Political Punch

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Clark Howard are members of The Ronald Reagan Republican Swift Boat Gestapo Nazi Hate Radio: Lies, Hate and Greed. All are graduates os Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism at Adolf Hitler University.
Certainly the smears, slurs and Poisonous Vitriol spit at Harry Read during his Mr. Tapper's Republican Swift Boat Gestapo "interview" only proves he doesn't tell the truth and the serves his master race.
Once there was journalism in this country when people like Edward R. Murrow was around.
Now we have Nazis like John Stossel, Chip Reid and Mr. Tapper whose only job is to lie so war profiteers can steal money.
You are human filth and a liar.

Personally I see no need for a congressional decrees to change "Talk Radio."

We have main stream television news programs that have shown to be more liberal than conservative. Then we have talk raido. I have a brain. I gather information from a number of different sources. I do not need one network providing two sides of one issue. I have a hand that can tune into many different avenues to get the "big picture."

I do tend to lean toward a more conservative process. More just right to center than hard right... So I can also see how re-starting the "faireness" doctrine could actually improve things... as the hard left, is more sociallist in nature.... It would only bring out this fact more plainly than current news agencies currently show.

jot314 - you are right about tv, but i listen to the radio while i work, that is probably where the majority listen

Is no one working or is everyone watching TV and listening to the radio?
When I was working a 40 hr week, I was so tired, I bearly had time to watch TV or listen to radio..........Oh, well, those were the good days, when Americans had well paying jobs.

So, just when so many on here were scoffing that Mrs. Bill Clinton and Babs Boxer ever discussing shutting down their radio boogeymen.
I couldn't help noticing which state both Boxer and Feinstein come from.
Wasn't it the progressives who always said the First Amendment was not created to protect only speech we want to hear?
Oh, my bust, silly me.

Diffuse - Great post

Ahmed - It is Freedom of Speech NOT Freedom from speech. And plus please state something that is hate-filled from conservative talk Radio, I know the Left Radio shows were filled with hate speech, so please list hate speech form the Conservative talk shows please??

Also can't you change the dial to the 1000's of other stations?

And for those bringing up Florida GET over it!! First of all President Bush won the 2004 election with a record number of votes from any election in past. and in 2000 how come Gore did not want the Military votes to be counted in Florida?? and They never were!.

Do you know that all great countries were destroyed from the inside. The only way to destroy this great country is from the inside, and the greatest protection we have is the First Amendment, if the Libs do away with that we are sure to be no more.

Beth - So what experience does Obama have? None? he is a Puppet made up from the Lib Press to take attention away from Hilary's gaffes.

Fred Thompson has years of experience to long to list here. Google his history.

28 Years??? It will only be 20, but that said People still like Bush, just because the Lib press does not like him, or there are some disagreements from the Republicans with him does not mean he is disliked. You know if there was a Dem in office, the press would be promoting the Great Economy we have and be reporting all the good in Iraq. Oh I'm sorry if a Dem was in office we probably would be losing the War on Terror (WWIII)

talk radio (noun)[mod. Eng. derivative of "radio", in reference to "radio programming"] 1) broadcast radio programs consisting almost entirely of moderator(s) discussing issues of the day with callers or interviewees; 2) much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

=======================================
A FEW QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. THE FIRST IS WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THAT OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE, YET NO ONE ASKS THAT QUESTION OF FRED THOMPSON? THE NEXT IS AN ISSUE NO ONE ASKS, WHY IS HILLARY RUNNING? SHE IS PASSE AND TAKING UP SPACE THAT NOW BELONGS TO OBAMA, EDWARDS OR RICHARDSON. WHY DOES HILLARY THINK SHE HAS THIS RIGHT? THE CLINTONS ALREADY HAD THEIR TURN. BESIDES THE FACT WE HAVE CLINTON AND BUSH FATIGUE, DOESN'T ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS FACT? 28 YEARS OF BUSHES AND CLINTONS DOES NOT SEEM LIKE A DEMOCRACY TO ME, AND THERE SHOULD BE A LAW AGAINST THIS ! THEN WHAT? JEB BUSH GETS TO RUN? THIS IS INSANE AND THIS MUST STOP! AND THIS IS BESIDE THE FACT THAT NO ONE LIKES HILLARY AND NO ONE LIKES THE BUSHES.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Rush who? The only Rush I listen to are named: Geddy Lee, Alex Lieson and Neil Peart. But Rush Limbaugh et al in all honesty are nothing Since Howard Stern for example left terrestrial radio, Limbaugh's listenership went fom 30 million to 10 million. And currently, left radio has increased from say: 500,000 to 1.8 million. So where are the others? Sure not Sirius or X.M., but to a small network called Premiere Radio Networks, specifically to a show called Coast to Coast A.M. The show hosted by George Noory, Ian Punnett and Art Bell has more than 10 million and up to 50 million listeners. Yes, it's that woo woo radio show, but that woo woo radio show asks the questions no talk show asks: 9/11, Codex, Soldiers dying from D.U., RFID tags and so on. And yes the UFO theories too, but guess what? Rush Limbaugh doesn't talk smack about Coast when George Noory has guests criticizing Bush. And Fox news is a part of Premiere's radio news program.

