Who Lost In ‘08? Local right-wing, racist pundits.
This election night image from CNN says it all:
Up until Obama won, he was being tarred by the right as a marxist socialist gay-lovin’ a-rab. (The exit polls and the actual polls showed that Americans must like marxist socialist gay-lovin’ a-rabs.)
Now these same right-wing pundits are tripping over each other to say Obama’s election means we’re a “center-right nation”. Even local right-wing pundits are dutifully (or hopefully) parroting that meme. Bob Lonsberry for one:
[Obama] has preached a “shift to the center,” he has claimed to be “post partisan.” Through the campaign, those were just words.
In the administration, they will need to be more.
When, in fact, Obama clearly stated the opposite, even during the general election:
“I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education,” Obama told his audience here. “I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and squarely in the Democratic camp.”
But, he said: “I’m not just somebody who is talking about government as the solution to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in faith.”
So, he said when he talks about the idea of recruiting churches and other religious groups to provide community services through faith-based initiatives, as he did last week, “that’s not something new. I’ve been talking about that for years now. I’ve been organizing with churches for years in the community. So the notion that somehow that’s me trying to look more centered, more centrist, is just not true.”
And although the Lonsberry article I quoted above was at times gracious, one of his readers took him to task on his hipocrisy:
Yes, President-elect Obama has a responsibility and must work to achieve unity, by reaching out to his former opponent’s followers and by representing them and their interests faithfully, beginning from day 1.
But certainly so do people like yourself, who have carried on for 2 years without a comma (or any real basis) counting and spelling out how bad Mr. Obama is, how anti-American he is, how he is so stupid he can’t even talk without notes. Bill Ayres, secretlymuslim, Rev Wright, communistmarxistsocialist, doesn’twearthepatriot’suniformtheflagpin, handonheartforpledgeofallegience, and so on and on. You’ve been so effective with your own followers, getting them to bray in lockstep your own sentiments as though they were theirs. Now it’s time for you to show the example you talk about - to keep an honest open mind, to show real respect for the person who will now be your, and every American’s, new president and commander-in-chief, and that if anyone disagrees with that, they themselves are unpatriotic and anti-American.
We can get past our ugly divisiveness only if we all work at it, and really put Country First. This applies not least to you, fellow countryman and talkjock Lonsberry.
Amen. And that’s not even talking about his history of sloppy racism. Being able to string together pretty-sounding words doesn’t absolve you of your responsibility to do the right thing, regardless of how your ratings are doing.
Related posts:
Hmmm. Are you reading my mind? Today, I sent Lonsberry a succinct and (relatively) polite definition of ’socialism’ for the elucidation of his clueless readers who hurl the dreaded label of ’socialist’ on anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond.
Unsurprisingly, Bob chose to ignore my post. Why bother with details when clinging to ignorance and gross stereotypes is so much easier?
Very roughly, socialism is the collective ownership by the people or the state (government) of the means of production and/or distribution of products or services.
By that token, anyone who has an account in a Federal Credit Union, a share in a condominium association, a share in a food co-op or takes advantage of a publicly-owned utility company (like Fairport Electric) is supporting a ’socialist’ undertaking.
Most Fairport Electric customers would agree that the collective ownership of a utility with bargain rates is preferrable to a privately-owned RG&E with shareholder-pleasing exorbitant rates.
There are many flavours of socialism: ultra right-wing national socialism (Nazis), democratic socialism (as found in Scandinavian and European countries), Marxist-Leninist socialism (Communism) and even a Christian socialism which takes its cues from tracts in the Bible. Hardcore socialists call for the outright abolition of capitalism, but other socialist theories are willing to work within a capitalist framework.
While some socialist countries *are* totalitarian regimes, many more are not. Swedish gulags are hard to find and France’s Socialist Ségolène Royal was narrowly defeated in the last French election… and neither country raises immediate images of vicious dictatorships.
One would be hard-pressed to point to a credible source that defines ’socialism’ as simply “taking from the rich and giving to the poor”.
I suggest asking the marginally-educated, who toss out pronouncements of ’socialist’, to define ’socialism’. My guess is they’re not too interested in being accurate, just as long as they’re ‘cleverly’ venomous in their attack.
As for me, I’m not sure what compelled me to believe Lonsberry was interested in opening his mind to fact and reason.
