Most Fox News watchers are familiar with Kirsten Powers, the outspoken Democrat strategist and political analyst that is often a guest of Bill O’Reilly’s.
On Friday, Powers sat in for Brian Kilmeade on Fox Radio’s “Brian and the Judge.” At issue was the just-released report from the Center for American Progress regarding conservative domination of AM radio.
To say the least, Powers' take on this subject wouldn’t ingratiate her with folks like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer (audio available here, h/t Allah at Hot Air):
Here’s the deal with liberal talk radio – it sucks! I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to it…I’m talking like the liberal talk radio, like on Air America which is not free market. It’s a bunch of donors getting together and starting, you know, a business. It’s not a business…I don’t know what it is, I don’t know if the listeners are more naturally conservative, and liberals are already listening to NPR, and they’re not looking for something new. All I know is that I’ve tried to listen to it, and I’m not talking about Alan [Colmes], I'm talking about an Air America, and I just don’t find it compelling. And obviously other people don’t find it compelling, cause it’s not successful.
Incredible, wouldn’t you agree? The Air America folks can’t even get their own constituents to listen to them, and people like Ed Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the Center for American Progress want the citizens to believe the reason there aren’t more liberal shows on AM radio is because the corporations that own radio stations are all run by conservatives.
Makes you wonder if these people all believe in the Easter bunny, too.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
content is king
June 24, 2007 - 00:55 ET by Pragmatic-ManIt just goes to show you that content is king. Air America, if they had fact-based content and made compelling arguments, would garner a following. But exercising hate for the sake of hate is not going to cut it in the free market. Even a democrat wants to think they are not giving away their political identities to an empty cause.
This is an indication that the leftists, more aligned with Socialism and Stalinist views, have left the true democrats stranded. They have eroded their majority base, and replaced it with a minority of hard-left wing moonbats.
Hate, and a total lack of hum
June 24, 2007 - 08:34 ET by ThisnThatHate, and a total lack of humor. Leftests have no idea how to blend humor, intertainment, facts, and opinion. And, they don't know how to get their audiences to think. All they know how to do is to play to the basest (a word?) emotions, and they believe this is all they need.
Let's face it.....it wouldn't
June 24, 2007 - 16:40 ET by skeptic1Let's face it.....it wouldn't matter what the content of Airhead America was. It would still fail 24/7/365.
If liberals paid attention to issues, they wouldn't be liberals.
Liberal talk radio has no choice but to be a self fulfilling prophecy of failure.
Noel,I wonder, Air America as
June 24, 2007 - 01:14 ET by Dave RNoel,
I wonder, Air America aside for the moment, how much of this argument being brought by the left is rooted more in pure embarrassment over the fact that "progressive" talk radio just doesn't sell in the free market?
I mean, if liberalism was, in fact, that cat's ass in political philosophy, as many on the left have deluded themselves into believeing, then liberal radio programming should, at the very least, be on par, or nearly so, with Limbaugh and Hannity, should it not?
Now, I know there are (aside from the obvious one) other factors involved, a big one being libs fundamental lack of understanding of how a free market works, another being the lack of civility by many of their "chosen" personalities (as well as the liberals need for pictures) but there has to be at least a little envy behind all this, don't you think?
Dave,IMO ... Head-of-nail, Si
June 24, 2007 - 13:14 ET by drillanwrDave,
IMO ... Head-of-nail, Sir.
Look, what this all boils d
June 24, 2007 - 01:44 ET by RESTLESS 1Look, what this all boils down to is that there is nothing concrete for liberals to base their oponions on. They have no moral foundation or fiscal foundation on which to base their oponions on. They fuel their idealogy on emotion and an air of superiorty. Even people who tend to vote democrat don't want to listen to an bunch of baseless garbage. They would rather listen to music,horrid as it is these days, and my favorite music is metal, than listen to baseless whining, even if it comes from their heroes.
Here’s one argument, and ho
June 24, 2007 - 04:19 ET by KC MulvilleHere’s one argument, and how to respond to it.
The argument is that liberals dominate TV and conservatives dominate radio. So, the argument goes, it can’t be the content. If it was merely content, either liberals would dominate both, or conservatives would dominate both, but not one or the other. Therefore, it must be some other factor (liberals blame ownership). But the Rosetta stone against this argument is Fox News. When liberals attempt radio, they rarely succeed. But Fox News has the largest cable TV audience. The audience isn’t reciprocal, and so perhaps it’s the content after all. When conservatives broadcast in either genre, they succeed. The only question left is why liberals dominate TV. Maybe it’s … ownership?
