Categories

Archive for the ‘Talk Radio’ Category

Over the past few years, we’ve seen the Democratic Party crank up their smear machine. This week, Nancy Pelosi said something stunning. Here’s what she said:

PELOSI: I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the lifelines to struggling families and hungry children. This colleague’s response was telling in its blunt nature and it’s stunning in its honesty. What he said was that, to the Republican Caucus, these people are invisible and the Republican Caucus is indifferent to them.

Greta played that disgustingly dishonest diatribe during her interview with Sean Hannity. This video is instructive to Republicans:

This isn’t the first time a Democrat lied about an anonymous Republican who had the dirt on another Republican. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Harry Reid said he had proof that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid income taxes for the last 10 years. Of course, he didn’t offer proof of his accusation. Most Republicans still think that Harry Reid was simply lying through his teeth.

When it comes to dirty politicking, Democrats don’t hesitate in lying through their teeth. When Harry Reid lied through his teeth during the presidential election, I didn’t question Reid’s honesty. I knew he was a liar. I’m not questioning Pelosi’s honesty now. I don’t have to because it’s apparent that she’s lying. What’s troubling about Pelosi’s statement is that it’s proof that lies roll off her lips effortlessly.

This isn’t the first time she’s been caught lying. Let’s remember that she said with a straight face that unemployment checks help grow the economy. Nobody’s that stupid. Let’s remember that she’s the liar that insisted she hadn’t been briefed about the Bush administration’s waterboarding of high value target terrorists. Then there’s Pelosi’s insistence that the Catholic church’s position on human life only started 50 years ago and doesn’t impact abortion in any case.

The best way to determine if she’s lying is by determining whether her lips are moving. If they’re moving, it’s almost certain that she’s lying.

While Greta interviewed Sean Hannity tonight, Greta told Sean that he’d taken Pelosi’s bait before asking why he’d respond to Pelosi’s lies. At first, I sided with Greta on this. Then Hannity talked about the amount of lies coming from Democrats. I still don’t agree with how Hannity responded but I don’t entirely agree with Greta either.

I agree with Greta that Hannity shouldn’t respond with a statistical argument. That being said, I agree with Hannity that Republicans can’t just pretend Pelosi’s lies don’t exist. My point is that Republicans have to respond to Pelosi’s lies by going on offense. Start with highlighting the fact that Democrats will say anything if they think it’ll change a few votes. Highlight the fact that this isn’t the first time Ms. Pelosi got caught lying by citing the other times she’s told outright whoppers. In this instance, I’d fight Ms. Pelosi’s lies by questioning who this Republican friend is. Next, I’d ask why she called this Republican a “colleague.” Does that mean this alleged Republican is a member of the House of Representatives?

If she’s unwilling to provide the details, I’d then go on Greta’s show and say that I’d questioned Ms. Pelosi about who would say such a despicable thing but that she wouldn’t identify this alleged Republican friend of Ms. Pelosi’s. Finally, I’d state that I’m highly skeptical of her allegations, followed by the fact that I think she’s lying.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

I’ve written this post and this post about Al Franken’s fundraising appeals. Mostly, Franken’s fundraising appeals have been long on Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, the TEA Party and Citizens United. In other words, they’re a collection of the Democrats’ favorite boogeymen.

This morning, I got an email from Jorge Bonilla who is running against Alan Grayson. Here’s part of Bonilla’s fundraising appeal:

We are well over eight months away fron Election Day 2014, yet Alan Grayson is already invoking each and every one of the Left’s boogeymen in his fundraising appeals.

It’s only February, yet Grayson has already issued pro-forma denunciations of Fox News, Sean Hannity, the energy sector, has compared the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan, and most recently, has smeared our veterans while attacking the eeeeeeevil Koch Brothers.

Of course, such attacks are pure hypocrisy coming from Alan Grayson. The non-partisan and independent Center for Responsive Politics is dedicated to tracking the influence of money in our election process, and they have compiled a list of the largest political donors over the last 25 years.

