Rush Limbaugh Front and Center
by Motte Brown on 03/09/2009 at 4:25 PM
Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been all over the news lately. Apparently by design.
The Obama White House is painting Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican party in an obvious attempt to shame Republicans into distancing themselves from the right-wing "entertainer." (And if it proves a distraction from the Dow sinking 25% since Obama took office, even better.) What's not so obvious is why they've chosen to pick this fight right now. I mean, you would think they have more important issues to talk about in his first 100 days.
But Obama's a savvy politician. He's not only looking for a distraction, he's looking ahead to 2010.
About 16 years ago, when another flamboyant Democrat was in his first year, Rush Limbaugh was coming to prominence with his razor sharp criticisms and musical parodies. And leading up to the 1994 mid-term elections, Limbaugh is credited with fueling the Angry White Males (AMW) who overwhelmingly voted (62%) for a Republican house member.
So it seems Obama fears history will repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms lest he defang Limbaugh now.
The thing is, the 1994 mid-terms were more about President Clinton's overreaching agenda (remember "HillaryCare"?) and visionary Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA) than Rush Limbaugh. Meaning, Rush didn't create the AWMs, he simply gave them a voice -- a politically discerning and entertaining voice.
Will history repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms?
Making Rush the issue seems to be having its desired effect for now. Republicans are debating the issue, even dividing over it. But the only way it will work in 2010 is if there remains vacuum in Republican leadership like there was in 2008 (and 2006 for that matter).
1. Mishy said the following at 5:00 PM on Mar 9:
You know not that I want to give my stance politically as to where I stand but I would consider myself conservative. I feel for Rush because he speaks the truth the way we need to hear it. I know many non conservatives don't like him all that well, but you know has any body else ever really spoken the truth. My dad listens to Rush all the time. I don't think he says anything wrong, I just think Obama is very insecure and is afraid that someone could tell the truth. I want our president to succeed and all, but I think there are more important issues to resolve than putting Rush on the chopping block. We all have a right to freedom of speech and religion. What's going to happen when they could get rid of freedom of speech, could they get rid of our right to religion as well. I'm somewhat nervous as to where our country is going. We as believers need to stand our ground than ever before and be the light unto this dark world.
I've really been sensing as of lately that we need to keep this country in some major prayer. We need to continue to pray for our president whether we agree with his policies or not. Whether we think he'll do a good job or not. I think many who did vote for him could be starting to wonder. You know if we did vote in someone different could it have made a difference to where our economy is going. I think its God's hand that will lead us out, and not Obama's or any other possible president we could have had. For the White to distinguish Rush as the leader of the republicans is true but what does Rush have anything to do with our economy or otherwise. He's not the main issue right now, its everything else that's more important. Its just silly for the White House to focus on Rush so much, let's move along. Its like some high school insecurity thing going on.
Thanks Boundless you guys rock.
:0)
2. BDB said the following at 5:01 PM on Mar 9:
Rush and Hannity are so great for Republicans! Just look at how well the 2008 elections went!
Maybe we can spend all our time over the next two years talking about unrepentant terrorists! That will be GREAT for the 2010 elections!
Why bother with actual policy questions when it's so much more fun to just ridicule people!
/sarcasm
3. Richard said the following at 5:46 PM on Mar 9:
I think as Christians we need to be careful about how we present ourselves politically. Many of the policies put forth by both parties can interpreted as going for or against what the Bible presents.
4. Thomas said the following at 6:05 PM on Mar 9:
Politics is politics, what I wonder is why Boundless only ever writes blog entries sympathetic to Republicans. Do you guys really think that Republicans do no wrong and Democrats do no right? In the many years I've followed this blog, I have only seen "Republicans = good, Democrats = not as good" entries. I get you guys are conservative, but this borders on fairly ridiculous.
