagree with him or her is not entertaining. Furthermore, it's so repetitive that it becomes boring very quickly.
This in my view is why lib radio fails. For them to be successful, they really need to mirror what has made Rush successful rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. ns
I agree, Noel. As much as I
June 22, 2007 - 11:27 ET by drillanwrI agree, Noel. As much as I love and respect Sean Hannity, I've had to ease off a bit from his radio program. His tone and delivery just get too intense. I think (as a former radio person myself) you can get across you message and passion without the barking stern tone. I agree with what Hannity's saying ... It's just his delivery that gets on my nerves sometimes.
Rush, on the other hand, has crafted his delivery so that it's not so grating. Glenn Beck has a similar manner, but is more prone to handle topics as a comic would. That makes listening not only easier, but more entertaining.
Hannity is just too programme
June 22, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Prester JohnHannity is just too programmed. You know what he is going to say about any particular topic because we've heard it all before. He sounds like those Dems Fox has on all the time that have the talking points memorized.
Plus the way he continually promotes Dick Morris, not to mention the Reverend Al, is just getting to be a bit much.
Hannity is very personable and Real
June 22, 2007 - 19:10 ET by exLibI disagree. Maybe on H&C he is a bit one-dimensional but on his radio program he is very warm, personable and not always predictable.
He has criticized Bush and put other Republicans on the hot seat.
I really like listening to his Radio Show, but I got sick of H&C because the times I want him to go after a liberal he takes it easy and other times I think he just goes for the throat when I want to let the lib hang himself on the issue.
but on his radio program he
June 22, 2007 - 19:24 ET by balboabut on his radio program he is very warm, personable and not always predictable.
Is that after you cut through the countless layers of smug?
Clueless Boa
June 22, 2007 - 19:28 ET by exLibDo you actually listen to his show?
I said radio, not TV. I agree his TV show is a bit of a "Show"
But the radio show is very real and personable.
He is very nice to liberals for the most post and only cuts off conspiracy nuts who just want to come on his show and filibuster.
I've gotten a little angry sometimes when he gives some guys a minute and then let's the liberal guy talk for 5 minutes.
The Hate-Hannity-Hotline is a riot.
You know it's actually OK to admit that someone you don't like is a real, warm, sensible person.
Yeah, it's OK!!
I've listened. It's not as ba
June 22, 2007 - 19:30 ET by balboaI've listened. It's not as bad as on the TV show, but I still can't take it.
I'd admit if he was sensible, real, and warm, if I thought he was any of those things. :-)
Just for argument's sake, Noel
June 22, 2007 - 11:32 ET by RJI presented the idea in the form of a question, Noel, as something to consider...but just for argument's sake:
I didn't generalize and say "all" liberals are dumb or cannot debate well. Of course, there are many, many who can. Further, of course, boards like this don't represent the general population.
But I don't think the point he made is about a lack of intelligence. It's more like laziness and a form of atrophy. Many (most, even?) liberals are emotionally, not intellectually, convinced that their position is correct, and don't do well intellectually when challenged outside their sphere of belief. Because they haven't had to support their views, they're unaccustomed to presenting them intellectually. Talkers like Rhodes and Franken may even recognize that emotional root and believe they must play to it....which could also be why they reject the Rush template.
BTW, I don't know which talkers you listen to, but NONE of those I listen to (around 8-10 overall, on and off) practice any invective.
RJ
June 22, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
I'd rather not go on the record concerning which hosts practice invective. You can probably imagine why.
Suffice to say, as another member pointed out, there are a lot of times when I'm in my car listening to talk radio that I change the channel because I feel the host is being too negative either towards a guest or a politician being discussed. I yearn for a more civil debate, and a time when we could all just be Americans again rather than libs and cons, Dems and Reps.
It's all become too contentious, and I think there are more people that are part of the problem than part of the solution.
Fair enough? ns
It's the substance, Noel. S
June 22, 2007 - 12:01 ET by mattmIt's the substance, Noel. See my other post.
It's not a question of debating methodology or skills or tactics.
Well, Noel....
June 22, 2007 - 12:09 ET by RJWell, Noel....
I think there are many, many more conservative talkers who are NOT contentious than are. Locally, I have yet to hear a conservaive talker who IS contentious.