The scary “Kochtopus” is all the way down at #59. But who occupies most of the top spots? You guessed it…Grayson’s Big Labor buddies. A quick crosscheck with Grayson’s top donor list confirms this inconvenient fact.

Apparently, the Congressman Without Guts feels compelled to insult our intelligence (as well as that of his own individual donor base) by performing this “outrageously tough progressive” shtick, which now includes this Koch theater.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice a pattern developing. Even intellectual midgets like Franken and Grayson could spot it. What’s obvious is that Democrats will go totally negative this election. They’ll criticize the entire panoply of conservative ‘boogeymen’ for this nation’s ills rather than admit that it’s their policies that’ve failed. They’ll do whatever it takes to distract people from the ACA disaster. They’ll insist that they’re pushing back against President Obama and ‘holding him accountable’ for the disastrous performance of HealthCare.gov while criticizing Republicans for wanting to repeal the law that’s causing health insurance prices to jump.

The Democratic playbook for this election is simple. To hold onto the U.S. Senate, Democrats will attempt to portray Republicans as utterly beholden to special interests out to destroy America’s middle class. They’ll do this while accepting money from environmental organizations while pretending to be friends of the private sector unions who want to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Their message will essentially be ‘Don’t vote for Republicans because they’re scary.’ Meanwhile, they didn’t notice that they’re the ‘Scary Characters Party’. While it’s too early to predict the Franken and Grayson races with anything approaching sanity, it isn’t too early to predict that this won’t be a good year for Democrats.

The only thing left to determine is how bad it’ll be.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Throughout Sean Hannity’s interview with Paul Ryan, it was painfully obvious that Mr. Hannity didn’t grasp the concept that divided government means one or both sides hate the deals they strike. Here’s the video of Hannity’s interview:

Throughout the interview, Hannity kept complaining that conservatives don’t like this deal much. Througout the interview, Chairman Ryan told Hannity that the budget would’ve looked much different had Patty Murray agreed to his budget and President Obama had signed it into law.

It’s unrealistic to think that President Obama would even momentarily contemplate signing such a budget. It’s absurd to think that Harry Reid would let Chairman Ryan’s budget to get a hearing, much less a vote in the Senate. That wasn’t going to happen.

What conservatives have to remember is that winning elections is the only way that the Ryan balanced budget proposal has a chance of becoming law. While Hannity and others kept insisting that Chairman Ryan had forgotten that Congress has the power of the purse, Hannity didn’t understand that Ryan technically had the power of the purse but he didn’t have the power of the purse without there being a steep political price to be paid.

People like Hannity have forgotten that the balanced budgets of the 1990s didn’t happen because John Kasich, Newt Gingrich and President Clinton instantly had a come-to-Jesus moment and they all lived happily ever after. Conservative incrementalism is the only reason we had 4 straight balanced budgets.

It’s important to remember that there’s a huge difference between President Clinton and President Obama. President Clinton had run something before getting elected. He knew the value of being practical when it was required. President Obama never ran anything as challenging as a lemonade stand. He grew up in a radicalized world. President Obama never thought that compromise was a worthwhile thing. He still doesn’t.

Let’s stipulate that the Ryan-Murray plan isn’t a great deal because it isn’t. It’s important for whining conservatives like Hannity to understand that, though it isn’t agreat deal, it’s the best deal available. It’s equally important that consertvatives like Mr. Hannity and others to understand that this deal has significant benefits.

First, there won’t be another shutdown, which means the spotlight stays of the disaster of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. That’s a huge win for Republicans. If that’s all that the Republicans got out of this, that’d be enough to chalk this up as GOP victory.

Second, there’s agreement in this legislation that opens up more oil and natural gas exploration. That’s a significant win for the GOP. Most importantly, it’s a major victory for the American people in the form of stabilized home heating bills and gas prices at the pump.