The urge to “address” talk radio is not surprising. It makes sense to a liberal. Liberals are adversarial about their media and government. That is, liberals believe that government is a corrective force. Left to our own devices, the public would tolerate and even encourage oppression of minorities, individual rights, and so on. Therefore, government must counterbalance those traits of the general public. The public must be enlightened. They see talk radio as reinforcing the public’s ignorance by feeding them what they want to hear, instead of the “Truth.” It depends on how you look at it. Conservatives think it's a virtue to satisy the audience, but liberals think that it's just pandering to the "group think" herd mentality. Conservatives treat the airwaves as a business where you cater to a market. Liberals see the airwaves as a public service (read: indoctrinate the zombies), and should be unsullied by crass commercialism.
For a liberal, to satisfy the "deeper" public interest, the public must be exposed to other points of view. For our own good. That’s why the one-sided-ness of talk radio is so threatening to them. That’s why liberals think they “speak truth to power.” When was the last time you heard a conservative say that? We wouldn’t think of it, because we think that power should reflect the will of the people, and not oppose it.
Another way to respond to t
June 24, 2007 - 05:59 ET by sarcasmoAnother way to respond to the argument might be this. It's not content, but it does have something to do with the mediums and the different ways humans interact or react to them. For radio to "work," whether it's a conservative talk show host or Howard Stern, it needs to be reasonably (but not too!) intellectual, and move along at a good pace, because it involves interactive imagination. TV, being a much more visual medium, needn't be as intellectual or as dependent on imagination to work -- given good enough images people are going to watch even really-stupid stuff they'd probably never listen-to without a video screen involved. As for explaining the success of Fox News amid a sea of leftism, I have 2 words: "Hot chicks."
JMR
Hot chicks?! Neil Calvetu? Br
June 24, 2007 - 08:31 ET by ThisnThatHot chicks?! Neil Calvetu? Brit Humes? That Gibson guy? The Judge? Hannity & Colmes? Geraldo? Greta? Bill O'Reily??? Hot chicks???
Laurie Dhue. Juliette Huddy
June 24, 2007 - 09:17 ET by sarcasmoLaurie Dhue. Juliette Huddy (sort of). That yummy new weatherbimbette named "Dominica" (absolutely!). Various others (hell, CNN needed to swipe Kiran Chetry) whose names escape me...Fox News does tend to have the hottest chicks, and it's definitely part of what attracts viewers. And in fact, of those you mentioned, O'Reilly and Cavuto are well-known for segments involving...Hot chicks from places like Victoria's Secret.
JMR
}}----> More Hot Chicks
June 24, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Cool ArrowKatie Couric???
How did you miss the "Eye Candy" on the CBS Evening News.
Two words: Julie Banderas!
June 24, 2007 - 10:30 ET by robert108Two words: Julie Banderas!
}}----> Yeah
June 24, 2007 - 10:34 ET by Cool ArrowHOT HOT HOT
Oh, those hot chicks. Am reco
June 24, 2007 - 10:31 ET by ThisnThatOh, those hot chicks. Am recovering from earlier fainting spell. Vision is clearing.
Let's not forget Clarissa Ward!
June 24, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Free StinkerLet's not forget Clarissa Ward!
Last night, before I went to
June 24, 2007 - 11:30 ET by KC MulvilleLast night, before I went to bed, I posted the comment that started this thread. I woke up this morning, hoping to find some thoughtful and/or provocative responses about my brilliant dissertation on the liberal view of government.
Instead, it's all about "hot chicks."
<smiling> I have to go to church now... </smiling>
KCIf you do it right to begin
June 24, 2007 - 11:38 ET by botgKC
If you do it right to begin with, there is no need for further comments
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Hey, I'm not complaining. It'
June 24, 2007 - 11:44 ET by KC MulvilleHey, I'm not complaining. Thinking about the "hot chicks" will help me through the homily ...
}}----> Homily
June 24, 2007 - 11:57 ET by Cool ArrowIsn't homily those big corn kernels you add to tripe to make Menudo? Or do you add Ricky Martin to tripe to make Menudo?
Anyway, I don't think hot chicks are homily.
Confucius say: Before you go
June 24, 2007 - 13:03 ET by ThisnThatConfucius say: Before you go to bed, make sure you learn/say all you need to about hot chicks.
Actually, when I think of hot
June 24, 2007 - 14:30 ET by KC MulvilleActually, when I think of hot chicks ... speaking isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Oh and by the way, I'm back from church. It was a great homily. Something about blondes, I think.
I'm kidding. It was about John the Baptist. Of course, one wonders whether John was from Philly. Philly is notorious for giving odd names. David Brenner tells the story of a kid in his neighborhood with a neck disorder that caused his head to tilt to one side ... so in Philly, his nickname was "quarter to six."
