TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | radio

Squealing Partisans

By on 06 January 2012

It’s as if Democratic and Republican partisans think our country is made of feathers.

What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? – What If Obama Loses?

Every election season we hear about the dire consequences if one side or the other isn’t elected, but yet, we seem to muddle through. The problem is we never learn and keep voting for the same two parties, without a hint of irony that doing the same thing every election and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

The Democratic and Republican parties are bought and paid for and squealing partisans are their bankers.

For the first time, looking at all this as a recovering partisan, I finally know a bit about how and what independents must see and feel when looking at partisan squealers. So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.

See Rick Santorum’s comment today about good economic news, when he said that it’s all about “optimism that Republicans will take the White House.” At least Mitt Romney acknowledged reality, which is that the economy is weak, but trends are in the right direction.

I was doing interviews all day yesterday, including for the UK Guardian, publicizing my book, but also because I was a go-to gal on Michele Bachmann getting out of the race. The Hillary Effect, got lots of attention and a nice mention on Al Jazeera today.

One interview reminded me again of the state of our political culture when a right wing amateur and wannabe radio host called me a liar several times after our interview had concluded. It was like the old days when I used to do radio “shoot outs” back during Pres. Bill Clinton’s 2nd term and into the Gore v. Bush contest. It’s also one reason I quit doing radio interviews.

It’s what happens on Twitter regularly, vitriol unleashed whenever anything revealing is written about Pres. Obama, but also in the comments around here. When squealing partisans don’t approve of what I write, their reactions are so extreme they target the messenger, moi, when I even dare to post a news item. It happened yet again last night on a post I did about Michael Hastings new book, because I found the interchange with the author on “Morning Joe” interesting. Obama supporters took aim at me, as usual, even invoking Hillary Clinton in the mother of all non sequitar burps, instead of taking issue with Hastings.

People can’t get their heads around the fact that this site is not about Democratic or progressive cheerleading anymore. Today’s economy and jobs report was written about fairly, as is the criticism aimed in Pres. Obama’s direction, but also at Republicans. Obama Fan Boyz and Girlz can’t seem to digest the concept of a liberal, that would be me, declaring my sympathies, while also being capable of delivering fair political analysis, including credit when Republicans or conservatives earn it. That’s the editorial policy around here, folks, which will send partisans scattering, but I’ve never written what’s popular so I don’t know why anyone is surprised.

I am still waiting for Obama Fan Man “solo,” who I mention because he is representative of a lot of the incoming I receive, to prove his (false) charge that I write “almost daily Obama is going to lose articles.” Tick, tock, Obama fan. The problem is I’ve never written an “Obama is going to lose article,” because there is absolutely no proof that he is. Like I wrote in my book, Pres. Obama is indeed beatable, but the current second tier class of Republican and conservative candidates, with their extreme positions on everything from war to civil liberties to immigration, aren’t going to be able to do it.

On their side, it’s just politicians squealing.

“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H. – ABC News

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?” – LA Times

Rush Limbaugh sounded like a stuffed wart hog yesterday over an article from the American Enterprise attempting to make gullible Republicans start building bunkers for economic war. It all revolves around the smart move by Pres. Obama to make a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, and quit thinking Republicans intend to let him be president.

The explosion started with James Pethokoukis at AEI:

January Surprise: Is Obama preparing a trillion-dollar, mass refinancing of mortgages?

This could be just the beginning. If President Barack Obama’s legally dodgy appointment of Richard Cordray to head the consumer finance agency should stick, it may open the door to more such actions. Here’s Jaret Seiberg of the Washington Research Group:

To us, the most important takeaway from a recess appointment of Cordray is that the President could use this same maneuver to put a housing advocate in charge of FHFA.

And why is that important? The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the FHFA currently has an acting director, Edward DeMarco. If Obama replaces him with a “housing advocate” via the same recess appointment process, here’s what might happen next, according to Seiberg:

That could lead to a mass refinancing program for agency-backed mortgages that would go well beyond the existing HARP program. That could hurt agency MBS pricing and result in higher financing costs going forward. Yet it also could be a big boost for the economy and housing going into the election.

Indeed, my sources tell me the Obama administration has been eager to implement just such a plan, but needs to have its own man heading the FHFA to make it happen. The plan would be modeled after one originally devised by Columbia University economists Glenn Hubbard (a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney and AEI visiting scholar) …

Reading the article and listening to Rush in between interviews, I couldn’t tell if they were freaked at Pres. Obama winning, telegraphing that Romney = Obama, or have just run out of things to catch people’s attention.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.

Last time I looked, the big banks were doing just fine and Wall Street is humming along.

The cause worth joining isn’t fighting over two corporate party heads who are a lot more worried about their own futures than ours. It’s refusing to play the rigged game or argue whether there’s much difference between them at all.