5. brx said the following at 6:18 PM on Mar 9:
Personally, I'm turned off by the attitude I tend to see inflamed in Rush fans (not all, but many). Rather than calm, lucid, enlightening discussion, Rush appears to foster mostly unproductive hot-head ranting and finger pointing.
Yes, I tend to be conservative in public policy.
More lucid discussion, less ranting...
6. Alex said the following at 6:26 PM on Mar 9:
Boundless, I'm disappointed by this post. I think that, given the site's lack of an explicit political stance, and its statements about supporting the office of the President, several statements and observations are out of line:
- The assertion that the Obama White House is manufacturing the current media attention surrounding Limbaugh. Where's the evidence for this? I read the article you linked to, but the author said that Rush himself, not Obama, is promoting himself as a Republican leader.
-The further suggestion that Obama is talking about Limbaugh to distract from the state of the economy. Again, there is no evidence that this is true. I've heard Obama talk to the press several times about the economy and not once about Rush Limbaugh's leadership or lack thereof. Plus, it was the GOP chairman, not the White House, who referred to him as an "entertainer."
-The praise for Rush Limbaugh contained the piece. ( I found the mention and seeming approval of his "musical parodies" especially odd - were you aware that Limbaugh's been in a lot of trouble lately for playing the racist and offensive ditty "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show?) Not every Christian is a Rush Limbaugh fan, and I'm puzzled as to why Boundless is interested in defending such a polarizing figure.
- Value judgments about retired politicians (Bill Clinton is "flamboyant", Newt Gingrich a "visionary") that have no clear relevance to the topic and thus seem needlessly biased.
I have been aware for a long time that I am much more liberal on political and social issues than most of the Boundless editors. I come here to find common ground with other young Christians on the faith issues and concerns we share, even when we don't see eye to eye politically. I think this post is uncharitable to our nation's President, as well as unnecessarily hostile and alienating. Thanks for listening.
7. Mallie said the following at 6:39 PM on Mar 9:
Why aren't liberal political commentators like Bill Mahr charged with the same nuisance? He's just as "angry", loud mouthed, and partisan, and shucks, his party won. Had the Bush white house thrown up their hands every time an entertainer or analyst led a crusade against their administration, we wouldn't have talked about anything else; There's simply wasn't enough time in the day. I mean no disrespect to Obama, but this really is a childish diversion from the real issue.
8. Adam said the following at 8:27 PM on Mar 9:
Who needs the Fairness Doctrine when you can use the other side to work in your favor?
But lets face it. People mostly vote their wallets in this country. The 2010 elections will likely be lost by whichever party the fickle American public deems responsible for the financial problems.
It is possible that a war with Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Russia could take some attention.
9. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:29 PM on Mar 9:
BDB, the only way your point has any validity is if Republicans in 2008, especially John McCain, had actually been implementing philosophy-based political conservativism the way Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity advocate it.
You cannot logically or seriously argue that national Republicans took those pundits' advice. ;-).
10. mindlab said the following at 8:32 PM on Mar 9:
What most 'moderates' (code for liberals) and liberals don't understand is that el Rushbo isn't talking to them and really couldn't care less what they think! He's preaching to the choir of dedicated neo-conservative Reaganite republicans and they (his intended audience) love it when he says flamboyant, outrageous, and politically correct things. That's the whole point. . .
Same goes for Ann Coulter. . . she's after a reaction, not converts.
11. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:59 PM on Mar 9:
BDB (#2), yeah, look how great the GOP did by NOT listening to Rush and Hannity, and instead impersonating the big-spending Dems. Being elected largely on "fiscal responsibily" then spending big is hardly inspiring—it's not quite such a big vote-winner to campaign, "yes, we love spending, but we're a lesser evil than the Dems", even though it's right.
It was actually very reasonable to point out Obamov's freely chosen alliances with terrorists and communists, as well as his 20-year attendance in a racist Hamas-supporting church. Although the Leftmedia downplayed all this, America will pay for ignoring it.
