Posted on 11/22/2002 5:27:07 AM PST by luv2ndamend
In Tom Daschle's eyes I guess I'm a ``Rush Limbaugh wannabe,'' so I have to respond to his ever-so-1995 diatribe against talk radio.
Does Daschle know who Harry S. Truman was? He's the president who said the buck stops here and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, both of which apply to Daschle's pathetic whining Wednesday.
But there's an even better Truman quote, from back in 1948 when he was running for president. He was on a whistle-stop train tour across the country, and at one stop, somebody yelled up to him, ``Give 'em hell, Harry.''
``I never give 'em hell,'' Truman replied. ``I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.''
That's Daschle's problem. We just tell the truth and he thinks it's hell.
He's disturbed how ``entertainment becomes so much a part of politics and if that entertainment drives an emotional movement in this country among some people who don't know the difference between entertainment and politics . . .''
As one of my listeners e-mailed, ``A guy who takes memos from Barbra Streisand says we can't differentiate between entertainment and politics? Rush Limbaugh is both. Al Gore on SNL is neither.''
My question is, how come Daschle is only worried about talk radio?
Was he concerned two years ago when CBS ran a freeze frame of Gov. George Bush at the GOP convention with a caption underneath that said ``Snipers Wanted''? How about when Alec Baldwin suggested that Rep. Henry Hyde and his family should be stoned to death?
That was all good clean fun, I suppose, just like when some woman on NPR said she hoped Clarence Thomas' ``white wife'' would feed him enough fatty foods to kill him.
What about the DNC ad last month of Bush pushing an old-timer in a wheelchair off a cliff? Did Daschle ask the NAACP to pull its TV ad in 2000 that basically accused Bush of lynching a black man in Jasper, Texas?
Then there was Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell an Uncle Tom, or was it a house slave? And the lefty talk show host in Miami who derided Condoleezza Rice as a ``mammy.''
Oh, I forgot. It's only hate speech when conservatives attack liberals. When students at Harvard Law demand a ``speech code,'' they're celebrating diversity. When conservatives try to defend the First Amendment, they're ``the Taliban.''
When Republicans went after Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, that was ``the politics of personal destruction.'' When Larry Flynt and Hustler nuked Newt Gingrich's successor as House speaker with accusations of adultery, liberals shrugged and threw out the old line about how politics ain't beanbag.
What's the problem here, Daschle? You and your comrades control most of television, Hollywood and the big newspapers - the lame-stream media, as it's known on our message boards. The only medium they don't dominate is talk radio. Ergo, talk radio must be a threat.
They've tried to take us on, you know. On radio (Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo) and on TV (Phil Donahue, Chris Matthews, Charles Grodin). What do (or did) all these shows have in common?
Ratings lower than whale droppings.
There's an undeniable double standard for liberals. Bill Moyers gets pulled over for OUI in Vermont and it barely makes the wires. The boss of the NAACP, Kweisi Mfume, has five kids out of wedlock, and it's a state secret. Rep. Dan Burton's one love child is mega-news.
It's not talk radio's fault that the Democrats blew the election, nor is it our problem that more and more Americans don't trust the lame-stream media. How many times can you pick up, say, The New York Times and read that Clinton pardoned not terrorists but ``nationalists''? How many times can they call illegal aliens ``undocumented workers'' before you just . . . turn on the radio and the computer?
I could make a few jokes about the 66-inch-high Daschle - ask him if he had any ``reservations'' about voting fraud in his home state on Nov. 5. But why bother? Let me just give him one final piece of advice. If the Democrats can't turn out a big enough graveyard vote on the South Dakota reservations in 2004 to save his Senate seat, then I think I know what Daschle should say in his concession speech:
``You radio talk-show hosts won't have Tom Daschle to kick around anymore.''
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO AM 680, WHYN AM 560, WGAN AM 560, WEIM AM 1280, WXTK 95.1 FM or online at howiecarr.org.
This has to be from a FReeper. Fess up. Who is it?
"Tom Daschle hates American talk radio like Stalin hated Radio Free Europe."
That quote shows you how far the Democrat Party has regressed in the last 50 years.
That would be Julianne Malveaux, possibly the meanest and ugliest black woman pundit on radio or television.
I rolled on the floor laughing when (about two years ago) the wonderful Reverend Jesse Lee Petersen politely asked her if she was married. When she said "No" defensively and asked why, Reverend Petersen responded calmly: "I didn't think so, because I don't know any man who would put up with a mouth like yours."
