Liberal Talk Radio’s Very Bad Week
Air America's rock-bottom ratings offer a valuable lesson: attempting to fill the left's void of ideas with F-words and ad hominem attacks will not fool the listeners for long.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
The important spring ratings period for radio is not exactly starting out with a bang for the already beleaguered liberal talk radio format. Millions of dollars have been poured into liberal talk networks by Democrat Party activists determined to create a supposed counterbalance to conservative talkers. However, despite these efforts to create a powerful new weapon in the liberal arsenal, both listeners and advertisers have turned away from even the most heavily promoted talk luminaries from the left. One of those highly visible giants of left-wing radio is now spending some time off the air for yet another one of her whacked-out rants.
Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes, who was recently named the 40th most important radio talk host in the country by Talkers Magazine, has been suspended by her network because of an F-word-filled tirade she directed at Senator Hillary Clinton during a public appearance for Air America affiliate KKGN in San Francisco on March 22. During her speech, Rhodes repeatedly called Clinton a “big f***ing whore” while the audience responded with a mix of cheers and jeers. She made a similar reference to former Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro, but added that Ferraro is “David Duke in drag.”
The program director for the station claimed that it was Rhodes’ first appearance in the market and he proudly noted that it was the biggest event that KKGN had ever held. Rhodes even signed about 500 autographs!
In a city as liberal as San Francisco, with a population of over 6 million people, that seems remarkably unimpressive. In fact, the appeal of Rhodes’ captivating liberalism, in what is likely the most liberal market in the country, is undeniable. She helped the Air America station to a 28th place finish for the most recent ratings period available! Yep, 28th place.
Air America has been rather cryptic about both the reasons for the suspension and how long it will actually last. In fact, it took nearly two weeks before they did anything about the comments at all. Ferraro has called for her to be fired. Hillary has not yet said anything about the intemperate remarks. Nor has Barack Obama, who was probably too busy working on his bowling game to spare any time for comments on Randi Rhodes’ gutter talk.
The bottom line is that liberal talk radio hosts are floundering, even in markets where there is a huge base of partisans who share their leftist ideology. It is failing because the failure to provide compelling and credible infotainment necessary to attract listeners and advertisers ultimately leads to financial bankruptcy. It is failing because the lack of a moral foundation in their world view leads directly to moral bankruptcy. And it is failing because hosts who rely solely upon the strength of their voices and how loud they can yell rather than the strength of their arguments and how clearly they can communicate lead inevitably to intellectual bankruptcy.
Critics of conservative talk radio often accuse the hosts of preaching from “talking points” because the analysis of political and policy matters is often similar. But the consistency of commentary that sometimes occurs is not traceable to some mysterious and widely dispersed “talking points.” Rather, it is a shared ideology — a belief in getting government out of the way, off our backs, and out of our pockets; a commitment to freedom, independence, and self-reliance as the best route to prosperity and property; an understanding that rights and responsibilities must go hand-in-hand; a recognition that a government founded on morality and pursuit of justice is preferable to one built on “anything goes” and special treatment; and a world view that America represents the best the world can offer, not the worst — that produces conservative analysis that can sometimes resemble an echo chamber.
Liberal theology, as expressed by left-wing talk hosts, has no apparent ideological consistency. Groups that are linked only by their hatred of President Bush don’t really share a commonality of thought or policy goals. That is the real problem for liberals/Democrats. A coalition of those who support the unlimited and unrestricted abortion of unborn children, labor union activists, gay and lesbian groups that oppose traditional marriage, open-border proponents who see illegal immigrants as political and economic pawns to be played on the national chessboard, race-oriented activists, gender-oriented activists, conservative southern Democrats who remain linked to the party simply because “great-granddaddy” was a Democrat, the Code Pink crowd that wants America to retreat and cower in the face of terror, and all the other constituencies that make up the unholy alliance that has become the modern day Democratic Party is not a coalition of conscience. The only common link is a desire for political power.
As the Democrats discovered upon gaining control of the House and Senate, promises made to hold these diverse and often contradictory constituencies together during the election season have a way of dissolving into infighting and disarray once delivery on the campaign promises comes due.
The same problem plagues liberal talk radio. Telling everybody what they want to hear doesn’t work very well, or withstand even basic scrutiny, when critical thinking and open phones intrude. Inconsistency in thought and deed becomes obvious when exposed to the light of day — or night, depending on the day part.
The mainstream media has been a powerful and reliable ally for the left as it thrived in monologue form — whether in print or in the network news format. But cable news outlets, the internet, talk radio, and other forms of “new media” have brought dialogue into the process — and exposed the fault lines that lie beneath the foundations of “liberal thought”. In the increasingly competitive arena of ideas, those who talk the talk must be able to walk the walk with some level of ideological consistency. Attempting to fill the left’s void of ideas with F-words and ad hominem attacks cannot disguise that void and it will not fool the listeners for long — even in San Francisco.
Steve Gill is a statewide Tennessee radio talk host and political analyst. His website is www.gillreport.com.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
45 Comments
Steve:The biggest flaw in liberals’ attempt at talk radio is filling a need that isn’t there. Who needs talk radio to provide a liberal view on issues when you can get that anytime by turning on the TV or picking up a newspaper. Conservative talk radio came about because people weren’t getting that prespective so Rush and company filled that demand.