And for the record, Rush has challenged Obamov to debate actual policy, but the Left, as usual, attack the man.
12. farmer Tom said the following at 9:25 PM on Mar 9:
One sentence into your post and you are already mistaken Motte.
If you consider a thrice divorced, currently living with a woman who is not his wife, former drug addict, a conservative, you have a different understanding of that term than I do.
conservative
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness:
a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
Rush Limbaugh is a political pundit, a entertainment entrepreneur, a ideological iconoclast, a consummate capitalist, a Republican rejoinder, and most of all a dupe of the diversionary dialectic, but he is not and can not be called a conservative.
Rush is a man consumed with making money. His shtick is portraying himself as a conservative fighting against the evils of liberalism/socialism. In reality he is a self-centered, out of touch, man-child, unable to sacrifice self for family or the responsibilities of fatherhood. He is far less concerned with actually fixing the problems this country faces, than he is in making money off of the opportunities afforded him by the liberal children who now run our country.
He still believes that Republican = conservative, when in reality Republican = democrat light.
I personally find it appalling that so many who claim the name of Christ, fail to see that Limbaugh is simply using them to make money and has no real personal desire for an end to abortion, gay marriage, the Federal reserve, Social Security, the list goes on and on. All he wants is a chance to make money by railing against the perceived/real enemy to freedom, socialism/liberalism. He uses his supposed conservatism to make money, end of story. If we actually fixed these problems, he would have nothing to rant about and therefore no way to derive income off of the dialectic.
He has made a very big deal about a speech his father wrote about the lives of the founding fathers. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish this nation.
On the day that Rush Limbaugh pledges his life, his honor and his fortunes in defense of this nation, then I will believe he is truly a conservative.
BTW, I am not a conservative either. I'm a Constitutionalist. I want a return to the original Constitution, not a conservation of the current political situation.
13. Keith said the following at 9:42 PM on Mar 9:
There may be a variety of reasons why Limbaugh might be taking heat now. Maybe it is political strategy, or maybe he really is an extremist.
Whatever the motivation, instead of adding fuel to a fire, Christians should focus on bringing Republicans and Democrats together so they focus on issues that really matter: Reducing abortions, eliminating poverty, and restoring families.
14. beatrice81 said the following at 10:38 PM on Mar 9:
The best thing that could happen to the DNC would be for Rush to keep talking, for Republican politicians to keep toadying up to him, and for all of America to see the public face of the Republican party as an obese talk-show host best known for saying that he hopes for the failure of the American president -- and therefore the US government -- in the middle of an unprecedented financial crisis.
As David Frum (speechwriter for George Bush the lesser) said just tonight "Limbaugh will make the Republican party uncompetitive for the next 2 or 4 years." Keep talking Rush, please! It's like Christmastime in March.
15. Boston Matt said the following at 12:51 AM on Mar 10:
As a believer, we should stand for "truth" and whenever "non-truth" is being put out, Christians should back up truth.
Rush never stated he wanted Obama "to fail". He said if his policies were wrong, he wanted them to fail. As Rush always does in these situations (which is brilliant marketing on his part) he gave one sentence out of a whole monologue that people who monitor his show could use and take out of context. They certainly got it!
The President of the United States blew off the Prime Minister of Britain because he is too busy going after a private citizen. The administration has an orchestrated plan to destroy someone and no one seems to talk about that? I don't care if it is Rush or Franken, the office of the President should not be doing what I've seen President Obama do in the past 3 weeks over this Rush thing.
16. Jason said the following at 3:49 AM on Mar 10:
I don't think they're trying to shame Republicans into distancing themselves from Rush, I think they're banking on the fact that they're too scared to distance themselves (witness the Republican leadership even mentioning that Rush isn't helping things, then apologizing when they're attacked by the dittohead army), and that Rush, while he has mostly the same loyal following he always has had, also sports a very large unfavorable rating. I think it's obvious they're choosing to do this now while Obama's popularity is high to get his agenda through while dividing the opposition and making them look even more out of touch.