So don't worry about Rush, et al, just make sure you're honest and not on the other end of the CoastRider's wrath.

J.A.

P.S., Gorge Noory for President 2012

Bush is NOT a Texan!! He was a Yankee immigrant ! Now Ron Paul is a native Texan, southern scholar and gentleman. Check him out!!

Radio today, internet next, shortwave eventually? Maybe we will be forced to publish broadsides as they did during the revolutionary war. Sharpen your quill pens!

Hey, let's reopen the Florida vote, only this time, we won't let the national media announce they're "projection" 2 hours before the polls close. Want to bet that's not worth a couple of hundred thousand votes?

SAndra 1..."they aready removed our rights to vote..."

Really? So "they" you didn't vote?

And "they" won't let you vote next time?

Who are "they," Sandra? The very liberal Democrat Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, who warned his court that they were getting way out of line - that there was no way the Supreme Court would let their radical decision stand. That same decision, the state-wide recount that Al Gore's chief counsel argued in front of the Florida Supreme Court that they had no legal standing in ordering such a "state-wide" recount. Yes, Sandra. Boies argued against what the left says they wanted. Only Gore did not want it. Besides, the recounts did, in fact show that if "those" recounts had proceeded, Bush would have won any way.

in the end, it did not matter that the US Supreme Court voted 7-2 to stop the recount. Had they voted for it to continue, Bush would have won the recount. There is no argument on those issues. The arguments are on fringe fantasies.

In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, " A Woman in Charge," Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present "comprehensive" health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton's purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

"No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would 'demonize' members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration's plan or otherwise stand in its way."

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, "with disgust and distrust." Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Teucer said:
"Inhofe is a prevaricator to say the least. No thousand word Limbaughesque essay will change this fact."

My turn:
I guess it was too much to hope that more than a glib response that doesn't even begin to refute what I said was on its way.
I don't know or much care about Inhofe and whether he overheard Mrs. Bill Clinton and Babs Boxer discussing how they were going to take down your Limbaugh boogeyman.
I pay more attention to congressmen Kucinich, Hoyer, and Pelosi, who have advocated reinstitution of a severely antiquated and constitutionally troubling bit of regulation.
Now, do I believe that it will amount to much more thana token effort to put it forward, as a way to at least throw the far left a bone?
No, I really don't.
I believe they will at least mention it at their campaigns some, and they may even introduce written motions, but they won't get very far with that, either.
No, I believe that it will get scuttled by both right and (sensible) left thinkers.
The sensible ones will recognize it for what it is: sly government regulation of things it doesn't like flying under the banner of fairness, whatever that is.
However, if they should press forward with any real seriousness, it would do its advocates FAR more harm than good, what with how it would energize their opposition.
People are funny that way.

The talk radio is great. It's the Sen. and Cong. that has to go, even the President. Sure seems like they are in this together, and are afraid the people are going to hear a truth that they don't want to be heard. Keep it up. Christine