There was a serious topic in this thread ... way back ... but I think we chose the more entertaining path, don't you?.
We can be serious at any time
June 24, 2007 - 14:38 ET by ThisnThatWe can be serious at any time. Entertainment is something we usually have to purchase, so yeah -- I'd go for free entertainment any time over serious.
Seriously.
KCI think that you rarely pos
June 24, 2007 - 14:43 ET by botgKC
I think that you rarely post on such things but you may be interested in reading this.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I just read the article, than
June 24, 2007 - 15:33 ET by KC MulvilleI just read the article, thanks for the link. The Jesuits have a few websites, and most are readable. I do check them regularly, but I only post on rare occasions, I'll have to read more of the interviewee, Beckwith. He seems to be reasonable. Frankly, his discontent with the kumbaya Catholicism is something I definitely shared, although I didn't leave. I just avoided that crap as much as possible. Theology belongs to the conscious mind, but worship is all about the subconscious. When they tried to "update" the liturgy in the Sixties, they were trying to approach it with their head. But worship isn't about thinking. Liturgy is something you do, not soomething you think. The power is sub-conscious.
Worship is like sex. If you think too much, you ruin it.
}}----> Mulville's back
June 24, 2007 - 14:44 ET by Cool ArrowSee, there you go KC. The sermon in a Catholic Church is about a Baptist. Just had to lash out at other religions didn't you?
LOL. Of course, the great thi
June 24, 2007 - 15:37 ET by KC MulvilleLOL. Of course, the great thing is that we're spending so much of our lives talking about two Jewish cousins. There's a lesson there somewhere.
Kirsten is definitely one D
June 24, 2007 - 05:38 ET by Jack BauerKirsten is definitely one Democrat pundit I enjoy listening to.
Not because I agree with most things she says, I don't. But because she makes a good attempt at being objective in her analysis and you can respect where she's coming from, even if you don't agree with her conclusion.
I put her on a par with Britt Hulme, although he is clearly from the conservative school, he, again, tries to be objective.
Unlike Juan Williams who has to be one of the bizarro commentators I have ever heard. He is certifiably nuts.
Between Kristen and Susan E
June 24, 2007 - 05:44 ET by sarcasmoBetween Kristen and Susan Estrich, it's somewhat ironic IMO that the Democrat-boycotted Fox News has hired the most intelligent Democrat-strategists. Yeah, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes may not be all that great at times for their party, but it's hard to argue that Fox deliberately goes for dumb Dems with these ladies. Hmmm. Maybe dumb male Dems....
JMR
Democrats
June 24, 2007 - 10:08 ET by pbthinkerThe Democrats don't want the networks to hire "intelligent" Democrat strategists, they want them to hire the kool-aid drinkers, or in the case of Begala, the kool-aid servers. Now, with Brit Hume, Fox not only has a Conservative thinker, but also one that had his phone tapped by the CIA.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
So, when are the Dims going t
June 24, 2007 - 10:36 ET by ThisnThatSo, when are the Dims going to go with their hot chicks and heavy hitters? Maybe starting here? Ugh!
}}----> ThisnThat is a sick basta
June 24, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Cool ArrowI just threw up on the keyboard, you sick puppy. The Supreme Court is right. I know obscenity when I see it.
D*mn! I figured you were go
June 24, 2007 - 23:18 ET by MikeBD*mn! I figured you were going to do that, but I just had to look anyway. It's a good thing I already ate, because that will definitely put someone off their feed. You are one sick puppy, TnT.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
What about those crazy chicks
June 24, 2007 - 11:58 ET by shannon20What about those crazy chicks... Jane Flemming and Julie Roginsky(Dem strategist). Everytime I see them on I want to puke. It makes me wonder if all Liberal women are as bitchy and crazy as those two. Not to mention rude and obnoxious!
And did you notice...?
June 24, 2007 - 08:31 ET by goldenthroatHey, Jack,
She is also one of the few women liberals who is very easy on the eyes.
golden -- yes, I noted the
June 24, 2007 - 08:40 ET by Jack Bauergolden -- yes, I noted the babelicious quotient is way above those of normal lib***l hag persuasion.
But I was trying to rise above such thoughts
The Reason Lib Radio Blows
June 24, 2007 - 06:38 ET by KevroyHere's what makes conservative radio work:
Their talk show hosts say things like, "....and thats the way it is. If you disagree then I would like to hear from you...."
Ever listen to Air America? Ever TRY TO CALL Air America? They WILL NOT put on a conservative that has a viewpoint counter to theirs. Conservative hosts thrive on liberals calling in and entertaining us with their nonsense and their subsequent dismantling by the host.