Meanwhile, the liberal talkers in my area (greater Hartford) are quite contentious. In fact, the number one liberal talker is deliberately insulting and taunting.
RJ
June 22, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Noel SheppardEar of the beholder. :-) ns
Is that all you're going to s
June 22, 2007 - 12:26 ET by mattmIs that all you're going to say?
Noel
June 22, 2007 - 15:16 ET by RJear of the beholder?.......why, you.....
I miss those days also.You co
June 22, 2007 - 12:36 ET by well99I miss those days also.You could debate your views then go drink beers or coffee together.
Michael Savage comes to mind
June 22, 2007 - 15:19 ET by Conservative VoiceMichael Savage comes to mind Noel. Though we agree on most things, he is too angry for me and rude and insults anyone who disagrees.
You have a point, but there s
June 22, 2007 - 11:40 ET by mattmYou have a point, but there's definitely something to the other reasoning as well. But to me, the bottom line is the substance.
It doesn't take great debating skills to prove the Left is wrong, it only takes facts. To discredit conservatism, on the other hand, you need to divert the attention of the public away from the facts and to something else - like scandal, or a negative stereotype. i.e. Republicans are racist, bigots, greedy etc.
These are all fact-avoidance techniques designed to steer the debate toward images and feelings.
Liberalism, or rather, socialism, fails every time it's tried. The facts are all over the place. So, if you're a socialist you can't deal in facts, you must avoid them...you can't do that on radio or on the web...unless you can control their content. Which is what Ms. Clinton wants to do.
Noel, you should be concerned
June 22, 2007 - 14:14 ET by mikejI made this point a few months ago and I think it's a great point.
I used to get off work at 8:00pm every night and driving home I could pick up a station that had the Randi Rhodes show and I would try and listen during my 45 minute commute home. But I couldn't because all she did was yell, scream, and vomit hate at man, woman and child that was even the least bit conservative. Even Rush on Friday's during football season takes call's about the upcoming NFL games and "takes a break" I guess you would say, from the political commentary.
Didn't Bill Press have a show on in LA and he was supposed to be the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and it failed worse than a Democratic plan for the poor?
Yes, more civil debate is needed, however for the most part it needs to come from the left as from things that I've heard and listened too, it's the neo-libs that are blowing gaskets and not so much the conservatives.
A format that FNC follows as
June 22, 2007 - 14:24 ET by dscottA format that FNC follows as well very successfully...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
There is the anger factor. T
June 22, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Conservative VoiceThere is the anger factor. Their humor flops because you have to drink the kool aid, and thereby isn't funny (it has to have a element of truth in it to be funny). Which brings up another reason why it fails...because they are known koolaid drinkers, no one but other kool aid drinkers trust what they say...hence they can't convince anybody to buy their sponsors goods...no sponsors is death to free radio.
"I think the problem the
June 22, 2007 - 18:24 ET by QueenMum"I think the problem the libs have on talk radio is that the content is too invective-filled."
Agree, Noel. I consider myself a talk show junkie. But I find I need to back off sometimes for a few days because even some of the conservative talkers sometimes get too repetitive and harsh. There are certain issues for example that Laura Ingraham is particularly passionate about. I'm a big fan of Laura. Have been since her show started. Besides respecting her as a radio talk show host, I call her one of my personal heroes. But if she spends too much time going over and over these same issues, I find myself looking for other options. It would be difficult to listen for any length of time to the likes of Franken. It's too bad the libs despise Rush too much to learn from him like the successful Conservative hosts have.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Spot on Noel
June 22, 2007 - 19:08 ET by exLibI agree, I would also add two things:
1 - Liberals are supposed to be loving and understanding and such and the two you mentioned are neither. Even many true liberals would have a hard time listening to the hate.
Even though I must say that allot of my in-laws must listen because they are very loving and all except when you mention Politics and then it's all repeated sound-bites. I stopped having political discussions with them because I could write their side of the argument for them.
2 - It seems to me that the right has an ability to acknowledge it's flaws and aren't just rabid and rigid like the left.
When I try to listen to Olberman or anyone on the far left it's like their side is perfect. Read David Corn or guys like that. It's like you never hear them criticize their own.