It all begins with getting money out of politics or at the very least, making the process transparent.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Talking Women, Health Care and Civil Rights with Rosie O’Donnell

By on 30 November 2009

updated

Rosie read “In Pelosi’s House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out” over at Huffington Post, enjoying it very much, which was the jumping off point for the interview with Rosie on health care.

As an aside, Wednesday, December 2nd, is going to be a lobby and national action day in D.C. on the issue of women’s civil rights. I’ll write more about that later today, but will talk in depth about it on Rosie’s show.

As for getting involved, start by emailing and calling your senators and representatives. Let them know that if they don’t support women’s civil rights, you won’t be supporting them.

From Center for Reproductive Rights:

Three key facts:

* A majority of private health insurance plans now provide coverage for abortion services.
* One in 3 women will have an abortion within her lifetime.
* Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures.

Under the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban, which passed the House in the health reform bill, women would not be covered for abortions in the new health insurance market despite spending their own money to purchase coverage.

And women who opt into the more affordable public option would be banned from getting coverage for abortion services, even if their own money was used to buy insurance.

With Stupak-Pitts, it would be much harder—and perhaps impossible—for private insurance companies to offer abortion coverage for plans under health reform

The same politicians who oppose healthcare reform because it is “big government” now want to dictate the terms of women’s healthcare coverage.

Obviously, a very important subject for us all.

I don’t do radio interviews much anymore, having overdosed on them over the last 15 years. And even though I wish I could successfully land back on radio, podcasts remain an enjoyable part of my work, with interviews important to me.

Here’s where you can contact me if you have further questions or comments.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Election Tuesday Eve: Palin Hits VA with Ralph Reed

By on 02 November 2009

updated

Tom Davis, a former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, said he still believes the race is a tossup but also expected Scozzafava supporters to swing toward Owens. “This is not a Sarah Palin district, and they tried to make it that way. In a three-way race, you could have gotten 35 to 40 percent to win the seat, and now they need close to 50 percent,” Davis said. “It’s clear in the Watertown part of the district that Hoffman is not the second choice.” – Winning Dede Scozzafava: How Democrats got her nod

Tom Davis may have to eat that one. Meanwhile…

“Vote your values,” Virginia, this has been brought to you by Sarah Palin, who is now in a little skirmish with Joe Biden. Via Sarah’s Facebook page: “There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!”

The Hill has the story behind what prompted Sarah’s retort.

Wingnut radio was on steroids today (and that’s before Sean Hannity’s mini-me Mark Levine gets his chance tonight ). Hannity had both Hoffman and Christie on, making sure to stir up trouble in the New Jersey race, as he falsely served up the possibility of Corzine illegalities, without any proof whatsoever, then used ACORN as a warning of what else might happen.

As for Virginia, Bob McDonnell won’t claim Sarah Palin, as she teams up with Ralph Reed, who is on his comeback tour after skulking off the political scene in disgrace. Palin has done a robocall for McDonnell, Via ABC. This is truly hilarious:

Republican Bob McDonnell kept his distance from Sarah Palin on Monday even as the former Alaska governor had begun making automated phone calls to more than 300,000 Virginia households on behalf of a conservative group, urging them to vote their values in Tuesday’s election.

“I don’t know anything about them,” McDonnell told ABC News on Monday when asked about the Palin robocalls which are paid for by the Virginia chapter of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative group headed at the national level by Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition.…

Democrats are actually going lose to this guy. I’m sure they’ll blame Obama, but this one is on the Virginia Democratic party and Creigh Deeds. Meanwhile, a lot of people will likely vote for Democrats down ticket, but leave Deeds empty as a protest. Who can blame them? It’s better than not voting at all, because there are other names on the ballot deserving.

Republicans are expecting wins in NY-23 and Virginia, while hoping for New Jersey, too. It would be very sweet if Scozzafava’s supporters tipped it towards Owens, though in the end I don’t care, as Owens, as far as I can tell, would be just another Blue Dog Dem. However, with polls showing Hoffman up 5 points and wingnut radio going to bat all day for him, it’s unlikely. To add, Mike Murphy tweets what really happened to NBC’s Chuck Todd:

@chucktodd all that really happened in NY23 was that a voters forced primary and Dede lost. She was the paper creation of 11 county chairs.

Tomorrow will kick off a year-long election cycle for 2010, which is already in full swing on your radio dial. The biggest GOTV rallying cry in American media today, led now by Glenn Beck far more than Rush Limbaugh. See Hoffman in NY-23 if you don’t believe me.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rush ‘Crashed and Burned’

By on 15 October 2009

–updated–

… [...] This is just an attack on all of us who are conservatives. Look, they’re scared. Conservatism is in ascendancy. Conservatism is rising. Conservatism is growing. Obama’s in trouble, folks. You can’t take the politics out of me in this, ’cause it’s not about the National Football League. It’s just the latest vehicle for them to go after me. – Rush Limbaugh

Oh, the indignity.

A man from on high brought to such depths.