Here’s how the left handles free speech and the rights of Americans. Silence the American people with "hate speech" laws. Silence the soldier's, because they dare to speak out against them, and just want to win. Silence the radio waves with the "Fairness Doctrine." Silence the pulpits with threatening the churches with removal of their tax-exempt status for conducting "political speech" from the pulpit. (I.E.- talking about them.), but exempt your church’s from the same. http://www.texemarrs.com/121998/irsmuz.htm. Silence people who accuse them of wrongdoing by having them audited by the IRS. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14702 Silence your political opposition by obtaining their F.B.I. records, where any accusation can be unfairly made, and pass it off to a willing media as an “innocent mistake.” http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/23/fbi.files/ B. J. Clinton was a master of the last three. Silence dissent in the classrooms. Silence speakers and alternative viewpoints by heckling on college campuses. Silence authors by not displaying or reordering their books in the bookstores, even when those books are on the best seller list. Attack the right of free speech, and others, by denying that there is a God, so no such thing as "God given rights." Disseminate false and misleading information when it serves your interests to advance your cause. Silence the right of being asked serious questions by your opposition, by refusing to appear on any network that doesn’t support you, even if that network’s opinions are supported by over half of the nation, and they are the most watched. Deny the right to free and closed election ballots to people voting on Union membership. Any of you sunshine patriots who support these people should think twice. When you stop marching out of lockstep, and have a different view then the one the media is filling you with, it will be your turn to discover just what an oppressive government can do. You know, "when they came for me, there was nobody left." When the right of free speech is gone, the only thing separating us from a revolution will be the size of our middle class. Should China, or another nation, put us into economic chaos, all that will remain is anarchy. Woe to you on that day, as I for one will be part of a group of millions that will be ferreting out you lunatics who support the silencing of your fellow Americans, or believe all this nonsensical conspiracy garbage . Then, all the gun laws, faith in global warming, and smarmy intellectual superiority you think you possess in the world won't be enough to protect you from we, the people, who still love this country. We will be sanctioned in what we do, as the documents that created this great nation demand us to revolution, should we be threatened with the government usurping of our “God given rights.” This is what our founder’s said, in case you’ve forgotten- “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their saftey and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Ya’all just might want to keep that in mind.

When Air America can’t get a listener ratting higher than a * in the Arbitrons. Liberals/Progressives have to resort to legislation to force people to listen to liberal talk radio. Having ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,PBS,NPR is not enough for libs, they can not have ANY voice of opposition, see Chavez on free speech for Venezuela

Thank God for George W. Bush.

Oh my goodiness I was wrong! This is heresay leaked via Inhofe by Carl Rove to discredit Hillary and Barbara Boxer. What am I thinking?

Censorship of the American people; they aready removed our rights to vote in these last two fraudulant elections. What a beautiful Right-Wing religious corporate militaristic fanatic Bushie world it is! Yehaw! Yup Yup Yup. When is he going back to Crawford, Texas? And by the way no more Texas Presidents, two Bushes and a Johnson are enough for the next few hundred years.

Inhofe is a prevaricator to say the least. No thousand word Limbaughesque essay will change this fact.

The audio of Inhofe seems to have been removed. At least we still get the picture: http://thumbsnap.com/v/Mm1Q5d9X.jpg