Liberal radio is boring because its nothing but liberals whining without an opposing viewpoint.
And they don't want one.
Upon further review...
June 24, 2007 - 08:17 ET by goldenthroatKevroy,
Kirsten used the very words I stated in another blog here on NB before her appearance on FNC about this issue. We had one local FM station in our area that carried Air Anti-America that went belly-up because of poor ratings and eventually changed formats.
They also had some real jackass (no pun intended) local announcers who helped to drive the final nail into their talk show coffin with their negativism and constantly bashing America.
The hilarious thing about it is that their slogan was "Talk Radio - for the rest of us"! Hmmm - must not have been too many "rest of us" listening!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
"Liberal radio is boring
June 24, 2007 - 08:51 ET by Seabeach4348"Liberal radio is boring because its nothig but liberals whining without opposing viewpoint. And they don't want one."
Exactly! And liberals have a big problem with the truth anyway. Apparently Barbara Boxer and Hitlary have a big problem with how successful conservatives have been on talk radio that they want a "legislative fix" to make things right once and for all:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html
Now the above link opens with FULL-FACED photos of both Boxer and Hitlary so I warn you ahead of time that it may cause gastric distress. Keep your Tums handy; you'll need them.
What they say sucks too, and it just shows what we're in for if Hitlary is elected as Fuhrerin.
Kevroy -- exactly. But it g
June 24, 2007 - 10:54 ET by Jack BauerKevroy -- exactly. But it goes further than that.
Conservatives understand that socieites work best when mature married people, with families and life responsibilities act in their own best interests within the defined norms of society.
(Note: that does not mean an anarchic every man for himself free for all.)
Collectivists (like your typical lib***l or socialist Democrats) believe in making indivudiuals act in the government's best interest because they believe that the governement is best placed to make the decisions on behalf of everybody.
Once you accept that mindset, you become philosophically incapable of allowing any dissenting viewpoint. And to enable that type of thinking to prevail, it becomes necessary to break down the very existence of those institutions and norms by which enlightened Western societies have traditionally sought to regulate themselves.
So the left has a big downer on accepting personal responsibility -- no one is to be blamed for their own behavior, it's always someone else's fault.
Naturally the traditional family structure (one man, one woman, and their children) has to be weakened to breaking point: illegitimacy, so-called homosexual marriage, rampant sexual promiscuity (usually to the detriment of women, because us guys have always been potential dogs.)
Societal glues such as Christianity and other structured religions (Judaism) which have long accepted the Western democratic model, are to be systematically attacked, from within and without.
While fascistic religions like Islam are oddly pandered to -- but they do share the same totalitarian goals, so maybe it's not so surprising.
Non-legislative, non-term limited appointed functionaries (like judges) are used to further weaken the democratic process.
And so on.
Kevroy : Liberal radio is b
June 24, 2007 - 22:36 ET by GalvanicKevroy : Liberal radio is boring because its nothing but liberals whining without an opposing viewpoint.
You bring up a great distinction, kevroy. I tried listening to Air America (the First), and it sounded like an indoctrination. Granted, I find Al Franken and Jeanine Garofalo rather insufferable anyway, but their shows might've held my attention a bit had they featured guests with opposing views. Instead, they resorted to regurgitating myths like "conservatives hate minorities" and endless anti-Bush harangues, which I'm sure few would find engaging. It's no accident that the market place killed and buried the first iteration of Air America.
Kevroy: And they don't want one.
It could be that they realize that Air America and its fellow travellers will never win over conservatives, but that some liberals might be swayed by the logic of conservatives guest to at least explore other sources of information enough to abandon The Cause.
It highlights a common trait amongst most --- not all, but most --- prominent liberals: they are loathe to debate the opposition face to face. Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, et al are guilty of this.
Liberal Radio
June 24, 2007 - 08:51 ET by bravefacariI'm conservative. I listen/watch mostly to Fox News, but I do tune in to Hardball once in a while just to hear the opposing views on things. However, Fox does a better job hands down, day after day of having opposing views on their show. When I listen to liberal radio, the host pretty much attacks any conservative views that get on air like spitting rabid dogs. Its just awful to listen too. Like squabbling children getting out of control in the backyard. You don't care who started it, just stop. There is no around the dinner time table discussion ferretting out different thoughts ideas or points of view. I don't mind it getting heated, but I don't care for it when either is trying to shut down the other disrespectfully. Conservative radio is definately better on that, but hey too have some work to do in attacking liberal callers. Admittedly however, most of the liberal callers typically attack the host right out of the box which doesn't put everyone in a very polite frame of mind. I am interested in the other viewpoint, to know if "we" have thought of everything before we change major policy that effects all Americans. I can't often hear it because of all the NOISE!!!!!! The last thing I want is gov't to try to legislate "fair & balanced" - so get to it Liberals and do this on your own, don't have the gov't come in and subsidize you.