Apr 9, 2008 - 5:01 am Boris:Liberals don’t listen to idiots like Randi Rhodes because it is clear she is an idiot. Now, why do so many conservatives listen to idiots like Michael Savage?
Apr 9, 2008 - 6:02 am Boris:So, liberals do not respond to the junk arguments from their side. But conservatives certainly do. Michael Savage has excellent ratings, and he says crazy things all the time. And of course, Ann Coulter. Steve Gill endorses Coulter. Why do you conservatives support the flame throwing, ad hominem type arguments when liberals do not? What does this say about your movement and its putative morality?
Apr 9, 2008 - 6:07 am peter:Boris, are you able to see things from another person’s point of view? Is it impossible that Savage is not considered an “idiot” by other people? If libs would stop being such religious fundamentalists they may come up with an interesting and entertaining radio talk show host.
Apr 9, 2008 - 6:34 am Saltherring:The paragraph in the above article that begins with “Liberal theology” speaks volumes of the deep divide in the Democrat Party. Obama and Hellary represent two of the largest factions (government-dependent blacks and radical feminists) of the party, with both factions experiencing their first real shot at the untimate prize. Inner-city, welfare-dependent blacks are peeing their pants in anticipation of the free stuff Obama will provide, courtesy of massive tax increases. And graying soccer-grandmas can’t wait for Hellary to surrender in Iraq, pack the supreme with Emily’s List-approved judges and kick their respective ex-husbands in the teeth, and all this before noon of her first day in office!
Seriously, there are deep ravines in the loose confederacy that is the Democrat Party, and many of them don’t much like the others. I guess it’s that way when you’re cutting up a pie bought with someone elses money. The one doing the cutting not only holds the knife, they always always get the biggest piece.
Apr 9, 2008 - 6:36 am Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg:Because, Boris, even liberal recognize how ridiculous their own arguments are. Held up to the light of day, a drunken Randi Rhodes rant just makes people sad. I don’t know that conservatives actually agree with Mike Savage or Ann Coulter, but at least they’re entertaining and make people laugh.
Take Coulter’s recent endorsement of Hillary, for example; it’s hysterical. The left could never do that. The only thing people get from the left is “[insert name here] is a f**king fascist!!!” and “hey-hey, ho-ho, [blah, blah, blah] has got to go…”. Christ, give it a rest, already. It’s like listening to a three-hour Castro speech on the virtues of nationalized healthcare. *Ugggg*
“What does this say about your movement and its putative morality?” Boris, it tells that conservatives can take a step back and laugh at themselves. Liberals want so desperately to be taken seriously it’s painful to watch. Oh yeah, and you need a new thesaurus.
Apr 9, 2008 - 7:01 am Boris:Try reading my post again, peter. My whole point was the difference in point of view. Rhodes says stupid, outrageous things and is generally unpopular and sanctioned by liberals. Savage says stupid and outrageous things and is generally admired and respected by a great number of conservatives. Ditto Coulter.
Apr 9, 2008 - 7:08 am Jack in AZ:I find it best to bring the extreme arguments from both sides down to the scenario of one on one conversation, sitting across the table and both sides relaxed, perhaps drinking a cup of coffee. The conversation remains between the two parties involved. I, like many Americans, have a set of core beliefs that I do not wavier from. Much of the rhetoric of todays arguments gets caught up in impressing or catching the attention of the public by taking extreme positions. When in the course of our great history has increased government intervention improved the life of independent, free thinking Americans? When has ending the life of an unborn baby brought happiness to the life of a young couple that has been waiting for years to provide a home for a child? When has abandoning a fledgling nation that has a chance at freedom brought added security to a greater nation that has more freedoms than anyone on the planet? When has someone other than yourself done a better job at spending your money in the ways that bring the most security to your family? And finally, when has trying to make your case been influential by only pointing out the weakness of mine? I grew up with one simple principal and that if if I am not part of the solution….I remain only part of the problem!
Apr 9, 2008 - 7:23 am John the Libertarian:Boris, you make a valid point. Coulter says some brutal things to get attention and sell more of her books, but somehow she’s figured out how to take it to the edge and yet not go over. She gets away with it because many conservatives do have a sense of humor and recognize that while opportunistic, her satire can be wickedly and deliciously funny. Rhodes just isn’t funny in my humble opinion. She seems angry to the point of needing medication. Savage? Don’t care for him one bit. But then, shouldn’t we really be comparing Rhodes to the big guns of Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Prager, etc.? Personally one of my faves is Dennis Miller. Now that guy has a sharp sense of humor.
Apr 9, 2008 - 8:33 am AJ:“Liberal” talk radio:
All hatred all the time.
And it’s not liberal. “Liberal” means tolerant and open minded. These people are leftists to the core.
And the other reason it fails is because, unlike in print media, nightly news or academia, where you can arrogantly lie and have no one to call you on it, you need FACTS on talk radio. That’s why conservative radio works. Facts are on the Right side.
Randi Rhodes should be a in jail. A thoroughly detestable and dangerous woman.