Listen to Hannity or Rush criticize Bush, the only problem when they do it is that the MSM immediately puts their criticisms on the National News.
I just checked and our libera
June 22, 2007 - 10:36 ET by Airforce_5_OI just checked and our liberal freind "Lyons" is MIA on this subject. I think he knows he would get his backside handed to him on this one.
Is it just me, or have these
June 22, 2007 - 10:42 ET by jpatchIs it just me, or have these neo-facist socialists already exposed themselves to the electorate? I mean, seriously, does anyone think that any of the "democrats" will win the White House in 2008? There's no way in Hades that any of these freaks will win. They're scared of FoxNews, they've turned Congress into an impotent joke of a legislative body, and they have no plans for the future, except to unconditionally surrender Iraq, redistribute wealth, socialize healthcare, and apologize to the rest of the world on our behalf.
Barack Hussein just hopes that he can keep smiling his way into the White House...NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
Who's your choice, then?Giu
June 22, 2007 - 14:26 ET by CatHerderWho's your choice, then?
Giuliani, the corrupt-as-hell, thin-skinned lunatic who will undo everything social conservatives have worked towards for the last 3 decades?
McCain, Romney, and Thompson (yes, Fred Thompson), whose positions change with the wind?
Someone like Tancredo will be beaten even by Hillary.
There are no good choices on either side, really.
Even though I don't really care too much for Hagel and Bloomberg, if they run on a third party ticket like that Unity08 deal, I'll vote for it. If it has a chance of winning (and it might; Perot might have won in 92 if he had a clue what he was doing politically), it'd be a great "screw you" to the Republicans and the Democrats who offer us crap for candidates.
CH... Thompson/Hunter '08!Hag
June 22, 2007 - 14:35 ET by bigtimerCH...
Thompson/Hunter '08!
Hagel/Bloomberg.....
ROFLMAO!
Thompson is a fraud. He's
June 22, 2007 - 14:38 ET by CatHerderThompson is a fraud. He's the Republicans' Barack Obama -- a rorschach test on which people project their hopes.
Gee, that's cute, catherder
June 22, 2007 - 14:44 ET by RJgee, that's cute, catherder, but why is Thompson a fraud?
1) Like Romney, he is a fli
June 22, 2007 - 15:07 ET by CatHerder1) Like Romney, he is a flip flopper on abortion.
Fred Thompson, 1994: "I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions.
It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don't know in my
own mind if that is the case so I don't feel the law ought to impose
that standard on other people."
Fred Thompson, 1994: "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."
Fred Thompson, 1996: "I do believe that the decision to have an early term abortion is a
moral issue and should not be a legal one subject to the dictates of
the government."
2) Flip-flopper on campaign finance reform. He helped write and support McCain-Feingold. When it passed. Feingold (ultraliberal) wrote him a nice letter, saying "You were essential to our success."
Now he's saying he doesn't like a lot of it.
He publicly flaunts his disdain for US law by smoking fat Cuban cigars, but still publicly calls for sanctions. It would seem he thinks he's above the law.
When McCain ran in 2000, he was one of McCain's biggest supporters.
He's John McCain, minus the long history of very public implosions, plus charisma.
By your standards, catherder, Bloomberg is the biggest fraudf
June 22, 2007 - 15:26 ET by RJBy your standards, catherder, Reagan was a fraud, too...
Also by your standards, your apparent favorite, Michael Bloomberg, the Democrat-cum-Rebublican-cum-Independent candidate of minute-by minute political convenience, is even more of a fraud.
It's the same standard bein
June 22, 2007 - 15:30 ET by CatHerderIt's the same standard being applied to Romney and others. We're talking quite a few flip flops, and pretty recently.
And I should clarify. Bloomberg is a loser. But if the GOP puts out one of the three (maybe four) clowns they're currently waving around, I'm half tempted to vote for the loser to tell the GOP to stop waving clowns around.
speaking of clarifying, catherder
June 22, 2007 - 15:40 ET by RJSpeaking of clarifying, considering your tag (which is telling), and considering that you're attempting to take the position of "Integrity Judge" for conservatives,
-did you vote for Bush (both times? if not, who?)