I think Kristen is moving t
June 24, 2007 - 08:54 ET by charlietexasI think Kristen is moving to the right. She's getting better looking. Liberal women are ugly.
June 24, 2007 - 09:27 ET by halfacarafe
Why liberal talk radio doesn't work? Conservative talk radio strips down all arguements to basic beliefs of conservatism. If you try this with liberal beliefs you always end up trying to explain why communism/socialism is good for this country when it has failed everywhere else. Two recent examples for libs: explain the difference between these events and how the democrat proposals are different.
1) Hillary Clinton on Exxon profits: "I'm going to take those profits..."
Chavez nationalizes oil companies.
2) Fairness Doctrine.
Chavez closes down popular opposition TV station.
Liberal positions are not based on anything but feel good emotions. They can't see the unintended consequences of their actions. As Bob Geldof said about Live 8, "Even if it doesn't help, we have to do something". This makes for very boring radio when you can't justify your reasoning of your beliefs beyond being for the children or seems like the right thing to do no matter what the cost.
Kindas tepped over the line N
June 24, 2007 - 09:22 ET by FastEdKindas tepped over the line Noel - You saying ther is no Easter bunny?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Noel,I tried to listen to a Liberal Talk show here in N. Calif.
June 24, 2007 - 09:58 ET by acaiguanaNoel,I tried to listen to a Liberal Talk show here in N. Calif.
Accidental button push on a rental car.
Here's what I heard in the 5 minutes of listening.
1. Economy: Unsustainable.
2. Bush: Worst President in lifetime.
3. Gasoline: Big Oil and Haliburton and Iraq.
4. Foreign Policy: Agressive and failed due to Iraq's intranscience regarding Democracy and its evils.
5. Rush: Moronic Idiot.
OK, bash 21 million listeners. That'll get you an audience.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
AC
June 24, 2007 - 10:12 ET by Noel SheppardAC,
I think you've hit on the real point: liberal talk radio is like listening to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for more than 60 seconds -- too hate-filled!
These people like Randi Rhodes, Bill Press, Cenk Uygur, etc., etc. have nothing positive to say about anything. America sucks, Republicans suck, the economy sucks, we're destroying the planet, we're ignoring the poor, etc., etc. How long can you listen to something so depressing? Five minutes? Ten minutes?
I think the problem is that there aren't enough people who want to spend large chunks of their day being depressed. I mentioned in another thread that I turn off some of the conservative talkers when I'm in the car when it gets too negative. Frankly, I think most people on both sides of the aisle are the same. ns
Rant away
June 24, 2007 - 10:14 ET by dagdaI think the problem is the continual rant without an opposing rant. Even liberals cannot take the continual ranting of Air America.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Noel, the other issue is audience and market forces.
June 24, 2007 - 10:20 ET by acaiguanaNoel, the other issue is audience and market forces.
If 21 million people are driving through traffic and listening to Rush and Rush goes off to play golf, they might be tempted to tune into another station, right?
Now, to be successful, the market is comprised of those people.
If no attempt is made to pander (cater?) to these folks, where else would the market drive them? Maybe to another conservative radio show?
Oh well, the ownership questions are interesting by themselves.
One must first decide that the owners want to lose money to alienate an audience that before Rush wasn't tuning into AM Radio at all and moving along the lines of the NYT readership and advertising revenues.
So, what business model should they pursue? Emulate the print media which is decidedly Liberal in their never ending quest to 'educate' me by explaining that my choices:
1. For President were beyond stupid.
2. For attacking Terrorists and protecting my children were too 'aggressive' and the world would be a better place if I gave the US economic proceeds to the UN.
3. For being disgusted with Madam Albright's foreign policy insanity.
4. For believing in a bedrock system that works, e.g. carbon based enegy driven economic activity.
I'm really tired of government solutions. You know, this all started with busing.
"Oh, well busing worked to 'integrate' our schools."
If a government solution works, I'd appreciate any help from the readership here to be made aware of one of them that was initiated after the 1930's.
Thanks for all the fish.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Government intervention
June 24, 2007 - 10:25 ET by dagdaGovernment intervention started with the Great Depression. It was found that local charities were overwhelmed by the need and needed more resources. The federal govenment stepped in. That led to the Alphabet Programs, none of which were really successful in the long run. There were as many unemployed at the beginning of World War II as their were when Roosevelt came into office. And now we had a lot of infrastructure that had been built at federal expense that was going to have to be maintained at local and state expense.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Well, I wasn't alive during the Great Depression.