A darling, a conservative favorite failing so utterly and publicly.

Rush Limbaugh brought low as you can go.

Never fear, his audience, his adoring fans are here. In fact, Rush is now his audience: Earlier this evening, as most of you now know, one of our own, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, while taking withering fire, crashed and burned. …

A man who daily immortalizes himself on radio has been brought level with his listeners.

After years of accolades. Being told of his greatness. …as he looks in the mirror. Mr. Limbaugh has learned that even his millions won’t buy him love.

What makes this episode even worse?

It was the players’ UNION that shot the first arrow at the little boy from Missouri’s NFL balloon.

And hell hath no fury like Limbaugh spurned. Rush’s rampage began yesterday.

But no matter what he says it won’t change that his fans know he “crashed and burned.”

Rush is now Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Republican Male Angst Over Sarah

By on 09 June 2009

This was revealed after the Palin – Newt shuffle orchestrated through the incompetence of NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn reached critical mass, when he couldn’t even navigate the complexities of booking a single speaker to last night’s big GOP fundraising event.

The day after, pick your headlines. From Politico: Sarah Palin makes little splash at dinner. From CNN: Palin center of attention at big GOP dinner. That’s the kind of confusion Sarah Palin still engenders.

For what it’s worth, listening to Rush while driving in D.C., he is definitely still keen on Sarah, and won’t forgive Gingrich when he sided against el Rushbo when he said he hoped Obama presidency would “fail.”

Call it the monster that John McCain built. But one way or the other, it may end up being his lasting legacy. It’s also the one thing upon which McCain and Rush Limbaugh agree, that is until McCain lost, with Sarah becoming a drag on the ticket. However, something tells me the white boys of the GOP are thinking more about their own hides when it comes to this story in The Hill.

Sarah Palin has begun to get on the nerves of Republican senators who say the former GOP vice presidential nominee is taking her own White House aspirations entirely too seriously.

But those same senators may have their eye on a 2012 White House run or be friends with senators with presidential ambitions. And Palin, who does not have a lot of Washington connections, energized the party’s grass roots in 2008 while bucking the D.C. establishment, leaving much of the party’s elite grumbling about her appeal to the conservative base.

Several GOP senators offered searing criticism of the Alaska governor when asked in recent interviews whether she could pose a credible challenge to President Obama in 2012.

“She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke,” said a GOP lawmaker who represents one of the southern battlegrounds of the 2012 election. …

As for proving not to be a joke, she’s got a lot of Republican company on that one.

The Palin crew also think they know who was badmouthing their girl. Never mind that Palin’s earned most of what she’s getting from her own. Your first try at the show can’t illustrate ignorance and incompetence, especially if you’re a woman. That’s why she’s taking her rehabilitation tour to Fox.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Radio Host on Waterboarding: ‘Way worse than I thought it would be’

By on 22 May 2009

“Justlen” already put this “In the News.”

Don’t try this at home, folks. Mancow wanted to find out if waterboarding is torture. He learned the hard way.

“It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke,” Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. “It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back…It was instantaneous…and I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture.”

Hannity, your next.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘TM-DC’ Launches

By on 18 May 2009
Photobucket

I’ve gotten a lot of emails on when in I’m going to start doing podcasts again. Well, we’ve begun and we’ll be tweaking things as we go; some things still in the working out stages, which happens when you have new equipment, etc. “TM-DC” is the new name.

The first podcast is going out as an introduction, which you’ll notice, because I talk about some of the foreign policy reporting I’ve been doing since landing in D.C.

Lots of topics, though the Pelosi kerfuffle didn’t make it in, due to the fact that we only got one podcast uploaded. Had to do some tinkering so we could upload the full hour. I’ll be adding interviews as we go. One person I’m trying to hook up is Scott Kesterson, who is now in country in Afghanistan. I interviewed him before, when he was the only photo journalist there at the time. We’re trying to hone in on a good time. Anyway…

Enjoy!

We’re just getting started.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Specter: ‘This is a painful decision…’

By on 28 April 2009

“The (Republican) party has shifted pretty far to the right.” – Arlen Specter”

Specter says his stimulus vote was the tipping point to his decision to change parties, but listening to his smackdown on the Club for Growth it’s clear that the efforts to “purify the party” is not just political business to Specter, it’s very personal.

At the presser he adamantly proclaimed he wouldn’t let his future be decided by the Republican primary electorate. Shorter Specter: the right-wing won’t get my political hide. His passion on health issues is another matter, which includes stem cell. Specter is a cancer survivor. There is a lot of talk that this is all about not being able to beat Toomey. No doubt this is a big part of it, but Specter’s tenaciousness on pushing GOP moderation is real if you look at his career. To simply say this is about whether he can get elected is not only cynical, but ignores what Specter has been through and how his life battles have obviously impacted his decision as well.

Specter hinted that to see where he’ll be going forward, look to where he was in 1980.