Third, it’s a win for Republicans because Democrats won’t get traction when they accuse Republicans of not having the ability to govern. Instead, Chairman Ryan has stopped the Obama form of governing. That form of governing meant jumping from one crisis and/or deadline to another. That method of operation gave President Obama a major advantage in negotiations because he had the bully pulpit and Republicans had a gun pointed at their head.

People like Erick Erickson need to get their facts straight. He didn’t get his facts straight in this post:

Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.

According to Chairman Ryan, Erickson isn’t close to being right. The offsets in “autopilot spending”, aka entitlements, start immediately. In exchange for some ‘sequestration relief’, Chairman Ryan won some minor changes in entitlement spending.

The Erick Ericksons of the world will never be satisfied with anything other than total, immediate victory. If Republicans want to rebuild credibility in their brand, however, it’s important that they show apolitical people that they can be principled without being obnoxious.

Chairman Ryan’s budget provides that platform for Republicans.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of my daily (really, it’s more like several times a day) reads is Jim Hoft’s Gatewaypundit blog. If you aren’t already reading Jim’s blog, you’d better start ASAP. This summer, Jim went through a horrific time healthwise. Thankfully, Jim had a health insurance policy that protected him from a financial disaster. Today, Jim learned that he’s losing the health insurance policy that saved his life.

As a result of Jim’s post asking for America’s prayers, Rush Limbaugh picked up on Jim’s post in this monologue:

There are people with cancer, one of them is Jim Hoft. Jim Hoft is at Gateway Pundit, and he’s out of St. Louis. And he’s got a post.

“Please Pray for Me… I Am Losing My Insurance — In August 2013 I became very sick with what I thought was a cold. After a few days I lost vision in my left eye and I checked into the hospital. I soon found out that what I thought was a summer cold was actually Strep bacteria poisoning my blood stream. The bacteria blinded my left eye, ate a hole through my heart, caused five strokes on both sides of my brain and forced the removal of my prosthetic left knee.

“Dr. Lee was the surgeon assigned to perform open heart surgery. What was originally scheduled to last four hours ended up lasting twelve. My heart was severely damaged. Dr. Lee later told me the surgery was one of the most difficult of his career. He also said I only had a few days to live without the surgery. Thanks to the excellent insurance I carried I was able to receive life-saving medical treatment at St. Louis University.

“This week I found out I am going to lose my insurance. The company that carried me is leaving the Missouri market. I will have to find something else. I am one of the millions who will be looking for new insurance. God willing, I will be able to keep my doctors at St. Louis University. I trust them. They saved my life. Please pray for me and the millions of working Americans who are going through this same ordeal. Why is our government doing this to us?”

Rush wasn’t done there:

I have, in the Health Care Stack, another story. “Cancer Patient: I’m Devastated Over Obamacare.” It’s by Joan Carrico, a registered nurse. “I had a lot of trouble early on. I didn’t expect my insurance to be canceled, had numerous problems getting onto Healthcare.gov and gave up on the website. Since then, I have received assistance from an agent and a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan representative. I have been stressed and scrambling to find an affordable policy that will ensure that I keep my doctors, chemotherapy drugs, etc. that are literally keeping me alive.

“Over six years ago, I was in a position where I needed to choose an individual health-insurance policy. After much research I chose a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO that I anticipated would be short term. My plan was to return to work as a registered nurse and be eligible for a group policy. But, for the first time in my life, I got really sick. I’ve been battling cancer and fighting for my life for the last six years. So much for my plans. I thank God that I am alive and am eternally grateful to Blue Cross Blue Shield and all my doctors, especially my doctors at University of Michigan (UM), who refer to me as their miracle patient.”

She’s losing hers, too. “What is our government doing to us? Why is our government doing this to us?” This is the root of Obama’s problem. Not everybody has cancer, not everybody’s losing their doctor and their trusted insurance policy and all that. But a lot of people are losing everything. They’ve already lost their jobs. Many of them don’t really have any hope of getting a replacement job at replacement salaries, levels. And now after being promised for three years that they could keep their doctor, keep their insurance, they can’t.