Even the dead are abandoning the Dimocrat Party.
FOFL ... They will NEVER EVER get it
Malveaux alternates with Donna Brazile as a member of the panel on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition CNN Sunday talk show. Brazile was one of the leaders of Gore's 2000 campaign, and she shows her DemocRATic colors all the time. But at least she supports the war against terrorism. Malveaux is somewhat guarded in what she says on the show, but it would appear that she opposes even that.
Julianne had gone completely out of control and nasty during the Rapist impeachment. For a while following that, you couldn't find her on TV anywhere. Julianne apparently realized that if she continued to behave like shrieking trailer trash, she was going to cut into her own income. LOL
Politicians, radio talk shows, citizens, all can paraphrase democrat speech from the past (slightly altered to be useful), and make sure it is attributed each time to the original author.
Let them either slink back under their rocks, or start attacking themselves!
I love it
Ratings lower than whale droppings.
You forgot that Jabba the Hutt wannabe Bernie Ward...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Indeed Rush is both. But the crucial point is that journalism is both, also. Successful commercial journalism must draw attention, and to do that it must in some sense entertain.And all journalists do it in pretty much the same way: always make your deadline (the show must go on) and have new, unsettling reports to worry the audience into paying attention.
"No news is good news" (because good news "isn't news").
"Man Bites Dog" stories (IOW, whatever is not usual).
"There's nothing more worthless than yesterdays's newspaper" (so how valuable really, is today's paper?).And, most important, avoid flame wars over objectivity with other journalists; "objectivity" is nothing but a code for concensus of journalists. That concensus is as negative and superficial negative and superficial as the above rules of journalism suggest. IOW, so-called "objectivity" is anticonservatism.
Indeed Rush is both. But the crucial point is that journalism is both, also. Successful commercial journalism must draw attention, and to do that it must in some sense entertain.And all journalists do it in pretty much the same way: always make your deadline (the show must go on) and have new, unsettling reports to worry the audience into paying attention.
"No news is good news" (because good news "isn't news").
"Man Bites Dog" stories (IOW, whatever is not usual).
"There's nothing more worthless than yesterdays's newspaper" (so how valuable really, is today's paper?).And, most important, avoid flame wars over objectivity with other journalists; "objectivity" is nothing but a code for concensus of journalists. That concensus is as negative and superficial negative and superficial as the above rules of journalism suggest. IOW, so-called "objectivity" is anticonservatism.
This seems radical and cynical; it also has the ring of truth in light of books like Slander and Bias. The salient point about proof of my claim is that the burden of proof belongs on the one who claims superior "objectivity", not on the one who represents his words strictly as his own opinion.That would outrage the "objective" among us, for the simple reason that lack of bias is an unprovable negative. I understand their plight but am utterly unmoved by their dilemma. Not my problem!!
The truth is that the First Amendment only protects opinion; in so doing it prohibits the government from guaranteeing that anyone's opinion is objective. If the government is objective, or can tell us who is, then we should just shut up and listen, and never vote out the
"objective" incumbentsrascals.
....Until the day comes when you forget the facts of yesterday!
And Howie, do you know that S was Truman's middle name? S was not an initial standing for a name beginning with S.
Did you know that the correct way to write/type Truman's name is: Harry S Truman? Note the lack of a period after the S.
(Apropos of nothing really important, unless you're boning up for a trivia game.)
Doesn't BS send those faxes to the future former House Minority Leader, Dick "No-Brows" Gephardt? Does she also send them to Tiny Tommy?
This has to be from a FReeper. Fess up. Who is it?
I had the same thought! It's a classic.
(Sincere apologies all for previous mistaken double-ping.)
(Please FReepmail me if you want on/off my Daschle ping list)
I had completely forgotten about this disgusting event. Perhaps I just wanted to forget just how evil lib/dems can really be.
"There's nothing more worthless than yesterdays's newspaper" (so how valuable really, is today's paper?).....Until the day comes when you forget the facts of yesterday!
That presumes that the paper has "the facts of yesterday." It only has some of them, selected for entertainment value.If you go back and read 20-year-old newspapers you may be able to pick up details you had forgotten--but primarily you will find yourself looking past things you know were not representative. The paper makes a big deal out of the "man bites dog" story--but it never happened again, and wasn't historically important. The paper overhypes any problem that comes down the pike. And the good things that gradually developed, are as a rule invisible.
I hope so !! 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.