One of the most interesting analysis so far on the Specter switching parties story comes from George Stephanopoulos, which Specter cited today in his presser:

Part of the reason why a potential Republican primary was becoming so tough for Specter is that the hard-fought 2008 Democratic primary in the state between Obama and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinned the Pennsylvania GOP of many of its moderate voters who switched their party registration to Democratic so they could help influence the Obama vs. Clinton race.

On the other side, if Mitch McConnell believes a checks and balance to Obama-Democratic power is a winner, the Republicans are in even bigger trouble than Specter’s switch reveals.

Oh, and that screech! you heard when this happened was Sean Hannity.

But who dropped what in Ambinder’s lunch today? Santorum? Governor, maybe.

Read full story · Comments are closed

TM-DC, Testing

By on 23 April 2009

The video contains just one of the subjects I cover in the first TEST installment of TM-DC, my first podcasts since landing in Washington, D.C. Call it a dress rehearsal, but what the hell. Thought I’d share them anyway.

New equipment set up that I’m just getting used to, quick trigger buttons, but it’s fun to get back at it.

One thing my radio show was not, and TM-DC won’t be either, is a replication of the blog content. Radio is a whole different type of entertainment, as are the podcasts of TM-DC, so don’t expect what you get from my written articles here or over at Huffington Post.

Also, like before, interviews with foreign policy experts to come, so stay tuned.

The podcasts are in 9 min. segments, totaling around an hour, for the time being, but they’ll soon switch to one-hour downloads like before. The clicking on links to get the download is awkward, but we’ll get that fixed too. Still testing equipment, but audio levels in particular.

Enjoy the first installments while I work out some more of the kinks. We’ll get there.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Word About the Blog

By on 20 March 2009
Photobucket

Now that I’m finally settled in D.C., I’d like to talk about what’s going on around here, which actually started after the primaries last year. Big changes, good changes, with more to come. There has been a change in the community, too, and that’s not over either.

First, I made a risky decision to focus on foreign policy, one of my passions, in addition to the usual fare of political analysis, my main gig. It was a jolt for some, especially after the primary season, because the wonky side of foreign policy isn’t as easily digested as the sport of campaign politics. But it’s a choice I made taking me further down a road I’ve been traveling through serious study for a very long time, long before I made it a central focus of my writing around here, though I do mix it up. This will continue and broaden, which won’t be for everyone, but it’s following my bliss, so there you have it.

Secondly, the community has shifted from last year in a dramatic way. We all know why, but considering Clinton is Secretary of State, it’s all good in my opinion. The newcomers are terrific, as was the big community we had going last year, as are the people who have been following me for over a decade.

However, some are struggling and want to rekindle the community of last year, bemoaning the tight group that finds consensus here in the comments at times. It’s intimidating for people who aren’t part of the die hard Obama chorus, which has naturally broadened since Barack Obama became president. So let me make something clear. This is a site for all opinions and political stripes, though I don’t have any patience for commenters who claim Dick Cheney is a hero, because it doesn’t foster serious debate, but is meant to bait people. That said, dissenters are welcome. In fact, I encourage you. We need more of it around here.

The one thing that is really odd is the lack of courage to engage the cliques that rise up inside the comment section, which cause it to be a bit insular. I’m getting emails about how hard it is to comment because of it. Buck up. Take a deep breath and engage. Disagree. Debate. Have a rhetorical rumble. Name calling is just that, so jump in and fight back. I can’t do this for you.

I’ve been writing on the web since 1996, so I’ve been through a lot of site incarnations. This move is a big one and it’s quite an adventure. I value everyone who stops by here every day, believe me. I learn from your debate when you choose to mix it up. I’d like to see more of it.

Also, I hope to bring the podcast back soon, though it will be different too. One thing it isn’t is the blog. Radio is entertainment; that is if you want to stay or get back on the air, though in this economy that is the biggest long shot of all. I don’t care, because I love doing radio, so I’ll do it however I can. But it’s a whole different thing than the blog, except for when I’m interviewing people on foreign policy, which I did a lot when my show was streamed live. No date, but we’ll get it going in the not too distant future.

So, to sum it up, yes, the blog has changed. It’s not for everyone, but I’m writing about what I find important. The rest will take care of itself.

Moving on… I’ll be out for a while today, so enjoy your Friday. And thanks for making this one of your stops. It means the world to me. My work is not a whim. It’s not just this blog or radio. It’s a passion I’ve had for many years to study, learn and then change my little part of the universe while exploring ideas that matter. Sharing it with those who are interested, one reader, one listener at a time.

Oh, and Happy Nowruz! President Obama has a message (available with Persian caption) for the Iranians. I second it. But I did get a chuckle imagining George W. Bush trying to do something like it, though the very effort will drive the wingnuts mad. Expect another crying fit from Glenn Beck.