-did you vote for Clinton (both times? if not, who?)
-who is currently likely to get your vote?
Bush, Bush, Dole, PerotNow:
June 22, 2007 - 16:07 ET by CatHerderBush, Bush, Dole, Perot
Now: Depends who gets nominated, doesn't it. It's not going to be the Democrat no matter who they nominate.
Giuliani = Not voting for the Republican, either.
McCain = Not voting for the Republican, either.
Romney = Probably not voting for the Republican, either.
Thompson = Unless things change, probably not voting for the Republican, either.
Ron Paul = Well, he's not gonna get the nomination, but I wouldn't vote for him either.
Any of the other contenders = Yeah, I'd vote for them.
that's pretty funny, catherder
June 22, 2007 - 16:29 ET by RJThanks for the answer about your "voting", catherder. It gave me chuckle. "Perot" was a nice touch. And that's a pretty funny list, denying that there are any "Republican" candidates....
I can't make up my mind if you're a lib trying to behave as you think a "real" conservative would behave, or if you're just a completely unrealistic idealist. Either way, I can't seem to take you seriously. But I will say you have provocative views that you present with a straight face, and that makes you kinda fun. ;^>
But you kinda fudged on your current favorite. Of all the candidates who have a fairly realistic chance of winning the nomination, including Bloomberg, who would you prefer to vote for?
It's nice to have these discu
June 22, 2007 - 18:33 ET by QueenMumIt's nice to have these discussions about who should or should not be the candidate. But I think it's ridiculous to try to evaluate the candidates at this point in time. The televised debates are a joke thus far. No depth and no serious debate. IMO, the real contenders won't be obvious until after September and until the Democrat field is more defined. Then we can decide which of the candidates is a bigger flipper than Hillary. LOL
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Cat...That'll show 'em!ROFL n
June 22, 2007 - 15:43 ET by bigtimerCat...
That'll show 'em!
ROFL now....
It showed Bush Sr., didn't
June 22, 2007 - 16:08 ET by CatHerderIt showed Bush Sr., didn't it.
Guess that means you liked th
June 22, 2007 - 16:12 ET by bigtimerGuess that means you liked the outcome afterwards eh Cat?
Says a lot right there for me.
Do you disagree that Perot
June 22, 2007 - 16:17 ET by CatHerderDo you disagree that Perot taught the GOP a lesson? They haven't nominated anyone like Bush Sr. since '92, have they?
When did I say I liked the short-term outcome? I think the long-term outcome was good, though.
If Bush Sr. won re-election, the Democrats likely would have kept control of Congress, a Democrat probably would have won i '96, and had a good chance of being re-elected in '00, and we'd have a Democrat in office on 9/11.
Think about THAT one.
The Democrats lost the hous
June 22, 2007 - 17:43 ET by Conservative VoiceThe Democrats lost the house not due to Clinton so much as Newt and all the scandals that were going on at the time.
Perot didn't teach the GOP anything, ...else why did they lose last election? You can't win by losing. Instead of throwing out all Republicans you don't like, throw out the ones you don't like at the primaries. Unless of course you like the Democrat candidate, then vote for the Democrat. I am a conservative, which means I usually vote Republican, however I have voted for Democrats who are conservative and are a stronger candidate than the opposing Republican. Course right now I am close to saying throw them all out ( at least the ones who are for this amnesty bill...far more important issue than abortion IMO )
Do you disagree that Perot
June 22, 2007 - 16:17 ET by CatHerderOops, double post.
So basicly you are just in t
June 22, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Airforce_5_OSo basicly you are just in the middle of the road? You don't know which way you want to go. Besides yourself, who do you trust?
I'm most certainly not &quo
June 22, 2007 - 16:11 ET by CatHerderI'm most certainly not "middle of the road." I wouldn't vote for any of the Democrats running, but on the Republican side, the individual is important to me.
Hence why I'd vote for some of them, and I wouldn't vote for others.
Cat, I can understand that.
June 22, 2007 - 16:14 ET by Airforce_5_OCat, I can understand that. Just trying to get some gage of where you were.
On abortion...what is his
June 22, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Conservative VoiceOn abortion...what is his position now that makes him a "flip flopper"?