I'm sure Obama knows that in the past (pretty much since Carter) it's been an effective Republican tactic to portray Democratic leaders as weak, whimpy, etc, so I'm sure that it's brought them joy to do the same to the Republicans, just name Limbaugh the de facto head and watch the Republicans squirm.
I doubt Obama is worrying about "defanging" Limbaugh, despite Rush's popularity with his faithful audience, his demeaning language and certain aspects of his personal life (getting his poor housekeeper to buy his pain pills and touring the Dominican Republic with Viagra while excoriating drug abuse on his show) have done enough to make a lot of people (myself included) tune him out.
17. Megan said the following at 7:01 AM on Mar 10:
Being an avid listener of many conservative talk radio programs, I know exactly what you're talking about, Motte.
Here's the deal: when America finally decides that our President is failing his country, many republicans will (and no less SHOULD) return to true conservativism. If we don't, we've lost already. Another John McCain will fail us.
Truely conservative republicans need to take back Congress and get things cleaned up in this nation.
Pray!
18. EKB said the following at 8:13 AM on Mar 10:
As much as I can't stand the Obama Administration, I don't think people like Rush are good for the Republican Party. I will second what BDB said; we need to focus on creating better policies and offering new and differentiated views. Rush and conservative talk radio in general seem to focus on making fun of democrats. That is just immature and does nothing to help America in the long run.
19. RLynn said the following at 8:18 AM on Mar 10:
Rush Limbaugh doesn't need any help from President Obama for the reputation he has gained and maintains. People of good faith can agree to disagree on the methodology, but wanting the president to fail in his endeavors to clean up the mess he inherited don't seem to jive with the biblical mandate to pray for those in leadership. I prayed for George Bush even though I didn't agree with him on most points.
20. JB said the following at 9:42 AM on Mar 10:
Obama's strategy here is totally fair. One one hand, Rush really is the energy behind what's left of the Republican Party. Obama didn't orchestrate Rush's address at CPAC and he didn't make Republicans treat the man like a god. Obama didn't make Michael Steele bow and scrape before Rush for the sin of mild criticism. Rush really is treated with this kind of deference by Republicans.
And on the other hand, it's not like Rush is defenseless. He has a huge audience and he gets lots of secondary media attention. This man, who apparently is deeply respected by Republicans, is being given an even higher profile by the president. He, and the Republicans, should be thankful! He can now issue his policy proposals to a wider audience. If he can't use this attention to articulate a more attractive alternative to the president's policy proposals, then Republican principles have been truly rejected by this country.
21. obewan said the following at 9:54 AM on Mar 10:
I think radicals like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do conservatives a great disservice with their rabid rantings. There is more to be gained through diplomacy and polite dissent and political debate. It is an art form that has been lost decades ago. Yes, I agree with those who say he is more concerned with advancing his own interests than conservative issues. And I am offended by his drug use and hypocrisy. What would he have to say about himself if the tables were turned? Would he mock the drug use?
22. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:37 AM on Mar 10:
Dr. Sarfati (no. 11) and I seem to agree that far from embracing talk-radio incarnations of Reagan-esque conservativism, Republicans' lack of regard for these principles contributed to their drastic losses in 2008, and even back in 2006.
For those of you convinced that Limbaugh's (and Hannity's, etc.) mere co-existence at the time of Republican campaigns is fact enough to prove that's why they lost, can you show more definitive evidence that supposed pandering to Rush was what killed McCain's or congressional candidates' chances in the last election?
Meanwhile, though attacking one's source of news or ideas is often nothing more than an ad hominem argument, I'm surprised (well, not really) by the amount of myths about Limbaugh rehashed by well-meaning commentators here -- myths perpetrated by left-meaning media outlets that want Limbaugh to fail. Why are you not taking into account such outlets' bias nearly as much as you declare your aversion to Limbaugh's bias?