Wow! Quite a lot of hyperventilating on both ends of the ideological scale.
First, full disclosure here. I am an unapologetic conservative with a few relatives who are very liberal, but who consider themselves "independent." I'll get back to them in a minute.
Since the liberal hierarchy may or may not be (but I doubt it...almost certain to backfire badly) more interested in reviving this doctrine than just idle chit chat, let's assume that they are for the sake of argument.
What too many on here seem to not understand is exactly what this "Fairness Doctrine" amounts to historically and practically.
The Fairness Doctrine, which was finally discarded under executive order by (cue boos) Ronald Reagan, was originally a way for government to regulate broadcasting content by specifying that any media outlet with one viewpoint also at least give an opportunity for the opposite viewpoint to be aired.
This didn't necessarily mean that they could find someone willing or able to do so, and often one side or the other's initial view went unchallenged.
Logistically, what this meant for a given broadcast outlet was that it became ever more difficult and costly to air a political program.
It was a logistical nightmare because they would have to arrange for a rebuttal, including all the headaches of making a contact and scanning his rebuttal which would necessitate it being a written response, to ensure that the response wasn't just some guy trying to slip in an agreement instead of the government regulated opposition.
This would (at least initially) have made responses slow, clumsy, and probably unentertaining to put it mildly.
Perhaps later on, they could have a one-on-one political discussion, but not before a true liberal vs. conservative commentator bonafide had been established.
So, one strike against the doctrine was that it was awkward, difficult, and expensive to implement.
The other problem that too many are overlooking is probably even more troubling: Exactly WHO determines whether someone passes a political litmus test that will somehow stand up to scrutiny?
Ruminate on that one for a while.
It should also be pointed out that historically, since the advent of FM radio drawing away former AM listeners for music due to FM and its inherent sound quality advantage, AM was left with little more than sports, news, and talk for broadcasting content.
And, as anyone knows who has listened a little to NPR or a sports only radio station, there is only so much of the first two AM contents that an intellectually curious individual will want to listen to.
So, with AM already taking a major hit from the loss of music listeners, and with this fairness doctrine encroaching on the one really interesting area of their broadcast day, AM was dying the death of a thousand cuts.
I remember it myself, thinking back to when I was a young kid getting an AM/FM radio for christmas and wondering why the manufacturer even bothered adding AM capability to a radio at all.
AM was stale, sounded as if they were talking to the listener with a string can phone, and faded out whenever dad drove under a highway overpass.
Then something changed.
The fairness doctrine was overturned, and something remarkable happened.
There was no longer a government eye peering over the broadcaster shoulder to decide if that broadcaster kept his license.
The broadcasters being broadcasters and not a charity case, sought out talent who could earn them money to make up for all those years of steady decline and sometimes ruination.
Most AM broadcasters were uninterested in talent who merely agreed with their ownership and management politically.
No sir, this was about staying on the air long enough to attract an audience that would grow rather than dwindle away.
A growing audience made the AM advertising salesmen very happy by making it easier to find sponsors.
And, as that audience continued to expand, the rates charged would be adjusted accordingly.
An expanding audience means not just more salesmen, but it also means more employees need to be hired to handle all this new business, and thus more jobs.
Fancy that, a marketing success story.
On the flip side of the coin, there were still a few broadcasters who took the opportunity to have their talent reflect their views only.
Some of these still exist, especially in enclaves with a large population receptive to the station's views.
Some of this second set of stations were strictly conservative, while (often the majority) were decidely liberal.
Some of this second set of stations succeeded, while many failed, often as not due to a one-dimensional mindset.

Now, let's fast forward to the latter and early halves of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, respectively.
There are still a (very) few very liberal stations out there that aren't Air America affiliates, even here in the midwest.
Meanwhile, stations who gave their audience what they wanted instead of having it dictated to them have suddenly scene their fortunes reversed in a positive direction.
If a station means to appeal to an audience base who wants to listen to conservative talk, then they have that right.
Likewise, a more left leaning station can seek out an audience who agrees with them.
But the important thing to remember here is that any station - whatever its owner/management philosophy may be - trying to conjure an audience out of thin air will find it increasingly difficult to do business, and will turn off their tower after its owner's life savings has been expended.

Now, what would be the upshot of reimplementing this so called doctrine?
It should be obvious what this would do to AM radio.
But what about the other media?
Remember them?
Well, FM talk would be even more of an interesting problem.
Here is the realm of morning drive time comedy teams and shock jokes with potential government regulation of political views.
This means parodies, callers, and even idle side comments from the hosts could be under the regulatory eye.
But who decides which gets regulated, and how?
Does anyone honestly believe this could be done?
If so, wouldn't it be fair to say that this would cause the often liberal friendly (hi, Howard Stern) FM talkers to go absolutely ballistic?
Can you say backlash?
And what about TV?
Keith Olberman, Lou Dobbs, and Chris Matthews would each have to get his own Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neal Cavuto for rebuttals.
Yes, Hannity already has Alan Colmes, so he makes the grade already, but that also gives him an early regulatory advantage.
Oh, wait, they are cable, so they probably would not have to do that since they aren't technically broadcast over the free airwaves.
Well, our all concerned legislators could change that too, right?
And, if they didn't change it, Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulis might have a bit of a problem on their hands.
Suddenly, it is no longer fair when it becomes a case of YOUR oxe getting gored.
Since print media aren't in the broadcast arena, they would have extra news and (unfettered) debate stories about what a total mess the feds have made of the formally free broadcast marketplace of ideas.
If a conservative wants to say something over the airwaves and get paid to do it, then let him makes his case, and he will succeed.
And, if a liberal wants to do likewise, that is his right as well.
And, as for the government having content oversight; I say no, thanks!
Let the listeners decide what they want, then let those willing to give that those listeners be rewarded for their efforts.
If you can easily afford it, and you want a Firebird, you don't buy a Yugo.

Oh, remember my liberal relatives I mentioned earlier?
Keep in mind that conservatives aren't the only ones who often tend to listen to those who agree with them.
When I go to see my liberal relatives, the ONLY magazines I see by their couches are Sojourner, and the only radio they listen to is NPR.
I'm not sure about what they like on the tube, other than entertainment.
I love them dearly, but I generally avoid political discussions except vaguely and politely with them.