Read full story · Comments { 62 }

Cheap Tricks

By on 15 February 2009
Photobucket

Today I’m doing the last of my packing for our cross-country road trip, which begins at dawn tomorrow. Pamela will be back to take care of you.

I don’t know if you saw SNL’s opener last night arguing who’s smarter Sean or Rush but it was hilarious. When it comes to Republicans there is no doubt they are the center of the Republican universe. The reason why is easy: conservative terrestrial radio reaches across this country into every town, county and state. No other medium can compete with giving one single message to the masses. That’s it’s the cheapest way to deliver it and is completely portable helps immensely in tough economic times.

So with all the talk about the Fairness Doctrine, people are really digging in to the subject, which can only benefit us all. After all, whether you are for it or against it, there is nothing to lose from Democrats exposing the conservative ownership on radio stations that program the whole day of non stop right-wing talk. Just imagine listening to station managers explain why their entire radio line up goes from Rush to Sean to Mark Levin or Fred Thompson, including Christian broadcasting, while progressive hosts explain they can’t get their phone calls returned. Not even from producers who tilt left because it’s just too hard to get a new host launched and sustain them monetarily on terrestrial radio. So progressives are stuck on the Internet or on satellite, which doesn’t come close to the financial or audience opportunities.

There are many also arguing the legal side, saying there are ways to break through so the Fairness Doctrine will never fly legally. That Obama isn’t interested makes it even harder, some say. Frankly, President Obama is a smart man, but he likely doesn’t have a clue about what goes on in terrestrial radio, and there’s no reason he should. Most people don’t have the facts on how it’s set up and operated. The myth that liberals can’t monetize is nonsense as well.

Even if you aren’t convinced that the FD is the way to go, which I’m not, a debate on terrestrial radio’s make up on ownership is long overdue.

Knowing the minutia of radio, I’ve written and spoken a lot about it, while also reading a lot of bloviating about the FD, most of it rubbish. So I was thrilled to see a cogent argument on the subject, which is an important read for anyone not quite versed on the subject. David Neiwert:

The core problem is ownership: Radio station ownership in the past twenty years has been decidedly conservative. And anyone who’s worked in media can tell you that ownership sets the tone and direction of what you do. After the Fairness Doctrine was removed, these wealthy right-wing owners effectively proved right one of the fears that drove the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in the first place: That the wealthy can and will dominate the political conversation on the public airwaves by simply buying up all the available space. Since the wealthy in this country are overwhelmingly conservative, the end result was not only predictable, it was in fact predicted.

Liberal radio has withered on the vine not for the lack of demand, but for the lack of ownership dedicated to nurturing talent, promoting the product, and creating local outlets as well as national markets.

Besides, anything that makes Sean Hannity red in the face is good for Democrats.

There are so many reasons why the debate about the FD and radio ownership could benefit Democrats. Reading progressive arguments against the FD is infuriating, because these folks are basically caving to pressure from the wingnuts who don’t want any sunshine on this issue due to the fact that if people knew how stacked the radio deck was in favor of conservatives they’d finally be exposed and someone would have to do something about it.

In these tough economic times, with ad dollars drying up, conservative hosts are the ones raking in most of the money, while spreading one side of the story across this country. No other platform can compete. That’s the way conservatives like it and some Dems seem happy to oblige.

As an aside, since I’ve gotten quite a few emails about it, my show remains on hiatus and I’m not sure where I go from where I’ve been. I haven’t been on the air since 2002, only able to do web radio, which isn’t the primary place where I want to be broadcasting. The passion I have for the medium remains, but I never got into it to do it for free.

Now it’s your turn. Consider this a Sunday free for all, any topic.

Keep good thoughts for us on our long drive back east. I’m just hoping the weather doesn’t get too gnarly. Pamela will take good care of you.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Bill Clinton: More Balance Needed on Radio

By on 12 February 2009

Oh, this is going to ignite the wingnuts.

Via Mario Solis-Marich, with the audio available at Huffington Post:

“We either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or more balance on the other side. Because, essentially, there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows. … [...] and if you only hear one side on the radio, that’s pretty tough. ” – Former President Bill Clinton

Amidst the economic downturn, terrestrial radio remains the strongest weapon Republicans have against the Democrats, including on the stimulus. It’s simply reality.

Whether the Fairness Doctrine is the ultimate answer, I don’t know, but clearly media consolidation is an issue, especially with the imbalance of conservatives v. progressives on the radio.

Which brings me to Sean Hannity’s show, which compared to El Rush is a perfect example of pitiful programming. Hannity has turned his show into a non-stop commercial for himself, Fox, and his advertisers, in between calls where the same thing is said every day. As Bill Clinton says in the audio, even when you disagree with Limbaugh he can sometimes be entertaining, oftentimes inadvertently. Most of conservative talk has lost that vein, with Hannity leading the pack in the yawn factor. Hey, but he has a lib on every once in a while, which is more than you can say for Rush, who is the king of reclusive radio, where he just sits in his studio and talks to himself all day.