What’s upsetting, besides the fact that people are losing very good health insurance policies, is when cheap politicians like Al Franken won’t even return calls or emails from constituents who’ve contacted him about getting cancellation notices from the health insurance companies. I spoke with a legislator last night who had several of his constituents tell him about Sen. Franken’s shoddy constituent services work on health care. Franken won’t even return calls even though he voted for this wretched piece of legislation without even reading the bill.

“Why is our government doing this to us?” is fast becoming the new battle cry of people of all political persuasions nationwide. At this point, this isn’t a political issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death.

Every American reading this post should email and/or call their senator if that senator voted for the Affordable Care Act. My first instinct is to tell these Americans to read their senators the riot act. My second instinct isn’t much better. Thankfully, I’ve started regaining my composure with the knowledge that I’ll have the opportunity to fire Al Franken next November. The only thing I’d enjoy more than hearing his concession speech would be to watch his reaction as he tries dealing with the exchanges he voted for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Bill O’Reilly touts Bernie Goldberg as an expert on the media, which says something in and of itself. Call it the Mindless Bloviator praises the Expert Pontificator. This weekend, Goldberg’s column offers ‘proof’ of a GOP civil war. At least, that’s the Gospel according to the Expert Pontificator. Here’s the Expert Pontificator’s proof:

So I’m driving in my car listening to Rush two days after the election and a caller comes who describes himself as a traditional family values conservative. He is a combination of angry and deeply depressed over how the election turned out, but mostly angry. And he’s calling, he says, to inform Mr. Limbaugh that he did not vote for Mitt Romney and will never vote for a moderate Republican. Then for good measure he adds that if he ever hears a Republican say he wants to “reach across the aisle” he will never vote for him either.

One day earlier, conservative radio talk show star Laura Ingraham tweeted this:

“Face it Repubs, you wish we had a candidate who–teleprompter or not–could speak as forcefully for conservatism as Obama speaks for liberalism” and “JUST A THOUGHT…Next time, GOP might want to think about nominating a conservative.”

And out in Middle America, Steve Deace, a conservative radio talk show host and well-known conservative in Iowa told his listeners: “There will never be another establishment candidate like that [Romney]. Mitt just killed Republicans in my home state. People are angry, especially because Matt Drudge and Karl Rove told us it was all in the bag all along, after they got done smearing conservatives in the primary and dumping on Todd Akin. It’s on like Donkey Kong.”

That Goldberg thinks that 3 callers on talk radio constitutes a GOP civil war speaks to Mr. Goldberg’s habit of overdramatizing things. If that’s the criteria defining an intraparty civil war, then the GOP has fought civil wars while winning landslide victories and while suffering humiliating defeats.

Of we could just call this what it is: a tussle that happens to all political parties after a defeat.

I’ve talked with lots of conservatives since the election. None has suggested that they’re upset with Mitt Romney’s policies. A fair number of these conservatives think he ran too cautious of a campaign, especially with regard to Benghazi and the EPA.

That isn’t the same as saying they’re ready to go headhunting. Yes, there will undoubtedly be some angry conservatives venting on talk radio. A fair number of them will have constructive ideas moving the GOP forward, too.

That, however, doesn’t constitute a full-blown intraparty civil war in the GOP.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week, Mitch Berg wrote a brilliant series of articles about U of M Professor WB Gleason’s threat to file an FCC complaint against Late Debate’s Jack Tomczak. Specifically, Gleason threatened to file the FCC complaint over some tweets made by Jack.

As Mitch highlighted in this post, the FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction over tweets:

Of course, Channel Five doesn’t phrase their requests for interviews with terms like “asshole“. Which was Tomczak’s sole mistake. But, I hasten to add, that took place on Twitter – a place where the FCC has no jurisdiction.

