Democrats Push to Silence Conservative Talk Show Hosts

From the text:

They have huge control in television, newspapers, but they are unable to articulate their views on radio in any degree, except they totally own NPR, so they feel they must attack mainstream talk radio, constitutional questions be damned.

 

Funny thing about NPR, though, is that their news department is beginning to hold the Democrats accountible. For example, in a story about a bill to lower the interest rate on student loans, they noted that the bill falls far short of campaign promises.

Not much, but a start.

 

Call it "re-imagining tragic_pizza"... :tongue3:

I can't think of anyone who has run in the past two elections that would have been the kind of communicator that we need.

Wierd as it sounds, I think Reagan was the best Presidential communicator in at least the past half century. One of the reasons I'm leaning toward Obama (aside from his inexperience) is that he at least appears to be a motivator.

 

I'm working really hard on mine, and trying to remain humble, even though I'm doing a great job.:tongue3:

 

How about his political stance on the issues most important to Christians? He is as far from Christian principals as is possible.

 

He's pretty far off from Conservative Christian principles, yes. Haven't seen those who are supposedly in favor of those principles actually do anything about them, though.

Some folks are one-issue voters (abortion, generally), and that's fine. I look at more than one issue, though, and so far Obama looks like the least repugnant of a really stinky bunch, on both sides of the spectrum.

 

Unfortunately, issues are great on the campaign trail but seldom amount to anything in office.

We need to be very careful who we sell our votes to for good issue-speak.

Here in Missouri, we voted in fellow Baptist, Matt Blunt...only to get a constitutional ammendment mandating the cloning and termination of human embryos.

So much for all that good, pro-life talk. Most of these politicians view Christians as just another voting block. Basically, they think we're puppets. Pull the right string, we'll do the right dance.

Be very, very careful what you believe about issues.

 

Then you need glasses. He is the worst possible candidate to run this nation, Hillary included, if Christian principals are desired. Your principals have nothing that I can see, to do with my Christian principals.

 

Then upon what would you base your choices?

 

You and I are pretty big on the same issue. But I am sick of hearing pro-life and seeing nothing. When we define our faith by issues, the politicans play along. They will be more than happy to talk pro-life, anti-homosexual, etc, etc all day long, then do nothing. When we question this, they point to their opponent and encourage us to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I am tired of voting for evil.

Show me a pro-life candidate that will do something, and I'll consider it, otherwise, don't play games with my faith...its more important to me than that.

 

Well, you have. Since 2000, there's two sure votes on SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Right. All those RINOs took their own base for granted, now they're going to pay the price.

President or Head Cheerleader?

Well, yes, and the effort to revive the "Fairness Doctorine" wouldn't look so bad if they were still the minority party, but they're not now. Someone ought to muzzle Dennis, this thing has ZERO chance of passing and is a PR nightmare for them.

There's millions of talk-radio listeners out there, even Bush would certainly veto this bill, and that veto would be sustained.

 

I do appreciate Mr. Bush for that. The Supreme Court was my deciding factor when I voted, and I am glad that he made good there. To me, that is the most lasting legacy of a President.

 

The whole issue of the Dems trying to silence conservative talk radio is amuzing because it gives tons for the conservative talk shows to talk about and more prove their side, but it is also very scary that they really do want to shut certain people up because of their fear for the truth being exposed as it has been so many times on conservative talk shows across the nation.

The real reason they are doing this now is because their only counter part known was the syndicated show, Air America, which was hosted by the likes of Al Fraken, has been a dismal failure compared to even local conservative shows across the country. The democrats are upset because they want radio to be on board with their thinking the same way they have the liberal press and television media onboard. Even people of their own ilk are tired of government trashing to the extent that they do it, and if you go to their site today you find one of their shows titled, "Did Jesus Christ exist? The God who wasn't there?" One more nail confirming that Liberal Christian is likely an oxymoron.

 

One must be both to be truly effective. I can't recall one in my lifetime before or since Regan who was particularly good at either...

 

For the sake of accuracy, Air America is not a show...its a network. It contains many shows, the big three in the daily line-up are the Jerry Springer show (political, not at all like his TV show), the Al Franken Show, and the Randi Rhodes show. There are lots of others in thier line-up.

You are right...Air America has not caught on as well as conservative talk-radio. Largely due to the fact that talk radio always seems to have a conservative audience. Those who might truly care what Jerry Springer and Al Franken say about politics don't seem to listen to the radio in the mornings.

 

And this is most curious to me. Why pursue it at all? What is there to gain for the Dems?
Maybe the first sound bite informing America that there is unfairness being imposed on us by conservatives?

 

No, limiting surveillance on citizens is anti-Big Brother, anti-Brave New World.

 

Actually, not anymore. Springer is gone. The morning starts with the Young Turks, followed by Sam Seder (who left the evening slot). Then Al Franken is on, followed by Randi.

This is true, and I would add that they need a better business plan. Apparently, Al is considering a run for the Senate (he moved back to Minnesota last year), so I would imagine that he is leaving. It would be interesting to see what happens, perhaps they would make a move to get Ed Schultz on the network. Whatever happens, I doubt that the network in its current form is going to last.

Regards, hope all is well,
BiR