On the cigars, how do you know they were cubans and not just cigars that looked cuban?
Are you making the claim that politicians can never change their policy, or think their way of thinking before was wrong? Otherwise they are guilty of flip flopping? That is a pretty tall order.
How is he John McCain?
For me, the abortion thing has never been a deciding issue (though I am against abortion, unless the candidate is pro-abortions and thinks we should mandate every third child be aborted) what is more important is security (like the war on terror and illegal immigration), spending, and taxes, and will he uphold the constitution like the right to property, the right for guns, freedom of speech etc.. The campaign finance thing is a big thing for me, because that is a direct assault on the constitution...so that is a big negative. He now says it was wrong to make that bill...so I am curious as to what he thinks would make it right.
Right now its between Fred and Mit for me, but I could comfortably vote for any of the republicans except for McCain. If McCain wins, I will vote third party.
If you are okay with Mitt R
June 22, 2007 - 15:44 ET by CatHerderIf you are okay with Mitt Romney (and that's just a matter of personal choice), then you should be okay with Fred Thompson.
But I am not okay with Mitt Romney, and so far I have not been terribly impressed with Fred Thompson for the same reasons I have not been impressed with Mitt Romney.
Perhaps "fraud" was too strong. It's not like Fred is another Hillary Clinton, but I personally don't get the fanaticism.
"Same reasons" catherder?
June 22, 2007 - 16:05 ET by RJ"same reasons", catherder?
Two very different men, with two very different sets of experience.
Personally, I haven't decided yet. But, in spite of all of them being flawed, I'll vote for any of the Republican candidates to keep the socialist Democrat fools out of office.
1) Exactly how is Thompson
June 22, 2007 - 17:20 ET by stratman1) Exactly how is Thompson a flip-flopper on abortion given what you said? Last I heard from Thompson on abortion is that he would not shed tears if Roe v Wade was expunged. That certainly keeps in step with what you've said. Let's also get Fred, if he does run, to expand on what and why he believes/feels a certain way. I'll bet he'll talk and be pretty candid for a politician. If he doesn't then he's just another two-faced huckster. A person can change/evolve in their belief's, though in your senior years sounds a bit suspicious to change your mind on abortion.
2) McCain-Feingold was NOT a good piece of legislation due to all the loopholes and backdoors it created or maintained. The 527's are disgusting propaganda mouthpieces for the most part (except my favorite of course, swift boat veterans for truth!). What if Thompson recognizes the monster he helped create and wants to shore up those (a)holes? Let's give him a chance to explain before branding him a two-faced huckster.
How do you know what kind of cigars he smoked? Where'd you hear it was Cuban's?
And what does it really matter who he supported 7 years ago. I don't care if it was McCain, Goldwater or Pat Paulsen. Two of those three were republicans and the other was a lot better choice than Clinton the 1st. It's just like I don't care if he's been married twice and that his current wife is many years his junior. I do care what he wants to do today and tomorrow and how he's going to do it. Solid answers with a solid roadmap of action is what I am looking for. Not pie in the sky, says everything just right, pandering BS.
For a guy NOT in the race, he sure is taking a lot of hits.
I disagree, he has some very
June 22, 2007 - 14:44 ET by amberI disagree, he has some very solid credentials. I also like pretty much everything he says. Have you checked out his blog? That was where I learned about him. I also liked, that when baited to criticize Presidents Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, he did not take it, unlike every other republican candidtate who could not wait to trash the president's performance. I may not agree with Bush about every move he has made regarding this war, but I am at least intelligent enough to admit I do not have all of the information to have a solid oppinion. As people who have some influence, I think it is a terrible mistake to openly criticize the President in regards to the war, it sends a bad message to our troops and to our enemy.
You should criticize a Pres
June 22, 2007 - 15:10 ET by CatHerderYou should criticize a President over his war performance if he deserves it, like Clinton in his little foreign escapades.
Not publicly, not if you are
June 22, 2007 - 15:14 ET by amberNot publicly, not if you are in a position of influence. The lives of our husbands, wives, daughters, brothers, uncles, ...are at stake.
I wonder, have you ever served? Just asking, not insulting.
No, I have not served.Howev
June 22, 2007 - 15:17 ET by CatHerder