Myth No. 1: Limbaugh's -- actually, conservative comedian/impersonator Paul Shanklin's -- "Barack the Magic Negro" parody is racist.
Refuted: That parody is a reference to a Los Angeles Times columnist's language describing Obama during the early 2007 campaigns, and spoofs questionable or even racist attitudes on the political Left. The song in question is sang in the voice of a bullhorn-filtered impersonation of the liberal activist Al Sharpton, one of the leaders of the "racism industry."
If the song is racist, then so are any of us on this blog for merely mentioning the phrase "magic Negro" (according to the columnist, this was a term was "coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education"). Please see Ted Slater's debunking of the Racist by Association fallacy.
Myth No. 2: Rush's "I hope he fails" is a personal attack on Obama and means, in effect, that he wants the country to fail to prove his point.
Refuted: This seems little more than political-Liberal projection. Unimaginative political leftists apparently believe that anyone else who wants a policy to fail is also rooting for the country to fail -- the same as they did during the eight Bush years and especially the Iraq conflict. Limbaugh has placed his "I hope he fails" comment over and over in context -- declaring that if Obama's destructive policies fail, the country will succeed. Why would he hope for someone who -- and someone's socialistic policies which -- he truly believes will cause the country to fail?
What is so absurd anyway about hoping a president you disagree with will fail? Why is that so offensive?
The only way I would want Obama and his actions to succeed would be if he were to change who he is and what he believes. In that case, I would wholeheartedly support the president and want his policies to succeed. But unless that happens, sorry, but I'm with Rush. This is not a controversial view. You oppose the people with whom you disagree. You hope they fail. (Do you Rush-critics want Rush to fail? If so, my, my, how unkind of you. ;-).)
I find it so illogically amusing that so many people who wanted so badly Bush to fail protest the loudest when the opposition's roles are reversed. What's even more comical is that they take themselves so seriously!
Grace is needed in political rhetoric, yes, but for those of you on the right, let us not try to be so "gracious" and out-reaching to political enemies that we end up compromising the country away.
As I've said before, some Christians' enjoyment of Rush, Hannity, or Coulter is like drinking beer or wine. We can enjoy this in moderation without sinning. Some of you act as though you have weaker consciences and cannot partake of the same stuff. But then you take those convictions and impose them on others, the same way "fundamentalist" Christians decide that their views against drinking, playing cards or going to movies should be moral standards for everyone.
It seems consumption of strong conservative commentary is not for everybody. But many of your Christian brothers and sisters see past any un-Christlike attitudes or actions and enjoy stronger doses of truth for what they are. Ergo, do not judge me or other fellow Christians for appreciating what your own personal convictions apparently hold is wrong for you (Romans 14). At the same time, I will try not to judge you either. Deal?
As for the usual comments about how both parties have un-Biblical and objectional elements (Richard, no. 3): yes, this is true, that no party can be perfect, but when did perfection become a subconscious standard? Ask yourself, which political philosophy, not necessarily party, is closest to the Biblical standard?
Take the difference between Socialism and Capitalism, two very different worldviews behind economics. Both will clearly lead to anti-Biblical extremes -- such as greed and power-hunger, in either case, either from the private or government sectors. But instead of throwing up one's hands and deciding "Oh, well, no system is perfect, so why get so mean about it at all?" consider this: which system is the closest to clear Biblical principles, and which will be better and the most moral in a fallen and sinful world until Christ returns?
Socialism decides that man can trust a counterfeit "church" of government, and counterfeit "priests" of government leaders, rather than the true Messiah and the true Church.
Capitalism (and extreme forms such as libertarianism) would say that man can trust a counterfeit "church" and "priest" of himself rather than the true Messiah and the true Church. However, capitalism leaves the opportunity much more open for man, while trusting "himself," actually to be trusting the true Christ Who is in him.