But, here is something that should trouble anyone who hears it:
During the 1980s, I actually heard one of these relatives state that the U.S. built the Berlin Wall.
That's not a typo there, folks.
And, she was completely flabbergasted when it was explained to her that the USSR was the nation who built and maintained it even as we discussed it.
She was an intellegent and educated woman, but where did such a complete falsehood originate?
But, my relative being an intelligent person who loved her family as much as we loved her, at least seemed to accept the truth when she was finally confronted with it.
Conservative radio listeners are often accused of being rendered out of touch by their radio pied pipers, and some may well be, but I doubt even many liberals have accepted such a monumental lie as my dear departed relative believed.

There is a Clinton history on silencing and demonizing people who disagree with them. Whether it is stealing peoples FBI records to use unsupported stories against their opponents: http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/23/fbi.files/
Using the IRS to audit people who make accusations against them: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14702
Or selectively targeting churches and conservative groups who speak out against them: http://www.texemarrs.com/121998/irsmuz.htm
It is how they, and their army of private investigators work. And now, all you "geniuses" who say Rush listeners don't think want to give these people every single Americans health records! Are you crazy? I can hear "Shrillery" now. "Oh look, Bill, this opponent of ours had an abortion, and that one had VD back when he was in college." Here's a little article on how HRC operates.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, " A Woman in Charge," Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present "comprehensive" health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton's purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

"No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would 'demonize' members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration's plan or otherwise stand in its way."

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, "with disgust and distrust." Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Radio is already regulated. That's because the radio spectrum is a finite resource owned by the American people.

There is no free speech on radio except for the the billion dollar corporations who own the stations. They can spend all day telling you what to think. Especially telling you that this is a "free speech issue".

Do not do anything. We still have freedom of speech, you may like what they say, but they have a right to speak.

It is my fervent hope that Americans do not elect Hillary as President. They were dumb enough to elect her husband not once but twice and I hope they have smartened up since then.

A gossips happened 3 years ago. How can this be report as news?

If you don't like what's on talk radio, turn it off. It's that simple. Talk radio doesn't need to be legislated. Period. Shame on you Trent Lott and anyone else who agrees with your statements about talk radio.

Tam (Jun 23, 2007 4:38:34 AM) - "Our politcians are not for the people anymore... they are for.... who knows.."

Tam: they are for anything which will keep themselves in power and make us more dependant on them. This is very easy to verify. Any program which creates more government bureaucracy
and more control by the government is a perfect example. This give them more control over our lives, which requires more people within the government to control and regulate the program (taking away yet another freedom), thus making us more dependant on the government (I think they call it Socialism). National Health Care is a perfect example of this. This takes away our freedom (to choose our own health care providers), gives the government more power, and thus helps those in power more powerful. Keep an eye open for these types of programs (that take away our liberties), and watch out for catch phrases like "for the good of all the people". The hair on your neck should stand up when you hear this, and standby to have yet another liberty taken away.

Jeff

AHHHHHHHHhhhhhh; where's the ACLU????? Now if this was supposedly said about a liberal talk show there would be outrage. Now if it were said about a gay/lesbian, Latino, black, or any other ethnic talk radio show there would be near riots and you could bet your bippy that Jesse, Al and the rest of the gang would be all over it. I don't know if this was said or not but if a conversation between two conservative GOP members supposedly happened and they were being accused by a liberal senator you could bet that there would be outrage. Well, so far I don’t like any of the candidates, I’m waiting for Fred. I really feel he is the only one who has what it takes to pull this country out of the hole it’s digging it’s self into.

Posted by: Dave | Jun 23, 2007 2:58:55 AM

Hey, Dave tell me all you know about big Freddie. Let me know what your true feelings are. Do you think you can elaborate a bit? Be specific and detailed if possible. Love to hear it. Doubt you will. Prove me wrong Daveo. I doubt you know much about the guy. But sell me on the Hollywood elitist.

Talk radio is another source of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Need I say more? Regulated it? Herr Geobbels must be dancing in his grave. Ya, let's make it propaganda, mein fuhrer. Just say nice things about our leaders. How can we boast we are a free society when talk radio may be regulated by the very people talk radio gets off offending. This smacks of killing the messenger for the message is not liked by those who fear the free message. Most talk radio is crap, but it's OUR crap; leave it be, or next, it will be our telephones that will be regulated -- oh, I'm too late!