Apr 9, 2008 - 8:34 am Hotpatch 6:How many failed attempts have liberals made over the years to get their message out via talk radio? There is obviously something wrong with the message if it constantly fails, even after numerous and well-financed attempts. For some reason, the conservative message has experienced a long-term success. Gee, I wonder why!!
Apr 9, 2008 - 8:48 am Chris:Steve,
Apr 9, 2008 - 8:50 am Steve Gill:Nice post. I have one nit to pick regarding SF. The population of the city is roughly 800,000. The Bay Area is around 7 million. Living here and enduring the tolerance from the Left is an eye-opener.
The population count for radio ratings for SF incorporates the Bay Area figure of 7 million, that is why I used the higher number since that is what the event was actually drawing from.
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:00 am G-whiz:Boris, like it or not, liberal socialism doesn’t work. Oh sure, in times of abundance 45-49% of Americans will freely and gladly stand in line for a handout from the government. In times of abundance, liberals love to be told by their political Imams that they need to be more compassionate by paying more taxes and “take from the rich.”
In times of abundance, intellectual elites, socialist politicians and the liberal media pontificate on class warfare with a good dose of racial and gender inequality thrown in. So here is the problem Boris… liberal socialism is NOT self-sufficient. Liberal socialism is a self-indulgent luxury built on the backs of hard working Americans with a drive and desire to create wealth, create industry, create jobs, create innovations, create new technology and in the process create all that is great about the American free enterprise system.
Liberal socialism is a tick, a parasite that dries up and falls aways when the so called “rich” are taxed and regulated with the mandates of socialism until they can no longer create the very abundance that a socialst tick needs to survive. Boris, have you ever read the biography of a “rich” person? They work hard Boris! Read about Milton Hershey (chocolate), J.C. Penny (retail), F.W. Woolworth (retail), Ray Kroc (McDonald’s)and the literally millions of common, everyday, good people that have given socialists a free ride for the past 200 years in America.
Liberal socialism is inherently self-limiting. Remember the collapse of the U.S.S.R? When the money dried up (misappropriated)… POOF!… socialism suddenly didn’t work anymore. Boris, do you think China became the biggest capitalist on the planet because communism was working like a charm? Look at North Korea, now there’s a thriving communist/socialist model of efficiency, compassion and freedom. Boris, do you think Hugo Chavez is going to finally make the Castro model of socialism work?
Which brings me to your answer of why even Michael Savage and Ann Coulter with all of their bombastic ways are recieved by the majority of conservatives. It’s their pro-American, pro-individual, pro-free enterprise, pro-competition, anti-socialism, anti-fascism, anti-liberalism core beliefs that are stated so clearly by the author of this article.
“…it is a shared ideology — a belief in getting government out of the way, off our backs, and out of our pockets; a commitment to freedom, independence, and self-reliance as the best route to prosperity and property; an understanding that rights and responsibilities must go hand-in-hand; a recognition that a government founded on morality and pursuit of justice is preferable to one built on “anything goes” and special treatment; and a world view that America represents the best the world can offer, not the worst — that produces conservative analysis that can sometimes resemble an echo chamber.”
The very “echo chamber” that includes Savage and Coulter, along with millions of hard working, talented, entrepreneurs that get labeled as “rich, evil, capatilists” to further the religion of the left. Liberal socialism is a parasite… and when it finally crushes our economy with unreasonable taxation, burdensome regulation and stifling government control, conservative ideals will suddenly seem pragmatic and indeed constructive in the rebuilding process.
Therefore, Boris, you should give up all hope of your socialist religion sustaining itself and come to the light of conservtive thinking where you can be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Come on over… we’ll give you a hug!
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:14 am Boris:G-Whiz,
So, you feel that conservatives don’t mind people being outrageous and idiotic because they agree with them in core values?
Wouldn’t the liberals also agree with the likes of Randi Rhodes in core values?
Your explanation makes no sense to me.
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:39 am Teri Pittman:Boris,
You miss the point again. Ranting and calling someone names is not the same as having values. The Left no longer talks about the things they believe in. They only serve up an unrational hatred of those they disagree with. It sounds as though you’ve never bothered to listen to Michael Savage. He’s just one of those names of people that are bitched about in places like DailyKos. You might try getting out a bit more and maybe listen and read the opposing point of view for a change.
Apr 9, 2008 - 10:24 am G-whiz:Boris, my clear explanation makes no sense because you don’t want it to make sense. Take your so called tolerant, highly self-aware, liberal mind, pry off the padlock and read the conservative core values again. I make the case that liberals don’t have positive core values and are at best lazy and at worst parasites.
This is why your philosophy is more religion than logic, more feelings than foundation. I’ll prove my point. Please respond by listing the top ten distinct core values that make liberal socialism a positive global force. By their very definition, they must be values that conservatives don’t subscribe to. Good luck! I’ve listed many of mine as they were outlined by the author of this article.
Secondly, your attempt to define conservative core values as “outrageous and idiotic” only proves that you are not “liberal” and therefore, open to understanding outside of your dogma. Simply because you cannot make the distinction between someone (Savage and Coulter) that are at times outrageous (Coulter) and idiotic (Savage) doesn’t mean that conservatives can’t. We are very capable of understanding the outrageous and idiotic that may come out of the mouth of another conservative. Try this… sometimes we even laugh! But that doesn’t change the fact that liberal socialism is a parasitic enterprise and conservative governance is a positive human force. Always has been and always will be.