Racist Luddites rarely do.
You won’t have to worry about that much longer. The incoming FCC Chairman will put an end to it.
Eisenhower’s top tax rate was 91 percent and Nixon’s was 70 percent but Bob calls Obama a socialist for wanting a top tax rate of 39 percent.
dood, your implication is that the FCC is going to impose “Fairness Doctrine” on internet blogs like Lonsberry’s? Get real.
As far as talk radio goes, there will be ultimately be no fairness doctrine, as most progressives love the First Amendment more than they hate Rush, Hannity and O’reilly.
At least elmer, when he joins in the conversation, can present reasoned arguments. You prefer to fly in with lame one-liners then disappear. It’s the blog equivalent of an attempt at “Shock and Awe” — fly in, drop a bomb at midnight, then disappear again.
Lonsberry uses the word socialism as a buzz word for black. He is still a racist.
Henry Rivera was leading that push under his last tenure, before resigning under pressure from President Reagan He believes it’s a civil rights issue.
Actually, listening to the Bill Press Show yesterday, the push is on to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Don’t be surprised if that happens - your local Congresswoman Slaughter has always been behind it.
Will be nice to turn on the radio and know the dial goes left as well as right!
Every Progressive radio station host is pushing already. They have been for months knowing what the outcome of this election would be.
It’s just a matter of time…just a matter of time!
Tolerance for such behavior will no longer be tolerated. Watch and listen - the tide is turning and this one is making alot of noise.
The world is about to become a better place.
Senator Schumer, Senator Bingaman, Congressman Kucinich among others are all pushing for it and in their interpretations, Conservative Talk Radio, as well as the Christian Format presences will be greatly reduced.
As far as when and how much time I spend here, I didn’t know there were guidelines I was supposed to follow. I happened to be in my office late last night working on some proposals and took a break for a few minutes, at which time I decided to peruse a couple of the local message boards to see what was going on. This is a topic that interests me so I made an observation based on what facts I know. I have no desire to debate at length because it quickly devolves to ridicule directed at me, or Elmer, or MikeinWNY, etc.- anyone who happens to present an opposing viewpoint at the time. Also, I might spend 10 minutes a day on a message board as I have plenty of other things to do to occupy my time. Lastly, I see even JiminyBizbo agrees with the point I made and I don’t belive he has ever agreed with anything else I ever posted so there obviously is merit in my position.
I do agree with you. I believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. I hope that you can feel that you can contribute to this - and agreed - you and I don’t agree on much, but that doesn’t mean we can’t agree to disagree on issues we believe in. After all, isn’t that what makes a Democracy?
I hope that you continue to contribute to this and other posts Dood. Good, bad or indifferent, if we don’t have choices, we have nothing.
Personally, I think a forced fairness doctrine is a bad idea. So there’s two progressives that agree with you, albeit in different ways. I think suppression of free speech — regardless of how much I completely disagree with the content — is a bad idea, and frankly unconstitutional. There will be those here that will heartily disagree with me.
Now I’d like to thank you for what is one of the longer responses I have ever seen you post here. That’s all I ask. Flaming and disappearing is not a fair exchange of ideas — which is why I come here.
Recently I stood up for Elmer here when others were less cordial. I will stand up for you if it degrades to name-calling, as long as you present well-reasoned arguments and engage in civil discourse, and are willing to respond (as you just did) when questioned.
From your mouth to Obama’s ears!!
As far as I’m concerned, you can have either the concentration of the majority of the radio stations in the hands of a very few people…or you can get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. When you do both you give a small number of people the right to decide what political views will be heard and if they happen to be conservative (as big business usually is), guess what everyone will be listening to on the “public airwaves”.
Glenn Garman! Rochester Radio Dude! Back atcha!
it is ironic that the right (essentially Reagan) gutted the fairness doctrine in order to allow the Rush Limbaugh’s and later the fox news channel to flourish.Now when the right seems to have lost the majority they want to reinstate it. I do not believe this attempt is based on any principled position but only on political considerations of who has the right and ability to speak.
the fairness doctrine worked very poorly in its time and did little to protect or inform the public. There is little reason to believe in the current context of extreme media concentration it will function any better. If we want to think about these issues we need to think more comprehensively about the public obligations of commercial media