The current Congress has been attempting to take away our Freedom of Speech since the beginning of the year, but due to a tremendous outcry by the voters, the House and Senate were both foiled!! They don't want the American public to know how they vote on issues that impact us, and they are wanting to restrict information that we receive on important issues. Our Freedom of Speech is under attack by those we elected to represent us. Looks like they are wanting to become a secret society. We should be very frightened by their attempted actions. Let your representatives know how you feel - it's the only way we may be able to keep our basic rights.

How do we all consume all this info,right or left? It seems easy to me and my small mind. whatever the Polition is blabbing... go the other way. It is unfortunate that it has come to this in our lifetimes but, i hate to be the bearer of bad news. Our politcians are not for the people anymore... they are for.... who knows..
WELL I'm for America and I hope you are too. I hope you,, anyone reading this will vote for what is really in the BEST interest of every "American". Do we really need 10, 20 or 30 million people to do the jobs "people won't do"? Do we need the 10's of MILLIONS of ILLIGALS to bring thier extended families here as well? Do the math, That could be 10,20,50,100 million people flooding our country,,, I really don't care who they are... I just see what is happening NOW in my small community. Our school districts can't buy books, our hospitals are going broke, our jails are full, cities are going broke and our streets are in shambles..... what sence does it make to open our boarders to whoever wants to come in? I think we need to slow things down and step back,,, If this were your money,(which it is)do you want to spend more on free houseing,medical,prisons,education.. I don't... I work all my life,work with my kids to do their best so they can advance to the best colleges. Save money to pay for it and plan for the future,,, The whole time our polititions will hand over in state tuitions to Illigal's. I will work my whole life pay my taxes and ss taxes and hope to survive at retirement... Yet someone from another country can come here,l get a house or apartment to live in, free medical,schooling and food stamps. Is this fair? Is there a country on this planet that I can retire to and get all these benifits? The answer is absolutely NOT A CHANCE.What are our elected officals really up to? That is what we need to know. I truely beleive they are no longer for the people. The only way we can make a change is to VOTE... And to vote new blood into congress and our senate... So, I suggest to vote for the underdog,,, get the old blood out.Lets see if we can Totally shift the house,senate even the whitehouse,,,, retire the lifers in our government... the only way we are going to have change is to change our leadership,,,,
I want to hope and believe it will happen...
Thanks... An American

AHHHHHHHHhhhhhh; where's the ACLU????? Now if this was supposedly said about a liberal talk show there would be outrage. Now if it were said about a gay/lesbian, Latino, black, or any other ethnic talk radio show there would be near riots and you could bet your bippy that Jesse, Al and the rest of the gang would be all over it. I don't know if this was said or not but if a conversation between two conservative GOP members supposedly happened and they were being accused by a liberal senator you could bet that there would be outrage. Well, so far I don’t like any of the candidates, I’m waiting for Fred. I really feel he is the only one who has what it takes to pull this country out of the hole it’s digging it’s self into.

Is something preventing liberals from starting their own talk show?
I don't think so. Well, maybe their lack of talent.
So, why don't we call it for what it is? It's the democrats trying to control public opinion for the 2008 elections. And the only people agreeing on “>restricting talk<” radio are the liberal sheep who can’t form an intelligent thought.
Here is a little advice for you liberals. How do you turn off a liberal or conservative radio show? Tune out.

whoever posted the registered voters for tucson was very confused. what year were they? 1960?

the current population for tucson is alighly over 1MM. so these numbers would mean that 80% of citizens are not registered to vote. city of tucson runs democrat majority. pima county leans repub overall.

Uinv of AZ skews the numbers. too many employees with little or no work to do. professional moochers from the property taxpayers.