Both Socialism and Capitalism can include the notions that humans are "basically good." However, Christianity-based Capitalism can also be based on the view that humans are basically evil and must in some ways be regulated. But Socialism does not even have this option.
Biblical standards about private property also lead me to conclude that capitalism is much closer to the Biblical framework of trade and economics than is socialism. That being said, principles of community involvement and interdependency that are often ascribed only to socialism are vital to the success of a Christ-honoring capitalistic system. But Scripture is clear that it is the Church's responsibility to promote this Grace, even common grace, in a community -- not government's, and not government leaders.
Finally, for those of you who somehow find Socialism a Biblical concept, here's this little gem from Isaiah about the New Heavens and New Earth that I re-found last week. It's contrary to some Christians' (including myself at one point!) often-subconscious assumption that the future world will somehow be mostly Socialist. The New Earth will clearly contain many modern conceptions of "utopia," and yet:
Sounds a lot like private property ownership and even Capitalism -- even in the New Heavens and New Earth.23. Jason said the following at 10:50 AM on Mar 10:
Megan (#17), what would this true conservatism look like today (and do you mean economic or moral or both)? One of the things that grates on me the most about the Republican party is the harping on being a true conservative. The economic issues that currently concern America will not be addressed by cutting taxes or cutting government spending. IMHO taxes are at a reasonable level and it looks like Obama plans on keeping them there. I also don't see most economists pushing for a reduction in government spending during a recession. And true conservatives like to extol the virtues of the free market, which isn't the easiest sell when the market is imploding.
I'd like to see the conservatives maybe change the message a little bit from the Reagan era, which had its own problems, and address things like the ballooning cost of health care and stop beating the drum of low taxes and government = evil.
24. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:55 AM on Mar 10:
Don't you think you ought to listen to the sources themselves (even if they're mean, opportunistic, etc.) rather than make such assumptions as you made above?
25. farmer Tom said the following at 11:29 AM on Mar 10:
22. Dr. Ransom,
Well said Sir, Well said!!!
26. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:00 PM on Mar 10:
Something else that Farmer Tom left out in #12 is the traditional definition of conservative vs the political philosophy conservative.
They are different.
Dito for liberal. And honestly, I think that's why there's the biggest hang-up between which party is more "Christian". Its which definition you are attributing to those words...the political one or the traditional one?
Though Dr. Ransom does a good job laying out why he believes political conservatism to be more closely aligned with scripture. At least he can stand for that belief with sound argument.
Farmer Tom laid out the traditional definition of conservative. Which IS more biblical than liberal, which in a nutshell spells rebellion. Though I've argued that Jesus Christ was a bit of both...a good balance. He was conservative in holding to the traditional values of scripture, but liberal in going against the interpretations that current leaders had imposed on those traditional values.
Really, for the world to work, you need a balance of conservative and liberal.
Now for political philosophy, conservative simply means restrained government while liberal means unrestrained government (in the simplest of terms).
And then you have Republican vs Democrat. Which again have their own definitions (defined by their statements of policy) that is interwoven with their political philosophy.
27. farmer Tom said the following at 12:02 PM on Mar 10:
24. Dr. Ransom said,
Sir, You make two false assumptions.
First, I listen to Mr. Limbaugh every day. With my job many of the tasks I do are manual labor, so I wear a radio and headphones from sunup to sundown. Nothing but talk radio. I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh since late 1988. I know exactly who and what Rush Limbaugh is.
Rush Limbaugh and many of the posters here are dupes of the dialectic. Rush thinks that conservative = Republican because he rejects out of hand the idea of the third or fourth party.
BDB, Thomas, Alex and others have the same delusion. That since they opposed some of the policies of Jorge the Younger Shrub, therefore their only choice is to support a socialist/communist like BHO.
Kant and Hegel, along with Gramsci would be so proud.
I am a Constitutionalist. Rush is a Republican, not a conservative. BHO is a communist.
I don't accept the dialectic!!! Rush does!!!!