Nobody knows what conservative radio can do to a presidency more than William Jefferson Clinton. They led the charge against him in the 1990′s. With Democrats in power the least they should do is look at media ownership.

Read full story · Comments { 54 }

Coming to D.C. When Progressive Radio is Dead

By on 08 February 2009
Photobucket

Hard to see in the picture, but that’s a flock of geese. Given our bird fetish, what a welcome to the area. Flocks of geese overhead, in fields, just beautiful. It’s the first time my husband has seen this area of the country, so it was a welcome sight. We’ve been everywhere from D.C. to Virginia to Maryland, as I introduce him to our new home. The rest of February will be getting fully moved and settled in, but he loves the place. The weather has been spectacular, which helps.

Perusing the news, I couldn’t help but land on Bill Press’ piece today about radio in the D.C. area.

The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that’s not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For the past two years, OBAMA 1260 — even with a weak signal that cannot be heard in downtown Washington — was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our nation’s capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air. …

Swell, huh? This has been my battle for so many years I can’t count. I’d heard rumblings, but… We’ll see what happens.

But the most important story for me is the news that’s been circulating that President Obama has finally decided that if we are to offer even a limited escalating of troops in Afghanistan we need a plan. Though the title of this article is misleading, this section nails the reality:

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.

Larry Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said: “Obama is exactly right. Before he agrees to send 30,000 troops, he wants to know what the mission and the endgame is.”

The only mission in my mind that’s worth it is to keep Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. But we still need an endgame, so this is obviously smart.

Another good sign was that Tom Ricks on “Meet the Press” finally put the dagger into the heart of this nonsense that Afghanistan could become “Obama’s Vietnam,” something that Juan Cole and Newsweek, among many others, have trumpeted. Cole and I got into a back and forth on it, because I found his assertion ridiculous. Ricks says it’s not Afghanistan that’s the real issue, but Pakistan. Bingo. If Obama considers any military action inside Pakistan, that’s the place that could end up sinking his administration. Now that Ricks has said that openly, maybe we can all come to grips that Pakistan is the 10,000 ton elephant in the room even when talking about Afghanistan. But if Obama is to be successful in this region, we cannot afford a failed state next to Pakistan. These countries can only be solved together. Again, I just don’t see how we make any headway without a limited troop increase in Afghanistan. No one has convinced me otherwise. I’m just hoping that Ricks’ comment will end the “Obama’s Vietnam” nonsense where Afghanistan is concerned. It’s just not helpful, plus it doesn’t apply.

Today we’re looking around some more, long day ahead, but I wanted to check in to say hello. Enjoy your Sunday.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Halperin Compares Obama to Bush

By on 29 January 2009

This is instructive. After reviewing the media who was very kind to Obama, it’s painfully obvious in Mr. Halperin’s latest appearance that he’s trying to go in the opposite direction to prove he can criticize the popular new president. People who make a living at writing about these things just don’t know what to do with Barack Obama. But Halperin proved today that he’s willing to play the lead actor in this preposterous new play entitled, “The Village Moves to Show Obama Who’s Boss.”

MARK HALPERIN: “I don’t want to overreact because things could change, but this is a really bad sign for Barack Obama to try to change Washington. Because this is a big moment, a crisis, in some case full blown crisis. (insert more “crisis” talk here) [...] He needs bipartisan solutions. They went for it, and they came up with zero. Now the House Republicans are more partisan. It would have been difficult to do.”

“Can he get the support he needs?” asked Mika. Um… excuse me, missy, but the bill passed in the House by a mile. That Republicans continue to believe their relevancy lies in obstructing is the point. Republicans refusing to play a real role in solving problems was missed. Honestly, “Morning Mika” turned into an alternative universe today.

MARK HALPERIN (continuing after interruption): [...] The other thing he could have done, you can go for centrist compromises, you can say to your own party, sorry, some of you liberals aren’t going to like it, but I’m going to change this legislation radically to get a big centrist majority, rather than an all-Democratic vote. He chose not to do that. That’s the exact path that George Bush took for most of his Presidency, with disastrous consequences for bipartisanship and solving big problems.”

So in other words, what Obama should do is compromise on Democratic ideals for show. “Some of you liberals” talk from Obama misses the point that what we want is a stimulus plan that actually stimulates the economy. Not one that is an ode to compromise because conservative TV pundits have decided it’s time to take Barack Obama down a peg.

Mark Halperin gives new meaning to the word “talking head.” He should have just channeled Rush, who today on his show said that last night’s vote was a “huge win for conservatives.”