June 24, 2007 - 10:32 ET by acaiguanaWell, I wasn't alive during the Great Depression.
But, I believe that the programs of the '30s prevented civil unrest at a greater scale than what actually occurred. Now, of course, we can look back and see the tags of Roosevelt's programs and say, "Gee, that really screwed the pooch."
But, the advent of WWII actually brought the economy back. No argument there.
But, during the 1950's we built the Interstate Highway system (and into the 1960's as well) and the infrastructure was important to have in place. Sacrifices for such bedrock foundations for our economy are probably as important as sacrificies for War.
The problem is that the infrastructure went South because too much emphasis was placed on Social Engineering by government and not enough placed on maintaining our transport arteries as well as our overall energy needs.
We could argue about this all day (or rather, discuss) but my point is that to compete in the arena of ideas or the arena of a marketplace, one does not immediately stomp all over your market participant from the starting gates.
"HI, I'm selling bottled water, ... you stupid tap water drinker."
Can't see how that works, somehow.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
AC
June 24, 2007 - 10:52 ET by Noel SheppardAC,
The problem with programs created during the '30s is that they weren't sunsetted. If each of these programs, including Social Security, had to be reapproved by a new Congress under different economic conditions ten years later, they would have been killed years ago. Just imagine in either 1945 or 1955, as the economy was beginning to boom, and the government was buried in HUGE piles of debt created by FDR, how unlikely would it have been for Congress to vote to extend SS? Doubtful, right?
Unfortunately, FDR and the Dems in 1935 adamently REFUSED sunsetting because they knew this program wouldn't pass scrutiny once the economy pulled out of depression. What a disgrace! ns
Roosevelt proved that massive government debt could help.
June 24, 2007 - 11:00 ET by acaiguanaRoosevelt proved that massive government debt could help.
And he was right to a point of diminishing returns. That would be the concept of zero value (or declining) after pouring more dollars into a system (or market).
That was a useful tool. Unfortunately, you are totally right about the sunset stuff, but even more to the point would be those 'bad' ideas that kept on giving, like Social Security.
I'd be better off had I been offered a private route from the beginning of my work life span.
Now, of course, I'm a ward of the Government. (more or less).
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Roosevelt propaganda
June 24, 2007 - 11:19 ET by dagdaYou are falling for the Roosevelt propaganda machine. Exactly what or whom did the massive debt help? Workers in federal programs were released at the end of 6 months or less. The only thing that got us out of the Great Depression was WWII. And Roosevelt got us into that. He committed acts of war against both the Japanese and the Germans. Had either or both won the war, using the criteria used in the War Crimes Trials, he would surely have been convicted (had he lived that long). All of his aides would have been executed.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Gee Dagda, if you're gonna talk about Roosevelt Programs...
June 24, 2007 - 11:23 ET by acaiguanaGee Dagda, if you're gonna talk about Roosevelt Programs then put it back into context. The advent of WWII had no bearing on the events from 1929 through 1938.
And before you accuse me of propaganda 'buy in' I'd appreciate you reading some basic economic texts.
Thanks
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Aca - basic econ.
June 24, 2007 - 11:31 ET by dagdaThe basic economics of the situation are that the USA was no better off from the Roosevelt make work programs than nothing. We just accummulated a lot of debt. There were as many unemployed in 1941 as there were in 1929. The war caused full employment.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
dagda, I quote myself from above.
June 24, 2007 - 11:37 ET by acaiguanadagda, I quote myself from above.
"But, the advent of WWII actually brought the economy back. No argument there."
So, your slam about 'buying into Roosevelt Propaganda' was not only uncalled for but also demonstrated a lack of context.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Proganda masters
June 24, 2007 - 11:41 ET by dagdaI would beg to differ. The events of 1929-41 were a direct prelude to WWII. Make work socialist programs put the Germans back on the map. And remember Wag the Dog. What better way to get people to forget your domestic problems than by getting into a shooting war.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
}}----> Lott Feinstein
June 24, 2007 - 10:13 ET by Cool ArrowFeinstein and Lott are both on Fox News Sunday. I'm puking.
Lott trying to back down on his attack on Talk Radio.
Feinstein says she wants to go back to Fairness Doctrine.
Both think we are too stupid to understand their Immigration Bill.
Right now they're ripping each other's clothes off and entangling in a torrid embrace. Puking again
Call Lott's DC office directly at 202-224-6253
June 24, 2007 - 10:27 ET by Free StinkerI heard Lott on Shawn Hannity Friday and thought he was full of shi'ite.
If anyone wants to call his DC office and criticise his support for the immigration bill, his direct office number is 202-224-6253 (bypasses the switchboard)
Be nice, be polite, but make it clear - his "leadership" on this is a tragedey and you will donate money to his main opponant in the next primary,
Be warned. I had to call 9 times to get through. Busy. Busy. No answer. No answer. No answer. No answer.(3 minutes, my crell phone finally dropped the call) Busy. No answer. KEEP TRYING!
Home office
June 24, 2007 - 10:32 ET by dagdaI usually call the home office and the Washington office. Home office is usually easier to get through.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
As someone who used to work o
June 24, 2007 - 11:00 ET by NCConservativeAs someone who used to work on the Hill (a fews years back) and respond to constituent comments, I just thought I would offer a friendly bit of advice when contacting Congress.
First, it doesn't matter which office you call, at least from my experience in two offices. All comments, letters, etc. go into one big pile. Whenever we got comments from back in the state they were sent to the DC office anyway. Also, if you call more than once and leave your name each time (or write more than one letter), I would put money down that most offices ignore the second call or letter.
Second, when you are calling the leadership offices, make sure they are the leadership offices and not the "representative" office. ie, you don't want to call Trent Lott's regular Senate office in Mississippi (or DC) unless you live there. I can guarantee you that 99% of calls these offices receive from out of district/state are totally ignored. Unless you can vote for (or against) these people, your opinions are probably going in the trash. Sometimes if they are nice they might forward a letter to another office, but calls are totally disregarded.
I'm sure the well-informed people on this site already know this stuff, but I just don't want anybody's efforts to end up in the trash!
No, actually, these tips are
June 24, 2007 - 11:16 ET by dahliatraversNo, actually, these tips are helpful. Thank you.
One follow up question. Did written/faxed correspondence carry more weight than a call?
or e-mail?
June 24, 2007 - 11:17 ET by botgor e-mail?
Oh yeah, email! Duh...sorry
June 24, 2007 - 12:00 ET by NCConservativeOh yeah, email! Duh...sorry. Offices were just starting to figure out how to handle email when I was there, so things might be different now. I believe most offices when I was there used an actual address like HisHighnesstheSenator@XXXXXXXX. From what I gather, these days a lot of offices use a web form, and you can't even submit unless your ZIP code matches the list from their state/district. My offices would respond to emails with a paper letter, so if the writer didn't leave a name or address...circular file! But, some years have passed now, so I can't say with certainty how emails are handled today, or if responses are sent back via email, etc.
As for call vs. fax vs. letter vs. email, my bosses weighed them pretty much the same. What held less weight were the postcards or form letters (of faxes) we received on some issues. After some research, we discovered that a lot of people who were supposedly sending in these postcards had no idea they were writing in. It seemed like some interest groups would just divide their membership lists up and send off the cards or letters to the correct office, unbeknownst to the member.
I would suggest that if you receive a request from an interest group to contact your reps to modify any form letter in a small way. That way the office you are sending it to knows it is actually YOU that is sending it and expecting a response.
Hope this helps!
In keeping with the theme of
June 24, 2007 - 18:38 ET by dahliatraversIn keeping with the theme of this thread - merci beaucoup!
NC....Thank-YouI am so glad y
June 24, 2007 - 19:10 ET by bigtimerNC....
Thank-You
I am so glad you posted that about calling the leadership offices...it is important that those are the offices you call individually.
I meant to tell that to someone here after the last Bill was pulled....and forgot. It is very important...I only learned that from years of experience...I used to have the C-Span congressional guide book, before I got the PC.
It worked out fine btw....lol!
Lott trying to back down on h
June 24, 2007 - 11:08 ET by dahliatraversLott trying to back down on his attack on Talk Radio.
I love it.
Couldja maybe have been wrong about the amnesty bill, too, Senator ...?
The Way Liberals Work
June 24, 2007 - 10:19 ET by pbthinkerThe way liberals like to communicate is to ram their view down your throat and, if you don't agree with them, they try to trask you. Debate, in the true sense of the word, is the furthest thing from their mind. This morning, I read a commentary by Debra Saunders about the Global Warming Debate, which is being conducted in typical liberal fashion:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/hooey_denier_deniers.html
If the tactics here don't sound like Air America and other liberal arguments about our country, nothing does. These are the tactics you use when you can't win in the arena of ideas.
I don't know of a conservative talk show that doesn't welcome liberals expressing their views. Once again, most of them show they can't win with the talking points sent out by the kool-aid servers. The problem with the kool-aid, served by the Democrats is, if you don't like the taste, the only thing they know how to do is put in more sugar.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Powers is your typical Faux N
June 24, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Sir ThomasPowers is your typical Faux News Liberal i.e. not particularly liberal.
So she is wrong; Air Americ
June 24, 2007 - 11:16 ET by botgSo she is wrong; Air America was wonderfully entertaining but failed due to the vast right wing conspiracy?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Ya know, Sir Thomas, your use of French to describe Fox News
June 24, 2007 - 11:16 ET by acaiguanaYa know, Sir Thomas, your use of French to describe Fox News is such a typical cheap Liberal slam.
Did you think that up all by yourself, or did you get it in the 'memo'?
Coming to this site with such silliness is so typical of the Liberal Leftoid. When I read the comments regarding the Liberal attempts to stifle Conservative Talk Radio here, nearly every one of the commentors cannot help but reference the absolute fascist effort by Liberal Legislators to use a Hammer and Sickle to censor and autocratically impose Liberal ideas on the masses.
Sound sorta familiar?>
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You ever notice that libs cal
June 24, 2007 - 11:29 ET by zfYou ever notice that libs call their enemies "facist" constantly, but never call them a "communist?" Hmmm...
Devastating commentary, Sir Thomas.....
June 24, 2007 - 11:17 ET by RJFaux News? Devastating commentary, Sir Thomas. Have you met Montana Lyons or j. frank wilson? They like that sobriquet, too.
Well, if we're gonna be trite, I suppose you won't mind if I call you a MoveOn Moonbat? ;^>
Don't hate him because he's c
June 24, 2007 - 11:20 ET by dahliatraversDon't hate him because he's clever, RJ ...
And they wonder, dahlia
June 24, 2007 - 11:24 ET by RJAnd they wonder, dahlia, why their radio sucks......
Hate, derives from fear/respect for power.
June 24, 2007 - 11:25 ET by acaiguanaHate, derives from fear/respect for power.
Tyranny over the mind, so to speak.
So, that would be a non-starter. That dog won't hunt. That idea has no plumb bob. That dog won't get off the porch...
etc.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
It is not devestating because
June 24, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Sir ThomasIt is not devestating because it is part of any rational individuals thought when describing the 'liberals' that appear there. Silly me for thinking I may find someone rational on here, though.
Yes, Sir Thomas, it was silly for you to pass off 'thinking"
June 24, 2007 - 11:33 ET by acaiguanaYes, Sir Thomas, it was silly for you to pass off 'thinking" as consisting of a cheap Liberal lable, here.
And rational hasn't been demonstrated yet by your brilliant ideas, your smooth presentation and logical constructs.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Yeah you are probably right.
June 24, 2007 - 11:36 ET by Sir ThomasYeah you are probably right. By the way, if you are into this sort of thing, have you ever been to newshounds.us or mediamatters.org? They too act as media watchdogs, but only to a higher standard than is seen on here.
This is a joke, right?
June 24, 2007 - 11:37 ET by dagdaShirley, you jest.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Who is shirley?
June 24, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Sir ThomasWho is shirley?
I suggest you'd be much happier with those 'standards', Sir...
June 24, 2007 - 11:40 ET by acaiguanaI suggest you'd be much happier with those 'standards', Sir Thomas.
Why don't you log off and go back to the world where people actually buy into your French amour.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Oh don't talk to me about the
June 24, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Sir ThomasOh don't talk to me about the French! I can't stand them! They opposed the war in Iraq - idiots! They have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, vastly superior to that of the US - idiots!
Now, now, Sir Thomas, take a deep breath.
June 24, 2007 - 11:51 ET by acaiguanaNow, now, Sir Thomas, take a deep breath.
Listen, I've actually got to go for a while. I might find time to stop back. It's been fun shooting into the fish barrel with you, though.
Dear sir, when George Soros stops funding Mediamatters.org, I might take some interest in their work. If Mediamatters.org were upfront about their Liberal Bias; as is Newsbusters upfront about its conservative Bias, and when Pigs Fly; then I'll consider that they have any standards.
We are pretty open here about our POV. We don't attack Don Imus for example with the goal of conflating that silly show with Conservative Talk Radio.
That's just an example.
But you keep on thinkin' Butch, that's what you seem to be good at.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
The stated aim of Mediamatter
June 24, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Sir ThomasThe stated aim of Mediamatters.org is to monitor conservative misinformation. Not a lot of clarity is lacking there.
Just passing by and saw this
June 24, 2007 - 18:18 ET by Del DolemonteJust passing by and saw this comment. As I see it, MediaMatters seems to get a lot of their "monitoring" wrong, as they have a permanent page at their website solely dedicated to "corrections".
http://mediamatters.org/corrections