28. Dr. Ransom said the following at 12:39 PM on Mar 10:
Indeed my assumption was incorrect, farmer Tom (no. 27). Because Limbaugh has many times questioned whether the Republican Party is truly conservative (as in philosophically), it seemed that your contention about his views could not have been based on firsthand familiarity.
After all, you've likely heard callers to him who frequently repeat the canard that Rush-supports-Republicans-no-matter-what, which is far from the truth. I wrongly equated your statement with that viewpoint.
Thank you for your encouraging statement above! :-)
I do side with those who think that reforming an existing structure is preferable to trying to build a new (third or fourth) party from the ground up. Such a concept could take years, and by that time the weakened lesser-of-two-evils party would not even have been able partially to stall the Socialistic advances of the Godless left. I mean, you think the nation is worsening now ... ?
I do see a positive result from President Obama: he is galvanizing political conservatives. All we need now is for these leaders to lead as conservatives after they have actually won. A President McCain would have moved Republicans even more toward the wishy-washy, unprincipled "center." Fortunately, I have heard some positive language from Sen. McCain in opposition to all the porkulus, borrow-from-the-future spending projects.
29. Janice said the following at 12:56 PM on Mar 10:
I may not be a Rush fan but I am a fan of the 1st Amendment and what Obama is attempting is nothing short of immoral and unconstitutional. The vacuum of leadership is more like a black hole so I doubt we will see a repeat of history. Serves the GOP right for not doing anything after they got their "Contract w/America!" Hello!
30. Jeremy said the following at 1:13 PM on Mar 10:
"I may not be a Rush fan but I am a fan of the 1st Amendment and what Obama is attempting is nothing short of immoral and unconstitutional."
To what are you referring?
31. Brian Ramsey said the following at 2:14 PM on Mar 10:
Can someone give me a rational definition and explanation of the Fairness Doctrine?
I hear those words a lot these days, but I'm not entirely sure what is being referred to.
32. Dr. Ransom said the following at 2:53 PM on Mar 10:
The "Fairness Doctrine" was a regulatory FCC policy saying that radio stations had to be "fair" in their programming -- for example, you couldn't have a talk radio station that offered only conservative punditry.
Interestingly, lower-key punditry in disguise, such as on network news broadcasts, wasn't nearly as regulated.
The policy was revoked in 1987, leading to explosive growth of the talk-radio format. That began with forerunner Rush Limbaugh, who started the first nationwide talk radio program of its kind. Now the "Fairness Doctrine" -- a regulation of free speech, contrary to the First Amendment -- will likely not be re-instituted under that name, yet many activist liberal politicians would enjoy some kind of legislation that would lessen Limbaugh's influence over the airwaves.
33. Marie said the following at 3:19 PM on Mar 10:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."
-Matthew 5:3, 5-9
It shouldn't be about conservative vs. liberal. It should be about God and what He says. I'm so heartbroken by the schism these issues have created for us and in us, the Body of Christ.
34. Jeremy said the following at 4:00 PM on Mar 10:
"Now the "Fairness Doctrine" -- a regulation of free speech, contrary to the First Amendment ..."
Accepting for the moment the premise that the government "owns" broadcast frequencies (itself a questionable claim, but as a matter of law this is true), this is not a First Amendment issue, and this is something many people seem confused about when discussing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean a guaranteed platform for your speech.
The FCC is free to make whatever rules it wants about the content on its airwaves. It is no more required to give access to any arbitrary speech than the NY Times is required to print a pro-KKK letter to the editor. The First Amendment ensures that Congress will not make a law prohibiting your free speech, but no private or government agency is required to broadcast it, and no person is required to listen to it. In point of fact, the First Amendment does not even prohibit other non-Congressional government agencies from prohibiting freedom of speech.
The number of people talking about the First Amendment in conjunction with flag burning or prayer in school or the like always frustrates me. A quick inspection of the text would immediately show these issues to be unrelated.