But the Republicans stiffing Obama after he made serious gestures towards them is a “bad sign” for the new president. Because they have no intention of changing anything, especially their obstructionist behavior to all things Democratic, Obama’s start is like Bush? Ri-ight.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

The Only Heat on Rush is the Glow of the Spotlight

By on 28 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z-OgbrCu_I

A petition is up at the DCCC to send Rush a message. Guess who’s signing on to it? Rush fans. Their side understands the value of radio. Our side has been behind on this for two decades. But it’s clear when Rush said he hoped Obama would fail that Dems felt an opening. They’re taking it.

So, I start getting emails. Here’s one:

Taylor, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but when a sitting president begins to villify and demonize talk radio personalities or other media commentators against the backdrop of Shumer & Co’s threat of the “Fairness” Doctrine, we should all be at least skeptical of his intentions. May skepticism and distrust of government forever be the vanguard of liberty. Please be vigilant and fair in defending speech no matter your political beliefs. – LW

The notion that Rush’s free speech is in danger of being violated is preposterous. But the Fairness Doctrine scare runs deep and wide in wingnut radio audiences, no matter of association with a political party. Again, they know how to use the airwaves much better than we do. But make no mistake about it, media monopolies of the airwaves is an issue worth taking on. Time will tell if Dems will do it.

But I’m all for Rush being the “new face” of the Republican Party, but it’s clear some Republicans get how bad Rush is for their side.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday. “I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.”Asked to respond to Gingrey, Limbaugh, in an email to Politico, wrote: “I’m sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don’t show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won’t continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we’ll know it when we see it.”

But be sure of one thing, Rush is eating this up. The only bad publicity for Rush is no publicity at all.

Read full story · Comments { 74 }

Retread Rush

By on 27 January 2009

Huh?

… It’s one week into President Obama’s term and his arch nemesis isn’t Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) or even one of the myriad candidates interested in challenging him in 2012.It’s conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. [...] Put simply: Limbaugh isn’t going anywhere any time soon. And his voice — and influence — may well get stronger with the GOP out of power. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for Republicans? Time will tell.

It’s hard to comprehend how anyone making a living in politics would actually say that in 2009 Rush is the “new face” of the Republican Party. If anything, reaching back to Rush, as Sean reaches back to Reagan, what this emphasizes is that Republicans have nothing new to offer. That said, we can only hope Rush becomes the “new face.” Because nothing Rush represents or argues for has any resemblance to what the American people just voted for in November. Rush is the ultimate image of GOP status quo, big business over mainstreet, anti women’s rights, the list goes on and on, but suffice it to say he’s the anti change model.

That Chris Cilizza has evidently just discovered right-wing radio’s chief barker and the medium that led Bush to two terms because of their hyperbolic partisan rhetoric, should alarm his boss.

It’s instructive for the new president, because it further illustrates “post-partisanship” is a fantasy.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Bill Kristol is Done

By on 26 January 2009

Perhaps no other notable conservative has had such an inauspicious tenure than William Kristol at the New York Times. How many columns did he get things completely wrong? Today was his swan song. He killed it too, but at least he got his first facts correct, well, almost.

All good things must come to an end. Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era. …Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of. [...]

That is laugh out loud ludicrous. Conservative policies can be said to “work”? And why does Gingrich get slipped into the presidential line up? I smell a rat.

Reagan’s deregulation helped get us in this mess, with George W. Bush’s tax cuts in a time of war the capper on our economic collapse. We won’t even turn to broadcast ownership monopolies across radio, which led to the rise of Rush and Sean, even Christian broadcasting, another monopoly on Armed Forces radio, that was just recently crashed, though it leads liberals by a mile.

But the real hilarity of Kristol’s analysis of conservative policies working comes when you look at Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was Ronald Reagan, with his CIA guy Bill Casey, who ballooned Carter’s initial Pakistan policy down the road of building madrassas and arming the Islamists in the country, creating the ISI. It was Reagan’s foreign policy that began the slide of Pakistan into what it’s become today. Short-sightedness is the foundation for Republican foreign policy adventures, expediency the rule. George W. Bush’s Musharaff policy, as Biden called it, wasn’t any better, continually arming Pakistan’s military side while ignoring the festering FATA region.

Over the next three decades, it was modern conservatism, led at the crucial moment by Ronald Reagan, that assumed the task of defending liberty with strength and confidence. Can a revived liberalism, faced with a new set of challenges, now pick up that mantle? [...] Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty? That would be a service to our country.

Kristol’s last column today says conservatism’s rise came because liberalism was weak. All philosophies require the right messengers, as do political movements. But he misses the reality that the liberalism of F.D.R. is not only still our Democratic fighting faith, but the reason Hillary Clinton rose to be the politician she is today. It’s the reason so many Americans, regardless of party, stood up to support Barack Obama to be our commander in chief, because conservatism’s bookend, neoconservatism, had taken this country into the dark valley of empire that had our last president pronouncing “preemptive war” as a new American battle cry. Defense of liberty is not just about war, and neither is patriotism. It is about living in a world with people to which we don’t agree and finding common ground to keep the peace, using our alliances also to keep our common enemies at bay by fighting together against them. See John F. Kennedy for that one.