It's reallly pretty clear that liberals and conservatives don't trust each other's information. There's so much information to digest, it's hard to know what's important. We all rely on trusted secondary sources who make a living processing information and giving us capsules of what they feel is important. Even so, I appreciate those of you who present facts, from where ever you got them. Some of you are pretty liberal and others pretty conservative. Unfortunately, these blogs tend to be dominated by narrow minds who want to brand as corrupt or stupid those who disagree with them. I find this mode particularly prevalent among those who criticize "right-wing talk radio." They want to assert that if you listen to Rush or Hannity, you're a greedy bastard who can't think for himself. The cynicism most Americans feel about politics and politicians comes from the fact that too many of us are willing to judge each other as incompetent in some way just because we disagree. Ladies and Gentlemen (terms used loosely but hopefully) perhaps we can focus on facts and recognize that others may have facts we don't know. I have lots of conservative opinions, but I'm not stupid or corrupt. I have liberal friends with whom I can have great discussions, and others who expect me to hear and believe what they say while rejecting my known facts. I have conservative friends who lack facts, too. I avoid closed minds of all stripes. That's what makes a visit to blog sites so excruciating.

The so-called fairness doctrine which is being promoted by the Center for American Progress (funded by Soros and run by Clinton supporters) shows liberals fundamental aversion to capitalism and democracy. The absence of liberal talk radio is not the result of some vast right wing conspiracy but the product of the profitability of conservative talk shows. The radio station are not just republican hacks and would back any host that made money. Furthermore, conservative talk shows are popular because they are by and large the most accessible news source for people tired of the liberal bias of the mainstream media, nothing more, nothing less.

o'connor was massively underqualified
lower court judge but had been a state senator and worked in the attorney general's office. any way you slice it, if you are defending her for being a judge after a senator, it doesn't make her qualified. she was probably nancy's mannequin. her litmus test by the incoherent starr probably was sticking pins in her ears.

she was appointed because of ken starr's stupidity and ronald ray-gun having a very small internal operating system.)oh, goody, we got sandy)(thought it was orphan annie's dog) she was labeled a conservative as was the even more liberal george (walk-on the-moon) bush.he can't speak in full phrases.

i am not a conservative blogger but i will warn you steve J. (Juvenile) that i am going to put your leash back on if you don't behave and if that doesn't work we will have to see the vet to calm you down.

no more red bull either.
no starbucks.

i won't tie you too tight if you shown any signs of rehabilitation.

I'm a moderate conservative. Sometimes you people on the right are complete JACKASSES. I'm sorry, but it's true. And you people on the left, you make me want to go to sleep with your whining and complaining. I don't see any problem with Clinton and Boxer wanting a legislative fix for far-right talk radio. It'll never happen, but I don't see what's the big deal about the idea. FREE SPEECH!! claim the ultra-conservatives (as they write checks to PACS that BOUNCE a mile high on the integrity scale). No one, I repeat, no one has a lock on the truth. And if talk-radio hosts want to continue giving conservative ideals a bad name, that's fine with me. For example, Rush is funny and a good man, but he knows he's wrong on immigration. You can hear it in his voice. If I wanted ratings, I'd become a conservative, near-sighted jackass with my pants buttoned up around my belly button, too. At the end of the day, most men are just trying to please their father. Btw, Keith Olberman is just as much a JACKASS as anyone on talk radio, so let's not get carried away arguin' that the deck is stacked on one side. Over it's short history, television has tried a socially corrective course that would sink the Titanic on it's side instead of vertically. And at the end of the day, we're all filled with a bunch of blah, blah, blah, wanting to be heard. A thousand points of light my ass. Try a thousand points of pointless crap. He who laughs last, wins.

"Before anyone says that "Talk Radio" does allow a debate, do you really think that the people that are put through to talk with the hosts are just random samplings of people calling in? It's a SHOW! The topics, the points, the people calling in, are all CONTROLLED. No real debate is going on. Apparently they are slick enough at it, that Joe Q. Public forgets this."

So sorry Mike but as usual your socialist lies don't wash with those of us who actually call in and debate the host. If you don't want to hear these shows, as you tell us when nothing but trash is on TV, turn the knob. I am sure there will be something for you on the Communist Broadcast Service with Katie.

You can't teach neo-con far-right wing theories at university. It would be intellectually and morally dishonest to teach lies and falsehoods about facts, figures and data. It is called makeing things up to fit preconceived notions. Those who are ignorant of data, details and complexities and have no conception of any other culture, group or human experience beyond their own very limited understanding and want to simplify everything to a soundbite and scream it into the cosmic space - they are called neo-con and rightwing nut jobs. Their minds are made up - don't confuse them by requiring them to think or learn new information or consider a different approach to a problem.

Anyone who does possess knowledge of data, details, complexities and information knows there is no easy answer that fits in a soundbite and there are many different human experiences different from their own that require different policies and understanding - rightwing Kokoobirds call them liberals.

"you guiys can't stand it that there is another medium out there that meets the need for open and honest debate about the issues"

Heheheee! Wingnut radio tells lies to the stupid and ignorant.

Come on Jake...you guys who are leftist have had your way on Television since its inception and you guiys can't stand it that there is another medium out there that meets the need for open and honest debate about the issues and you can't control it nor spin it.What are you afraid of? I know...liberal ideas are bankrupt and would never hold sway in an open market...ABC is a joke and well I must admire you going down swinging.

"Hilary Clinton = Hugo Chavez."

LMFAO!!! Another bedwetter tells himself a ghost story!

"Do it and that will amount to a declaration of war against the people, and we will defend the Constitution vigorously."

1) Do what?

2) Since when have conservatives cared about the Constitution?

"How about balancing faculty at colleges, where there's not a single centrist, much less a Republican in some whole departments."

How about you try getting an education instead of parroting that lunatic David Whorowitz?

Do it and that will amount to a declaration of war against the people, and we will defend the Constitution vigorously.

Hilary Clinton = Hugo Chavez.

It's obvious now.

Don't vote for the Marxist!

You all gotta come to Canada and hear all the Liberal ( Democrat ) garbage we have to listen to up here. Yeah and the government has silenced the right. Check out the talk shows here, you'd be amazed. Totally biased. Always against the right. Fight USA right wingers against this or you'll end up like us here.

How about some balance in speakers on college campuses. How about balancing faculty at colleges, where there's not a single centrist, much less a Republican in some whole departments. How about some balance among television reporters and producers who lean to the far-left by 80-90%. Perhaps some balance in our major newspapers which are overwhelmingly leftist. Next Hillary and Barbara will come after the Internet and censor free speech here. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!

Socialist: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion".

-Clinton wants to eliminate the "exploitive ruling class" who, at the moment, have more talk radio hours than other groups.

Steve, while I find your ranting somewhat amusing, your assumptions and generalizations about who I am and what I listen to are incorrect. Your prejudices and outright and obvious hatred for those who do not think like you are a result of your indoctrination into the socialist left yourself.

Please step back from the purple kool-aid, take a breath, and ask yourself, free from your bigoted passion, why you – personally – would want a government to take your natural and God given rights away from you; rights to raise a child how you see fit, the right to try and succeed – or fail regardless of the color of your skin or the, or the right to listen to what you want without some government organization telling you what you can and can’t do.

If the so called fairness doctrine was so good, then let’s make sure it applies to all forms of communication. Let us also make sure that those who deliver ‘news’ are also equally distributed across the political spectrum; today over 90% of TV journalists are Democratic Party members. So, let’s kick out ½ of them and replace them with Republican Party members. Wait what about the greens and the independent?

You have the news papers, you have TV and Cable, you have both houses of congress, and how you want to exercise unrighteous dominion. Drunk with power. God help us all.

Liberals love freedom and tolerance only when it benefits their failed ideology and agenda.

Not that it matters all that much, but "the other day" is a common Southwest colloquialism (particularly in Oklahoma), which can mean anything from yesterday to last week to last year. So when Inhofe used "the other day" to refer to something from three years ago, well, that's pretty much a given for the region he's from. So, Tapper, it stands up to scrutiny that he would reference the anecdote in that way. And if you listen to the sound clip of Inhofe, it's clear he didn't claim that Boxer and Clinton were seeking to end talk radio, just influence it. I'd be willing to bet Hillary and Barbara did indeed have such a conversation just as Inhofe described it.

Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly and all those right wing hacks are lying when they say the Fairness Doctrine will 'silence the opposition.' The opposition is already silenced, in that the right wing is on 24/7 where I live. Rush runs three stations in my listening area - there is no counter-viewpoint. What we have here is right wing cowards who want to make certain the other side is not heard.

The reason that conservative talk shows rule the airwaves is that liberals don't need someone to tell them what to think.

"Liberal Radio has been tried, and has failed."

Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller are doing just fine and so was Al Franken before he quit to run for the Senate.

How blind do these politicians think we are??? It is SO obvious that Hillary is behind this plot to silence the opposition, as she has so blatantly done in every other venue. Once talk radio is out of the way, she has a clear road into the White House (God Forbid!)

I find it totally hypocritical that these same politicians can do NOTHING to prevent the slime and filth on the internet from reaching our kids under the guise of "free speech," yet when it comes to having too much free speech about t