Despite conservatives’ warning the station that they shouldn’t cave to Gleason, that’s precisely what 95.9 did. To say that this touched off a firestorm amongst conservatives is understatement. Jen DeJournett, co-founder of VOICES of Conservative Women, sent this letter to Andrew Lee at AM1130:

His April 22, 2012
Dear Mr. Lee:
VOICES of Conservative Women (VOICES) would like to encourage your radio station to pick up the highly regarded show called the “The Late Debate”. I have participated numerous times as a guest of the show and been a frequent listener to the program. I have found their guests and the issues they discuss to be relevant to the political dialogue in Minnesota. In addition, “The Late Debate” has had numerous conservative women as guests on their program. Just last week, they hosted a “Mom’s Table” where every guest was a mom and responded to the timely topic of Hilary Rosen. No other radio program has had the sheer number of women guests in their tenure. Allowing our perspective to be heard is critical and appreciated.

Founded just a few years ago here in Minnesota, VOICES of Conservative Women has grown to become one of the premier women focus organization in the upper Midwest. Our current supporter base is 25,000 women from all over the country. VOICES of Conservative Women is a 501(c)4 national non-profit, nonpartisan organization that works to encourage women to be more involved in public policy and run for elected office. We also work to educate on issues that relate to our core mission: fiscal responsibility, limited government and free market principles.

Our 527 political fund (VOICESPAC) works to elect strong, qualified women candidates who support our mission.

VOICES has worked very hard since our inception to encourage women to get involved in politics and has a strong, proven track record of electing qualified women to office.

We hope that you will seriously consider bringing “The Late Debate” to your radio station. Their willingness to be unique and newsworthy has made them a delight to listen to and a much needed voice in the Twin Cities radio market.

If you need any additional information from our organization, please let us know and we will provide it to you.

Best Regards,

Jennifer DeJournett, President
VOICES of Conservative Women

This is the highest profile letter to Mr. Lee to pick up Jack’s and Ben’s show. It isn’t the only letter or email that Mr. Lee has received from conservatives.

Rather than just focusing narrowly on the situation confronting Jack and Ben, it’s important that conservatives recognize some important facts. First, the far left is waging war agains talk radio. That’s what’s driven the Left’s attacks against Rush Limbaugh.

They didn’t have a prayer in hell of taking him down. Ever. The Left’s goal was to get station managers to volunarily put silencers on ‘controversial’ talk radio hosts like Jack and Ben. In this instance, controversial is defined as people brave enough to ignore the Left’s false premises and baseless attacks.

Another definition of controversial might be effective in exposing the Left’s agenda of intimidation and creating controversy from thin air.

Jack and Ben will soon return to the airwaves. They’re too talented and too informed not to be part of talk radio’s lineup in the Twin Cities.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

LANGUAGE ALERT: This video contains disgusting graphic language:

That this neanderthal is a progressive radio talk show host shows how hollow the Democrats’ campaign is.

President Obama and other progressives said that Republicans were waging war on women. Conservatives and other constitutionalists highlighted the fact that HHS Secretary Sebelius’ regulation that religious institutions had to provide contraception coverage violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In reality, neanderthals like this progressive talk show host are saying things that demean prominent women. This video doesn’t just show an out-of-control talk show host. It’s a picture of a man who doesn’t respect women, especially conservative women.

Whether it’s Hilary Rosen saying that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life or this neanderthal using disgusting language about Wisconsin’s Lt. Gov., the reality is that there’s tons of proof that progressives see bright, articulate conservative women as an existential threat to their movement.

It’s time for Democrats to criticize people using these neanderthal chanting points. For all of President Obama’s talk about the need for civility after Gabby Giffords’ tragic shooting, the Democrats certainly haven’t stopped using disgusting, graphic language in attacking people they don’t agree with.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve long had great respect for Mark Levin. This year, my appreciation for him has grown because he’s willing to take on the GOP’s biggest windbags. When Mitt Romney used sleazy tactics against his GOP opponents, Mark Levin yelled stop. Now Ann Coulter’s attempting to savage Sarah Palin. Once again, Mark Levin is there to set the record straight:

There was a time when Coulter was a principled conservative. She immediately lost credibility with the conservative movement when she endorsed Mitt Romney. She’s lost credibility by attacking a true conservative heavyweight in Sarah Palin.