I can’t wait to read your top ten list of DISTINCTLY liberal core values that are changing the world for the better. Now resist the temptation to hijack ours and come up with your own. Hint: This is an open book exercise.
Apr 9, 2008 - 10:27 am Boris:Come on guys, this is just stupid. The left has different values from you. That does not mean they have no values. Do you actually believe this stuff?
Where did I say that core conservative values were “outrageous and idiotic”? Please read more carefully.
Apr 9, 2008 - 10:58 am Bill Perron:I have really enjoyed the back and forth of Boris and the conservatives, it is healthy and positive. Thank you all, Sincerely, Bill Perron …….. p.s. leberalism is doomed because it has no moral compass, just look at Rhodesia today, liberals steal from the productive people and give to the bums, then lie about it. To paraphrase Hillary “we just have a different memory ” and the operative word is definitely “different”.
Apr 9, 2008 - 11:42 am Ken:Ever notice how every time you ask a liberal to define their core values, they change the subject?
Apr 9, 2008 - 11:48 am Boris:Ken,
The discussion of core values is itself a distraction. But, to supply you with an answer, here are the things I believe strongly in. I consider myself liberal, but I generally dislike these political labels. Other liberals might disagree. I’ll also try to give a concrete policy example to show how I think these values should be implemented in government.
I believe in equality, fairness, kindness, responsibility, freedom, honesty, compassion.
Equality: I think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Fairness: Taxes should be distributed based on one’s ability to pay. If you have more disposable income, it seems fair that you should pay more in taxes.
Kindness: We should only go to war when absolutely necessary. We should not sanction torture.
Responsibility: We should take care of our environment in a responsible way. We should regulate corporations so that they care for the environment and preserve whenever possible.
Freedom: The government should only eavesdrop on tis citizens with good reason, as prescribed by the 4th amendment. Checks and balances should be maintained to protect the rights of the citizens.
Honesty: Goes without saying. I’ll be the first to admit that politicians of both stripes do not live up to this value.
Compassion: The government should provide health care for its citizens. No one should be denied standard health care because of inability to pay.
I’m sure there will be plenty to say on my interpretations of these values, but that’s really where the differences are. I don’t believe that conservatives are inherently dishonest, for example. I do believe that ideology can blind people to the facts–and this is true of liberals as well.
I’m probably forgetting something, so don’t consider this complete. YMMV.
Apr 9, 2008 - 12:29 pm G-whiz:Boris said: “So, you feel that conservatives don’t mind people being outrageous and idiotic because they agree with them in core values?”
After you read my (lengthy) conservative opinion this is the only conclusion you could come up with? This is intellectually weak, which is a hallmark of liberal socialism. You’re not doing very well defending it here today.
I rest my case regarding your core values! You stand convicted of not being readily able (a paragraph or two) to make a list of what you believe at the core of your liberalism that is positive. We know what we believe and we know what you believe. Once you come to terms with the fact that you don’t have core values and you base your fundamental belief on “feelings” you will understand why you and your liberal friends are such whiney, critical, blamers and takers. This is not meant to be hurtful or mean this is simply an ongoing observation.
I’ll give you one more chance if you want it. Jot ‘em down! What are your liberal core values that are distinctly different from conservative values and have a positive global influence?
Hint: Take the conservative core values published by the author of this article, that we hold dear, and state the opposite position (I’m making this way to easy for you). Now ask yourself which ones are a positive global force and put them in writing so we can all have a look.
Once you have the epiphany that your “feelings” are mostly negative and counterproductive to healthy, positive individual rights, we’ll still be there to give you a hug. Come on now, jump RIGHT in!
Apr 9, 2008 - 12:43 pm Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg:“Fairness: Taxes should be distributed based on one’s ability to pay. If you have more disposable income, it seems fair that you should pay more in taxes.”
Apr 9, 2008 - 1:38 pm Ken:They DO, Boris. The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay over 60% of all taxes. The poorest 20% pay none at all.
“Kindness: We should only go to war when absolutely necessary. We should not sanction torture.” Kindness?!? More like gag-licious hand-wringing.
“Freedom: The government should only eavesdrop on its citizens with good reason…”
It DOES, Boris. There is no more fundamental responsibility of the government than to provide for our collective defense.
“Honesty:” Blah. Throw some more softballs, Boris. Is suppose you like puppies & sunny days, too?
“Compassion: The government should provide health care for its citizens. No one should be denied standard health care because of inability to pay.”
No one is denied health care due based upon ability to pay. Show me any emergency room in the nation that turns people away at the door. As for the supposed 40 million without insurance: well gosh, ~20 million of those are presumably our illegal immigrant population, and the other 20 million are likely students and young people (mostly healthy) who don’t want to pay for healthcare in the first place. If Hillary mandates it Americans to pay, the government will just have to subsidize it anyway.
Boris - Thanks for answering the question about values. That gives us a better basis for a reasoned discussion. I’d like to address some of your statements.
“The discussion of core values is itself a distraction”
I could not disagree more. On the contrary, I believe core values are the moral foundation that allow us to make consistent moral decisions.
“I believe in equality, fairness, kindness, responsibility, freedom, honesty, compassion.”
Who doesn’t. The difference is in how one defines these concepts. What is “fair” to one may be manifestly unfair to another.
“Taxes should be distributed based on one’s ability to pay.”
The highest income earners in this country already pay the vast majority of the taxes, and the lowest income earners pay none.
“Honesty: … I’ll be the first to admit that politicians of both stripes do not live up to this value.”
Sadly, I must agree with you. The attractions of power are irresistible to some of the most unsavory among us, and politics can corrupt even those with noble ideals. We must be truly thankful for principled people willing to plunge into the morass. However, we people do have a propensity to ignore the evils of those who are on “our side” and magnify those on the “other”.
“The government should provide health care for its citizens. No one should be denied standard health care because of inability to pay.”
I can agree with the second sentence in principle, but vehemently disagree that government is the answer. With all our problems, our health care system is still the envy of the world. Just ask all the Canadians driving over the border for care that just isn’t available in their government-run system. Get the government involved and you’ll see skyrocketing costs, long waits, and rampant inefficiency and corruption just like you have in every other government bureaucracy.
I think the real problem with health care is the insurance industry, which is badly in need of reform. I’m experiencing this first-hand as a self-employed person trying to get good health insurance for my family. I’m very healthy and in good shape. I bicycle around 2000 miles a year. Yet I and my baby daughter have been rejected for coverage for the most minor reasons, like actually taking medication or going for checkups.
If the government took over healthcare I might be able to get coverage, but if I came down with some serious disease I might die waiting for treatment, or the treatment I need might not even exist because it’s been regulated out of existence by overzealous bureaucrats.
It’s a very complex problem defying easy solutions, but I think the root of it was taking the medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and giving too much of it to bureaucrats in the insurance companies. Perhaps if every citizen got health care vouchers that they could spend on health care as they see fit, you would encourage more competition and efficiency in the industry. As it stands now, patients don’t know or care how much something costs, as long as the insurance company pays for it.
Apr 9, 2008 - 1:39 pm leftbehind:G-Whiz, leave Boris alone. He is cut from a different, albeit corrupted cloth. We don’t need to convert and embrace these people, just defeat them in the cultural arena. I do not say that out of hatred for them, as most of my friends are among them. They just need to be kept out of power.
Apr 9, 2008 - 1:52 pm Ken:And I might add that the insurance company doesn’t care about the quality of care, only the cost. The only one who cares about _both_ quality and price is the patient. And they are the ones least in control of it in the current system.
Apr 9, 2008 - 2:08 pm Boris:snoop,
I said “standard care.” What I meant was, regular checkups and physicals. It will be cheaper to treat diseases early rather than late. People without health coverage only go to the doctor when they are sick–and sometimes not even then. We can save a lot of money by catching things like hypertension before they turn into an emergency.
Ken,
You make some good points. I understand the dangers of government bureaucracy but, as you note, we already have a bureaucracy of insurance companies. One reason we don’t have to wait as much is that there are a lot of people who can’t afford to see doctors they need at all. I’m willing to wait my turn so that everyone can have one.
I think we can all agree that the government should do things more efficiently. FEMA was a disaster and it was not all George Bush’s fault.
Apr 9, 2008 - 2:14 pm G-whiz:Boris said: “The discussion of core values is itself a distraction.”
Core values are not a distraction Boris… they are what separate us from primates.
“I believe in equality, fairness, kindness, responsibility, freedom, honesty, compassion.”
Sounds like you’re a conservative, Boris. These are the same things we believe in. Stick with us, we’ll get you on track!
“Equality: I think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.”
Sure, I understand they love each other, I love my dog too but I don’t want to marry her. The transcendent value of marriage has been between a woman and a man. Have a civil union and let it be. But, homosexuals couldn’t stop there they have to make it “homophobic” and politically dangerous to disagree with their lifestyle and radical agenda. Tell ‘em to back off the militancy and desire to teach their (questionable) lifestyle K-12 in PUBLIC schools so we can all get along. Geeeez!
“Fairness: Taxes should be distributed based on one’s ability to pay. If you have more disposable income, it seems fair that you should pay more in taxes.”
Sounds good huh Boris? Except you forget that all the “evil capitalists” that make all the money and therefore have a greater ability to pay also create all the jobs and innovations in industry. So do we raise their taxes and send the money to the govt. so the govt. can create those jobs and innovations? It is interesting that your example of fairness is redistribution of wealth from those that worked their tail off to create it and give it to someone that could get real comfortable with a handout from the big fat liberal feeding trough. We won’t even get into the disturbing psychology created by a “get something for nothing socialist, entitlement society.” Ben Franklin said “Make poverty uncomfortable!” What you advocate is a logical fallacy.
“Kindness: We should only go to war when absolutely necessary. We should not sanction torture.”
This is exactly what conservatives believe too! You think you’ve got a monopoly on this? Your liberal talking heads have painted GW into some kind of sick box that makes him out to be a war criminal. Do you know he has personally met with EVERY family of a fallen soldier and cried with them over their terrible loss? Do your friends talk about GW’s kindness? Nobody likes war or torture! Nobody! Responding to global terrorism after 3000+ innocent CIVILIAN Americans were killed is the toughest decision of the last 75 years. Guess what Boris, this might be breaking news to you, NOBODY in his right mind wants war! If you think GW & Dick Cheney find pleasure in this your drinkin’ too much liberal Kool-aid. Evil people start war, good people defeat them, since the begining of civilization
“Responsibility: We should take care of our environment in a responsible way. We should regulate corporations so that they care for the environment and preserve whenever possible.”
Yea, so what’s different about this? This is exactly what conservatives believe too. Except we think govt. doesn’t have to do our thinking for us. We can be good environmental stewards at the local, municipal, county and state level without having the Feds take our tax dollars, steal 70% for “administration” and send 30% back to us so we can manage our affairs. Regulation needs to be regulated.
“Freedom: The government should only eavesdrop on its citizens with good reason, as prescribed by the 4th amendment. Checks and balances should be maintained to protect the rights of the citizens.”
Once again, this is not just a liberal belief. This is a conservative core value as well. During a time of war we do not ask that the constitution be swept away lock, stock and barrel, but we do offer our military, FBI & CIA legislative latitude to defeat the bad guys. Remember them?
“Honesty: Goes without saying. I’ll be the first to admit that politicians of both stripes do not live up to this value.”
Once again this is a conservative core value.
Compassion: The government should provide health care for its citizens. No one should be denied standard health care because of inability to pay.
Boris, Boris, Boris – too much Kool-aid brother! NO ONE, NO ONE, is refused medical treatment in the United States of America for an inability to pay – that is the law in case you didn’t know it. Here’s the problem with taking more of my hard earned money to pay for health insurance for someone who doesn’t have it. #1) How many illegal aliens will be given health insurance – approximately 20 million of the 43 million the libs say don’t have it. Why reward illegal behavior? This is not compassionate for all of those who came here legally, including my family 150 years ago. I work in healthcare and all of the FREE care we give now is bankrupting our system and driving up costs.
Here’s some compassion for you. There are over 4000 clinical studies in the current medical literature that clearly describe the health benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables. It is an irrefutable, scientific fact that eating 7-13 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, everyday, can reduce the risk of: Heart disease 40-60%, Stroke 50-60%, Hypertension 50-60%, Cancer 40-70%, Macular Degeneration 40-50%, Oxidative Stress/Inflammation 50-70%, Osteo-Arthritis 30-50% and this only scratches the surface. Grow a garden, eat your fruits and vegetables, stop smoking, exercise a little and stop sucking money out of my paycheck. That would fix 50% of the sickness and disease caused by unhealthy BEHAVIOR!
So why should I pay for health insurance for someone that doesn’t want to PREVENT sickness and disease in the first place? We don’t have a healthcare crisis in America, we have a disease prevention crisis! If the feds want to have a discussion on creating a sickness and disease prevention initiative that is comprehensive and addresses the poison that is in many of the foods we are sold that is some compassion this conservative could get behind.
Hillary and Barack want to create another massive govt. bureaucracy that would rival only the Dept. of Education in total budget, poor outcomes and waste. Why is there a so called “healthcare crisis” in America? To facilitate liberal socialists seizing more power over the individual, plain and simple. Remember the “Golden Rule” of govt. - “He who has the gold, rules!” Hillary and Obama are socialists that understand this rule.
Boris, your most of the way to being a conservative, you just need to increase your knowledge base and quit believing the best last thing you heard from the liberal media and socialist politicians.
Apr 9, 2008 - 2:24 pm G-whiz:Ken - well said!
Apr 9, 2008 - 2:30 pm Larry J:Fairness: Taxes should be distributed based on one’s ability to pay. If you have more disposable income, it seems fair that you should pay more in taxes.
Those with more income do pay more in taxes. The only way that wouldn’t be the case is if the taxes were flat and on a per-capita basis (everyone pays the same taxes regardless of income). That just isn’t the case. However, there’s nothing “fair” about expecting people with higher incomes to pay higher tax RATES, which is the very definition of the so-called “progressive tax system.”
Kindness: We should only go to war when absolutely necessary. We should not sanction torture.
We don’t go to war lightly. As for torture, my uncle Paul was a POW in Korea for 30 months. He endured severe physical and psychological torture. Nothing America has done in this war even remotely compares to what he endured. Making someone uncomfortable is hardly torture.
Now, here’s a question for you. So many Democrat politicians talk about middle class tax cuts and the like. What income range would you use to define middle class? Actual numbers (instead of hand-waving) would be greatly appreciated.
Apr 9, 2008 - 2:31 pm Ken:My point about health care is that bureaucracies, while sometimes necessary, are almost universally corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable. But while I despise the health insurance bureaucracy, I understand that there is a certain degree of accountability there as private businesses with policyholders and regulators to keep happy that would be absent if the government ran the thing. They would be like the insurance companies on steroids.
In short, while I don’t like an insurance company employee making health care decisions that affect me and my family, I’d rather have them than some burned-out, apathetic civil service bureaucrat who can never be fired.
Apr 9, 2008 - 2:47 pm G-whiz:Boris - Thanks for a lively discussion! I was glad to see that we agree on all of the values you put forth. You can see that the practical application of those values is important to conservatives as well. We care deeply about the future of this great country as I’m sure you do as well.
Apr 9, 2008 - 4:30 pm Ken:Boris, while we may disagree on many issues, I respect a liberal who does not instantly degenerate into namecalling, ad-hominem attacks and the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt, the scurrilous Nazi comparison.
Your comparison of a future health care bureaucracy to our recent experience with FEMA is apt. There’s no reason to think that a “National Health Administration” would be any better. You could change the acronym to any of a dozen other agencies and make the same comparison.
And thanks for not falling into the habit of many of your compatriots by lapsing into wild conspiracies about Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/etc. wanting to kill black people by abandoning them in the face of a hurricane. If anything, I think Katrina illustrated the utter failure of government bureaucracy, local, state, and federal, Republican and Democrat to meet peoples’ needs. They are structurally incapable of doing so.
Apr 9, 2008 - 5:22 pm Tom W.:I’m probably the only person here’s who’s lived and worked in a socialist country: Norway.
In Norway, people pay–and pay and pay and pay–their taxes. As an 18-year-old working on a shore-support base for North Sea oil platforms, I paid 45% of my income in taxes.
The health care I got in return was so horrible–six-month waiting lists for X-rays, prescriptions required for aspirin, medical technology decades behind the U.S.–that I illegally went to doctors and paid them cash on the black market.
The “physical” I took for my driver’s license consisted of sitting in a chair, lifting my legs, and having the doctor grip my ankles while I made bicycle-peddling motions. What was the point? Dunno. But the government required it.
In Norway the government provided booze and free housing for alcoholics, two of whom mugged me one day. I paid for the experience, basically. If it weren’t for my taxes, they wouldn’t have been there to mug me.
For entertainment, my friends and I would go to the train station and watch the glue sniffers vomit and cavort. Every Norwegian I knew was a heavy drinker, and almost every single one would go on long anti-government rants when he or she was drunk.
It’s no accident that there are almost as many Norwegians living in the U.S. as in Norway. They love their country, but the ones who live here appreciate the freedom they have.
Freedom from the sort of existence people like Boris want to force on us.
Apr 9, 2008 - 5:46 pm Ken:Excellent example, Tom. I’ve heard numerous examples from other countries. For instance in Great Britain, I’ve heard it said that artificially scarce health care resources are focused on the young at the expense of the old, who are made to wait increasing long for treatment as they age.
You can be sure that if someone gets serious about cramming this down our throats in the US, the media will ignore all of the numerous examples of failure everywhere this has been tried.
Apr 9, 2008 - 6:17 pm Webutante:Great piece, Steve. You hit the nail on the head about the fundamental shared idealogies of the right.
Apr 9, 2008 - 7:26 pm G-whiz:Tom W. - Thanks for the revealing comments on socialism in Norway. I wish every liberal socialist in American media and politics would spend 2 years minimum living with the socialism they so desperately desire. Not as a politician in power but as a consumer on the streets. There are examples too numerous to list(Ken outlined others) of the corruption and despair that socialism brings with it. Socialism is the biggest failure in social engineering the world has ever seen.
I work in orthopaedic spine surgery and I will tell you firsthand that we have the best doctors, surgeons, nurses, hospitals, and technology in the world. Ken mentioned in his previous post some key issues that raise our healthcare costs through the roof and over-burden our system.
If the govt. wants to get involved in healthcare they should start by securing our borders. Illegal aliens abuse our emergency rooms as their primary care (standard care for Boris) and are bankrupting hospitals across America. 45 hospitals went out of business last year in the state of California alone.
Sedondly, the abusers that Ken mentioned, those that use their health insurance because “someone else is paying for it” drive costs sky high too. Lastly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published the clinical data that confirms over 40% of all chronic sickness leading to premature death could be PREVENTED! They say, improve your nutrition by eating 5 or more fruits and vegetables everyday, stop smoking, limit alcohol to 2 drinks or less per day and cut overall sickness and disease almost in half. We don’t have a healthcare crisis in America, we have a disease prevention crisis plain and simple.
I see them everyday, morbidly obese, chronically sick, smokers and excessive drinkers that get treatment or surgery and don’t get well. They have zero motivation since Medicaid or Medicare(that’s Free Healthcare for Boris) is paying for it. With socialized medicine as Tom W. described these people will NOT recieve care because their BEHAVIOR has created co-morbidities that put them outside the parameters for “pre-determined” quailty of life outcomes… they will simply be left to die. So maybe some liberal socialist can tell me if this is the compassion they have in mind as they plunder our pay checks for taxes or will they be honest and tell us its all about the power and control (I’m not holding my breath).
This post started under the banner of “Liberal Radio’s Very Bad Week.” There is a reason liberal talk radio is a failure. Because on radio you can’t distort the facts day after day, week after week, month after month like you can in print media or mainstream news. The dialogue with real Americans won’t allow it.
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:00 pm Thomas H. Aaron:Liberal Radio fails because:
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:37 pm CV66:1) There is no content. Air America is very light on intellectual engagement, and in an AM world with no flair it does not provide anything of value to its listeners.