Conservatism crashed on the political beach head on January 20, 2009 because it came up bankrupt, right along with our economic reality, as well as our foreign policy, which is in worse shape than it’s been in a generation. Republicans did that and it began in the same place we’re in trouble today, Afghanistan and Pakistan, on policies authored by the Republican king, Ronald Reagan. Yet once again, liberals are cleaning up after conservatives, not only on finance, as WJC did in the 1990′s, but on all fronts foreign policy.

But none of this has stopped people like Sean Hannity from telling Republicans to look back, look back and follow Ronald Reagan, the man who invited the religious right into the conservative tent, which in the modern era is getting smaller every election season because of it. Conservatism is in more trouble than Kristol admits, especially if Republicans continue to listen to Rush on radio.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Another Reason Why Reagan Won’t Save Republicans

By on 23 January 2009

Just another reason why Sean Hannity channeling Reagan every day on radio and Fox will not serve Republicans. It’s an era whose time has passed, especially regarding women’s civil rights.

Addressing first things first, Obama waited until day three to announce the reversal of Ronald Reagan’s short-sightedness known as the Mexico City Policy, the place where Reagan announced it as law. Waiting until after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today Obama made a statement to women here and around the world that the United States will defend women’s rights as human rights, which by the way includes lifesaving healthcare. Brava, Mr. President.

Amy Sullivan says Obama is being quiet about it. Nobody cares. It’s done.

Bush’s statement is one being echoed by supporters of the policy today. But in fact, since 1973 federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions overseas. What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion (with exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother). The organizations also were not eligible if they lobbied to make or keep abortion legal in their own countries, or if they provided abortion referrals, a requirement that led many opponents of the policy to dub it a “global gag rule.” [...]

President Obama:

Statement of President Barack Obama on Rescinding the Mexico City Policy

“It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.

“For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.

“It is time that we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.

“I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.

“In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries,” said President Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Obama, George, Bill, Dave, Chuck… but no Rush

By on 13 January 2009

Somehow this just doesn’t move me in the least. Given what Obama said and promised, why wouldn’t he meet with the conservative male heirarchy of wingnut pundit land?

The president-elect arrived at the Chevy Chase, Md., home of syndicated columnist George Will shortly after 6:30 p.m., according to a press pool report. Greeting him at the residence were other luminaries of the conservative commentariat, including the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

Of course Bill, Dave, Chuck and George would not include a woman in their all male smooze BUT WAIT… new reporting offers than Peggy Noonan was the token chick. Kathleen Parker should definitely have been on the list, especially considering she helped to bring out Sarah Palin’s negatives, much to the chagrin of some conservatives.

That Rush would ever be invited to this confab is a joke. He only talks to himself.

When someone is opposing you, disarm them. Charm them. Give them your ear. Let them get to know you so that the person they’re critiquing isn’t some far off detached subject. It’s much harder to slam someone when you’ve met them. Besides, Obama knows he’s got the liberal punditocracy no matter what he does.

Access is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Jack Bauer Returns

By on 11 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRVnRNngelU&eurl

What seems like ages ago, Rush Limbaugh launched into a ownership tirade of the TV series “24,” but most specifically Jack Bauer, saying he was obviously a Republican. I wasn’t surprised, but as a fan of the show I was infuriated. How could a television show and character belong to any party? After all, it’s TV. But most importantly, Rush seemed to be regurgitating that wingnut favorite that any strong, lethal warrior is automatically a Republican. Why quibble, right? After all, who wants to claim someone who tortures his prisoners. It’s more complicated, proved by the two decades of conversations going back to the 1980s when the C.I.A., in the midst of a war inside Afghanistan, started to re-evaluate Gerald R. Ford’s action banning assassination, which began the long, curved trek to rendition, secret prisons and Bush-Cheney’s torture policy post 9/11. Anyway, the response from me to Rush’s hilarious attachment to Jack Bauer as a Republican was “Jack Bauer is a Democrat.” It infuriated non political types who were fans of the show, because they didn’t want politics brought into it, but especially wingnuts, as emails poured into me.

This Christmas I received the DVD “24″ movie. It was a lot of fun to watch and very much off the usual storyline of the TV “24.” We also spent some marathon hours watching the DVD collection of the show to get primed for the new season, which was fun because my hubby hadn’t seen the early episodes. As for my excuse, I have none. This is the action stuff I love watching.

Tonight, Bauer is back in a new season, with Tony Almeida returning, this time supposedly as an adversary. There’s much in the show that inspires conversation about the TV “hero,” even as some, especially progressives, think he’s an awful character to which the word “hero” should never be ascribed. I’ll let you argue that one out.

There’s not been much good on the small flat screen lately. That’s not a good thing, especially as economics forces people inside. I’m rooting for Jack Bauer and “24″ to change that, at least one hour a week. I’m glad Jack is back.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }