Recently in Talk Radio

Category

This headline may be a bit harsh but so are the stakes in this Election 2008.

I am not a fan of Mike Huckabee for a number of policy and track-record issues, just as I am not a fan of Obama, Hillary and Edwards, et al. for similar reasons: when they are evaluated as to what their positions on issues are and how they have used public office to-date, they don't meet my expectations and requirements as a voter and I can't (and don't) support them. Same goes for McCain. And to a great degree, also as to Giuliani.

Which is why I do support Romney, Thompson and Hunter: they're the only candidates in the running who represent -- believably -- most of the important issues most important to me.

These three supported candidates -- Romney, Thompson and Hunter -- also disappoint me in some areas but overall, the issues that I place as higher priorities for the Presidency are most met by Romney, Thompson and Hunter. Comparatively, the other candidates (in both parties) disappoint me, fail to fulfill even my basic requirements, or, in some cases, utterly contradict and oppose even the few issues I regard as the most important ones.

But as to Huckabee, he's the guy "on the right," so-called, with the affable personality, that "likable" factor and polished ease with public speaking that draws people in socially. Thus, many people -- me included -- have been willing to listen to what he has to say, watch how he behaves in his campaign, watch what the people he's aligned with as a campaign organization do and why. That he speaks out as a Christian is, has been, of course, up to recently, a very appealing and supportable aspect to his candidacy.

So here we go, to the contrary: Huckabee's lost my good faith in his good faith as a politician, what with the recent emergence by Huckabee as victim.

First there was the "I'm being attaaacked" erosion point, followed by the negative "attack" campaigning ("I'm being attaaacked [and therefore I'm attacking]"), which very much offended my sense of what should and should not be among Republican candidates. We all saw what happened in the last Election when the Democrats went into this destructive personality territory, and it's just a failed method altogether, so to see Huckabee engaging in this was both surprising ("how can he be so foolish") and off-putting ("how can he be so offensive and insensitive").

I'm no Mormon but I find Huckabee's reliance on a certain method of speak about who is and who isn't "a real Christian" -- in this context -- to be either nonsense or cruel or both. As a Protestant minister, I'd think it was relevant to a sermon that he'd discuss his perceptions about Christian theology, but as a politician, him functioning as Protestant minister sermonizing does not only not work, it is offensive and creates an air of doubt about Huckabee as to his intelligence and intents.

I have to ask: is he aware that he's running for the Presidency or is he not? It's a reasonable question when presented with a candidate who appears to blur the lines and confuse the context, such as has Huckabee, in this particular regard and as he has focused the negativity (the "attack" ads) on Romney as Mormon (and as "not a real Christian" or so many affiliated with his campaign express -- and it leads me to consider that Huckabee is indeed, himself saying these same things among more private appearances, such as "faith based" supporters not covered by the media -- again, a blurring of the lines of what Huckabee's perceptions are as to what the job is he's seeking and how).

And while I very much appreciate any candidate sharing what their religious beliefs are -- it's important to have a frame of reference on any candidate inorder to recognize what influences their moral character, so it's even fair to ask a candidate to explain what his theological beliefs are, partiucularly in relationship with the Presidency -- I find the Huckabee and campaign emphasis from an antagonistic point as to their Christianity to be at the expense of the Christianity of others. Which leads me to wonder just what Huckabee and supporters mean by Christianity, since they don't think the rest of us know what it is and they're selecting out political opponents to criticise them on this basis...for the Presidency, not for their respective Protestant groups as ministers

After I read earlier today what Ed Rollins (hired on by Huckabee to manage Huckabee's campaign) had to say about Romney -- that he'd "like to bash his teeth in" -- it was too much to even continue to consider Huckabee as remotely "nice guy" material because whether or whether or not Rollins is responsible for this particular "attack" advertising upon Romney, Huckabee's the candidate and they're both chalking one another up to be a bad message.

"A bad message" as in, "not right."

I agree with Rush Limbaugh -- about Huckabee, about McCain and certainly about Hillary, to state the obvious -- and that is that Huckabee is "not a conservative."

I have long said that the candidate who wins my vote of confidence in '08 for the Presidency, as also my standard of voting for all public office otherwise, is the candidate who has a proven and reliable record on the issues of discouraging if not discontinuing illegal immigration as also all areas of immigration enforcement -- those who have participated in advancing amnesty for illegal aliens, aided foreign governments in exploiting the U.S. taxpayers via foreign illegal alien populations in the U.S., enabling illegals to gain access to and use taxpayer-paid social services in the U.S., all of these are no-vote legacies as to my vote.

The only candidates speaking frankly about these issues are Romney, Thompson and Hunter. The rest -- they're using the same tired phrases and terms they appear to think works well politically while their track records (particularly McCain's, Huckabee's and Giuliani's, among the Republican candidates) reveal a dedication to servicing the problem/s if not opposing nearly all solutions.

Us voters continue to express these perspectives and the politicians in both parties continue to try to run contrary to these perspectives and the voters notice. Some of these politicians are supported by the interests that fuel illegal immigration, or, they "retire". Or, in Huckabee's, McCain's and Giuliani's case, they lose.

It's been a great week watching the build o' bids via Ebay as the Democrats' Smear Letter was offered at auction by Rush Limbaugh for charitable purposes -- winning top bid of $2.1 million was by philanthropist Betty Casey, trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation, and Limbaugh made good his initial offer of matching funds with the final bid bringing the total charity sum to $4.2 million. Limbaugh's favored charity, the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, is set to receive the total amount.

The Smear Letter targets Limbaugh, a private citizen, for something Limbaugh did not say nor do -- "disparage our troops" so Reid and Congressional Democrats falsely swore in writing, in lies -- and, it violates the powers of Congress by targeting a private citizen, Limbaugh. In simple terms, what Reid and Senate Democrats said (the false allegation by Reid about Limbaugh) and did (the Smear Letter, complete with signatures by many Senate Democrats) was mind-blowingly ridiculous.

Democrat Harry Reid -- who is responsible for the initial smear from whence the Smear Letter was then authored by Reid and other Democrats in the Senate -- Reid attempts today to take credit for the final, charitable result that was conceived of and orchestrated by Limbaugh and made possible by Ms. Casey. Reid and his Democrats are responsible for the reckless damages and cowardly abuses they have caused yet all Reid can do is vainly lie again.

"Harry Reid Greets Mars"

How low does Reid's character go? His cheapness in this situation is preposterous and preposterously offensive. My concerns this evening are as to Reid's mental health because he's displaying many of the characteristics of a senile individual, certainly an incompetent in his use of Congress and his position as Senate Majority Leader.

To the contrary, Rush Limbaugh proves he's a hero to our military and a wonderful, truly wonderful citizen of this country.

Sorry, Democrats, you lose yet again. Rush Limbaugh, obviously, loves our troops, as does Betty Casey, and the Congressional Democrats don't. Nothing new in any of that, while Harry Reid is proving himself time and time again to be a very lowdown and dirty cad.

More about the illness besetting the sick Democrats in our Senate, with the added infection from the City of San Francisco and vicinity contributing to their fever:

Fairness Doctrine Watch: The Crush Rush Democrats' agenda; Wesley Clark crusades to kick Rush off of Armed Forces Radio. Read the details and write to Clear Channel in support of Rush Limbaugh. Democrats have lost their balance and I'm concerned for our country - Limbaugh and Talk Radio are but the tip o' the Far Left jaw that's aimed at the jugular of the Constitution, and, at any remaining regard for decent behavior. The Democrats gloves are not only off, they appear to be clawing with infected stumps at the essence of our national integrity.

I'm immensely disappointed to read that Wesley Clark is attempting to get Rush Limbaugh silenced from Armed Forces Radio -- I thought Clark still had some shred of sense but he clearly has lost whatever competency he once had.

I've written quite a bit about this in the last two days, so please refer to my two categories, if interested: DEMOCRATS FREAK-OUT IN THE SENATE and TALK RADIO.

Michelle Malkin and HOT AIR are covering the issues involved well and thoroughly.

Related and worthy:

San Francisco supervisors condemn Savage - Officials pass resolution against talker for 'hate speech'

Here it comes, the use for abuse of the "hate speech" meme-schematic by the Left to silence and harm opinions they disagree with. While David Horowitz (hero) offers to represent Talk Radio host Michael Savage in a civil rights lawsuit against the City of San Francisco (Board of Supervisors). I hope Savage sues and I think Horowitz is a real hero in offering to represent him.

...One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.

"You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired."

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

"You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict," wrote Horowitz. "This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights."

Horowitz wrote: "The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward's hood of the Klan."

The call for action against Savage came at the same time city supervisors were considering using taxpayer dollars to pay for immigrants' green cards and citizenship.

Sandoval's resolution condemns Savage for "defamatory language ... against immigrants." The resolution was in response to Savage's July 5 broadcast, when the talker commented on a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy.

"I would say, let them fast until they starve to death," quipped Savage, "then that solves the problem."

Sandoval's resolution calls Savage's comments "symbolic of hatred and racism."

"I really for the life of me cannot understand why there is not more media outrage to what Michael Savage said," Sandoval said. He plans to hold a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday just before the entire Board of Supervisors votes on his resolution against Savage.

"The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation," Sandoval insisted.

In response, Horowitz wrote: "This Sandoval fellow accused you of using 'defamatory language ... against immigrants.' Of course, this statement by Sandoval is slander. I have listened to your show. You are very complimentary of immigrants. In fact, you frequently mention that your parents were immigrants. The slander by Sandoval arises because he claims that your opposition to illegal entry into this country is somehow a stand against Hispanics. That is like saying that every Border Patrol agent and every Congress person is anti-immigrant because they don't condone illegal border crossing."

"I will back you, Michael, and file this lawsuit if you wish," concluded Horowitz.

I reassert my earlier comments here that the City of San Francisco should be boycotted by all Conservatives.

They're not Democrats, they're clearly an invasive force from some distant concept of government that exists in the minds and mental disturbance of people who revile the United States Constitution and who are in need of -- in the case of Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Dick Schumer, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton and sadly, Obama, too, too many to list here -- psychological counselling.

I actually had hopes for Obama -- he impresses me as a kind and intelligent enough person to be capable of managing complex tasks, though I completely disagree with his political intents and his immaturity suggests he's not leadership material so much as he's celebrity -- but his signing on today with the rest of the troubled Democrat minds is yet another problem about him. Hillary Clinton and Obama doing so confirms them both as followers, not leaders, but that's already been proven about both of them so no surprise there. In fact, Hillary's coming forward as being the loathesome fringe Far Lefter that most of us from the other pole have always suspected she was but, unfortunately, kind and temperate Obama has already established himself way over there, out far in a Far Left dimension.

The Democrats' use of the U.S. Senate to literally shred the reputations of people in media who are not Liberals is beyond disgusting. I've seen desperate politics in my lifetime in the United States, but yesterday's and today's use of the U.S. Senate by people entrusted to use it to the contrary -- responsibly, for purposes of legislating on behalf of our country -- using the building like their alleyway to dirty-down reality in the process is entirely and extremely disturbing.

These are people entrusted with the very lives and moment-to-moment existence of our entire nation's citizens and to see and read about their behaviors there as they effort to rip apart Rush Limbaugh -- among other Conservatives -- for their personal, politically motivated hate-attacks is a real problem for our nation, and, unfortunately, also, for the greater world.

Do Senate Democrats not understand the English language? Do they continually perceive what is not said or written or worse, not perceive what is? What exactly is the mental state of people such as Harry Reid and the rest motivating this "condemn Rush Limbaugh" (among others) movement?

Can any one of them define what and who a "Democrat" is without lying or making false statements about our country and about themselves? I doubt it -- and I doubt it because I've seen little to nothing to suggest that they can or that they might understand what the political party once was (and it was not for the most part in our nation's history a party of treacherous Marxists as it is today -- and I don't make that statement casually).

I've never been as concerned about our government as I am today. The Democrats -- as exemplified by the Democrats in the Senate yesterday and today -- are displaying all the behaviors of people gone insane.

From a FOX News article (RUSH LIMBAUGH SLAMS DEMOCRATS FOR FALSELY TARGETING HIM):

Limbaugh has vehemently denied a wholesale attack on antiwar servicemen and women. A literal reading of the Sept. 26 show in question shows that the controversial host did not in fact say that soldiers opposing the war are "phony," but his remarks have left confusion as to whom he is referring when he used the phrase.

The offense came up when a caller named Mike, who said he is currently serving in the Army, described his anger about talk of a pull-out from Iraq. Limbaugh readily agrees, according to the recorded exchange:

CALLER 2 (Mike): ...What's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

Limbaugh has since said on his show that he was referring only to one soldier: disgraced, convicted former Army soldier-turned-antiwar-activist Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth falsely claimed to have participated in war crimes in Iraq and received a Purple Heart, but in reality, he was discharged after only 44 days of service, never placing a foot in Iraq.

Macbeth was sentenced to five months in prison for fraudulently collecting more than $10,000 in benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Back here on the real world in which the rest of us all live -- not the same world as the Senate Democrats nor most Democrats in general, in my experience after seeing what they've become -- that brief interaction between Limbaugh and the caller is as clear as a bell: who they were referring to and what they were saying. It contains no denigration of anyone in military service (neither by Limbaugh nor by the caller), it is clearly a reference to one person at one time who "pretended" what his involvement in military service is.

The problem to Democrats here, with this brief comment by Limbaugh, is that it rings too similarly to the character problems of John Kerry and Tom Harkin: two (Democrats) people in the Senate who both distorted (they lied) about their military service and in Kerry's case, particularly, he lied about his experiences of others in the course of misrepresenting himself (AND he violated the Military Code of Conduct in going to Europe to meet with Communist Sandinista -- a declared enemy of the United States at that time -- while Kerry was still enlisted in the military).

So the Democrats have born a wound since Kerry was outed as being who he is and what he did, and that his behaviors as he reported them (he lied about his experiences and conditions) and sworn statement before the U.S. Congress was proven to contain falsehoods (he lied under oath), and their hatred for others has swelled into something that isn't well, it's disturbed, and has leaped out of that wound as an attack by Democrats upon Conservatives in media (among other areas of our civilization).

I think the key question at this point is what Senate Republicans are going to do about this. And what us Conservative voters are going to do. We can vote, we can call, we can complain, but we should all be praying for our country and particularly for the Senate Democrats who appear to have lost their minds.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors seek to 'ban Michael Savage" . I think it's way past due time to ban the entire City of San Francisco from the civilized world. It's too bad, because the City used to be such a great place, several decades ago.

I can make a few exceptions from the area but it's long past time that the place is cleaned out, cleaned up and the contrary, condemning and intolerant Liberals are moved-on.

Obviously, from the recent spate of attacks from the Left upon specific Talk Radio hosts, the Left is waging an organized operation to silence/harm (if not remove) Americans (from the United States) with particular focus on media that the Left does not control (and that'd be Talk Radio and FOX News -- meanwhile, Talk Radio and FOX News enjoy a far greater audience than other/all Liberal media).

If ever there was a case of intolerance by Liberals, and their disrespect for that Freedom of Speech they like to bounce on when questioned as to their own statements, this effort by San Francisco's Liberal Supervisors is one.

I've declined several invites to the City of San Francisco in the recent years, and I'll continue (now) to do so. I urge all Conservatives to do so, likewise.

Update: More handy information from Michelle Malkin...
Fairness Doctrine Watch: A "progressive" attack on talk radio