2) It’s depressing. The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck talk about the greatness of America and the infinite, unrealized potential that exists in all of us. Air America constantly reminds of how rotten of a country we live in.
3) It’s not funny. Rush Limbaugh proudly admits he is an entertainer. No one, from left to right can deny that Rush is a riot! If conservatives wanted policy, they would listen to CSPAN play Heritage foundation speeches. Rush makes his audience laugh every day.
About the inflated cost of medical coverage: We need real tort reform, and leading Democrats like John Edwards block it at every possible opportunity! Exorbant malpractice insurance fees logically drive up costs of healthcare needlessly, and sueing doctors into bankruptcy by John Edwards and his ilk is not the answer to solving anything. Adding a new government bureaucracy, or increasing the current disaster will only exacerbate the problem.
Apr 11, 2008 - 8:36 am Justin:To who ever said that the Libs chide and shun their own when they say foolish things, they need to keep in mind that they are only doing so when one Left Winger turns on another. They have been making ludicrous claims, wild conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence, and have been screaming at the top of their lungs for practically forever. They are only upset when they see their people treating each other that way.
Apr 13, 2008 - 2:55 pm Boston Patriot:Amen and well said. I am NO FAN whatsoever of liberals, including Hillary Clinton and/or Geraldine Ferraro. However, I am offended and horrified on their behalf at the course, unrefined, and ill-bred behavior of Ms. Rhodes. It is gratifying to watch the left implode on all levels.
Apr 15, 2008 - 7:38 pm liberalman:I am a liberal..not because I am not conservative,,,this is not my original writing but it explains much,,credit to Critter…I am liberal because I have a core set of values that guide my position on many issues,that try to unife my world view,,to elaborate..”I believe that I am an individual who lives in cooperation and as part of a social contract with a larger community. I believe that I have responsibility to help those less furtunate than myself,,I believe that the reason people come together in a society is in order to better their collective interests,,,I believe that a society is only as just as it’s treatment of its most disadvantaged members..I beleive that education and the learning of truths is the basis of all social devolpment….I believe that while a level playing field is a fine sounding ideal, it is not reality,,,I believe that those who benefit the most from social structures, owes the most in return to society…I believe no one gets where they are alone….I believe we are stewards, not owners, or masters, of the world or nature,,,I believe that by protecting the freedoms of others, we best protect them for ourselves..and that those that care less for others, and more to themselves will always attempt to curtail freedoms, and consolidate wealth through the use of fear, hatred, and ignorance. Being a liberal does not mean I am controlled by my emotions , rather than by logic,,and I try to have a balance of the two …many have questioned the liberal postions…I would like someone to define just what is a Conservative? What is more important to them , defending the symbols of America or defending what America is supposed to symbolize?
Apr 16, 2008 - 7:54 pm velcrofav:I just want to say that I have really enjoyed hearing everyone’s points of view. Of course, I’m pretty sure everyone was saying the exact same thing when comes to HUMAN values we would like out of our society. The only two things that bothered me about this debate were the stances on sexual orientation and abortion from the conservative side. G-Whiz, I really wish you would have spent a little more time defining what you meant about marriage being only for male-female combos. I don’t understand the difference between same sex couples and straight couples, especially when it come to government or laws for that matter. I mean is there some kind of sexist idealogy in there that I missed? As in marriage works because a man is a MAN and a woman is a woman (know your role!!-kinda stuff)??
Now the abortion thing is trickier b/c of religion and sterile couples and for that matter gay couples… and in believing control only comes from abstinence. But as a conservative with HUMAN values that include getting the government out of your pocket does that not also translate into having control over your own body? Honestly, I have not made up my mind on how I feel about this issue, but I do know that I would like the choice to be mine. Just think of it this way: there would be less babies out there to use up medicare and feed off the system the conservatives worked soooo hard for. Less women out there eating up our tax dollars with prenatal care.
HA! not only that but the abortion clinic also provide more jobs which contributes overall to the conservative style of economy. We all have a part to play, and dead weight only drags us down. So maybe it’s time we embraced both sides of Human values: logic and emotion.
What are we when we act upon a carefully (LOGICALLY) thought out plan? That’s right we are happy. And guess what that is: that’s right kids EMOTION. They are meant to go hand in hand; together. That is why we have both. I think liberals would probably be absolutely fine with the conservatives in power if they would respect everyones choice in partners. Gayness doesnt hurt anyone. The reactions to gayness do. Especially the feelings of gay people everywhere who are being told that their love isn’t allowed. Loving your dog (which is a DIFFERENT species, which you can’t communicate with properly) is different. My heart breaks in the thought of not being able to marry boyfriend one day (don’t worry conservatives, I’m a girl)…(and by boyfriend I meant, he’s a boy).
To sum up my fore mentioned thoughts. I believe conservatives have the right idea, and I really love how logically thorough they are, but you must really try to see the world thru the eyes of a non-religious person, whom makes up a great deal of society. So that you may see that the hated directed toward your party comes from the hated you place on people who are different than yourselves in lifestyle. The thing is, gayness is not a drug it is exactly the same thing as straightness. It would be interesting to see what your party would get if you could just give a little bit.
Aug 26, 2008 - 1:25 am