Coulter saying that certain individuals become celebrities and are allowed to profit off that status and yet still interfere in GOP politics is laughable. She’s been a well-paid conservative speaker for years. She’s constantly in self-promotion mode.

Now, she’s shilling for a RINO named Romney while insisting that she’s a conservative. Ms. Coulter will always attract loyalists. This time, she’s shrunk the size of that base of loyalists. She’s seen as a windbag, not as a serious conservative.

Tags: , , , , , ,

If this poll is right, then Mitt’s in trouble:

In the three days leading up to Thursday’s debate at the University of North Florida, First Coast News and St. Augustine-based Dixie Strategies commissioned the Dixie Strategies/First Coast News Public Opinion Survey, a poll of Republicans throughout the state who described themselves as “likely” voters in the Jan. 31 primary.

When asked, “If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, for whom would you vote?,” 35.46 percent of the 2,567 likely voters polled selected former House speaker Gingrich, and 35.08 percent selected Romney.

I’ve never heard of this polling company but 2,500 likely voters are 2,500 likely GOP primary voters. That’s a huge sample, one with a tiny MOE, possibly in the 2.5-3 range.

I think there’s a decent chance it is true. Wednesday, Mitt Romney and the GOP Establishment took aim at Newt. Thursday and Friday, 4 of conservatism’s biggest voices, Rush, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Michael Reagan, blasted Mitt’s team for their disgusting assault against Newt’s Reaganite credentials. Bloggers dispersed that message far and wide Thursday and Friday.

Most importantly, the message that Newt was a steadfast supporter of President Reagan’s policies and priorities, along with steadfast TEA Party support, certainly has the potential for being a game-changing force.

Mitt’s Alinskyite attacks, coupled with Sarah Palin’s and Mark Levin’s harsh criticism of Mitt and the GOP Establishment might well be all that’s needed to push Newt to victory in the Florida GOP Primary. If that happens, expect the Establishment’s long knives to get longer and sharper.

In their mind, this is an existential fight. They’re right about that. It’s time to get rid of their corruption, cronyism and appeasement.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I didn’t attempt to keep my allegiance to Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign a secret. I’ve disagreed a little, quietly, with Speaker Gingrich at times. I haven’t sat idly by while Mitt Romney attacked Newt with bald-faced lies. Apparently, I’m not alone. When Mark Levin saw Mitt’s attacks that Newt wasn’t a true Reaganite conservative, Levin used his radio show to interview Jeffrey Lords, a fellow Reagan administration employee. Here’s that interview:

To say that these gentlemen disagreed with Mitt is understatement. It’s fair to say that they questioned Mitt’s fidelity to conservative principles, both in the 1990’s and today.

Levin used his opening monologue to go after Mitt, Jennifer Rubin and Little Annie Coulter. Here’s that audio:

Mr. Levin pointed something out that had previously escaped me: that Mitt Romney used the same tactics against Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in 2008 that he’s using against Newt now.

There’s a reason for that, which I’ve said here before. Mitt can’t win by inspiring or persuading people. His only path to victory is by smearing his GOP opponents fiercely to the point that he’s dragged them down to his level.

If, God forbid, Mitt wins the GOP nomination, he won’t win in November. His Alinskyite tactics have turned off most of the GOP base. That’s right. He’ll have a difficult time getting votes from TEA Party activists and evangelical Christians to vote for him.

Mitt’s scorched earth campaign tactics have destroyed any goodwill he might’ve built with these important parts of the base.

Finally, I’m going on record with this because it must be said: Mitt Romney is a despicable person. I can’t trust him because of his disgusting, dishonest campaign tactics. I don’t have a problem with a candidate playing hardball politics.

Mitt isn’t using hardball tactics. He’s deployed the entire arsenal of the politics of personal destruction against Newt. As a Christian, I can’t sanction that. I’ll do everything in my power to defeat Mitt, preferably during the primaries.

UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.

PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,