35. Texas Craig said the following at 4:16 PM on Mar 10:
Dr. Ransom:
I have frequently differed with you, but I must admit I think your comments in #22 are spot on.
I hope that doesn't cause you to rethink them or wonder what you said wrong!
:-)
36. BDB said the following at 4:27 PM on Mar 10:
Dr. Ransom (#9) wrote:
>>You cannot logically or seriously argue that national Republicans took those pundits' advice. ;-).<<
Strange, I never saw Sean Hannity walk through a carefully reasoned analysis on the health-care situation. I saw him waste hours and hours whining about Bill Ayers instead. I see that as a distraction. I wouldn't be furious with talk-show hosts if they had spent that time clamoring for National Republicans to explain their free-market oriented solution to the health care crisis, which was really a pretty good solution. From what I saw, neither the national leadership nor the talk-show hosts took that issue seriously; and yet, that's the issue that scares the most Americans today.
The reason Newt Gingrich was a visionary is that he took his conservative principles and brought them to the next level of policy. In my analysis, Barak Obama won by studying what Gingrich did right.
Gingrich engineered a shift in the country by focusing specifically on policies that 60% of Americans supported. That's what the Contract with America is about.
37. BDB said the following at 4:34 PM on Mar 10:
A specific policy area where conservative talk show hosts are on one side, and 60% of Americans are on the other side, is immigration and the status of illegal immigrans (or undocumented persons, depending on your political persuasion.)
Guess was was in my local paper last week? An article highlighting how someone's grandma was deported in a recent raid. Yes, grandma was in the country illegally. She was living in the home with her kids and their kids, who are here legally.
So, how do some Hispanic voters see Republicans? As the party that wants to send Grandma to live in unsafe poverty. They will never vote for a party that they perceive as wanting that.
One aspect of this issue is how some cities are "sanctuary cities" which will not report illegals to immigration authorities. Here's a controversial idea: what if we change federal law so that any illegal who cooperates with the police automatically gets in line for a green card? We remove the fear of reporting crime, like violent drug cartels, and provide an incentive to cooperate and root out the violent people.
38. rushncap said the following at 4:41 PM on Mar 10:
This is brilliant by both Rush and Obama. Rush gets the notoriety he needs to sell himself to his mindless herd, making even more money. Obama gets Republicans falling all over themselves to focus on Rush and their lack of leadership. This means they are less likely to fight him on important things, like legislature that he wants. The ones who lose? The Republican party. I'm pretty sure the head honchos in the party realize that their dear Rush is selling them out for an extra buck in his oversized pocket, but there is nothing they can do about it. His herd is too large and too obedient to his whims for the Republican leaders to stand up to him. In the end, this is good for the country, because Obama actually gets to try his policies, while the opposition party bumbles around.
39. farmer Tom said the following at 5:21 PM on Mar 10:
33. Marie said,
It shouldn't be about conservative vs. liberal. It should be about God and what He says. I'm so heartbroken by the schism these issues have created for us and in us, the Body of Christ.
While I understand your sentiments and appreciate that you desire to see the Body of Christ effectively proclaim the good news of the gospel. I am afraid you have an improper understanding of Scripture if you view some forms of social liberalism as something which a Christian in the Body of Christ can support.
lets define our terms
first from dictionary.com (I'm giving only part of the definition so that I can highlight that part which is anathema to Biblical Christianity.
liberalism
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans
This is totally contrary to what Scripture teaches, see Romans chapter 3 for details.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.
Traditional Christianity teach that Scripture is the inspired word of God, is our final authority for faith and practice. See II Timothy 3:15-16 and in my opinion II Peter 1:3 is referring to Scripture as well.
Now I do not like Wikipedia, it's too easy to be manipulated. But, here's something from there as well.
Liberalism appears in two broad forms: Classical liberalism, which emphasizes the importance of individual liberty, and social liberalism which emphasizes some kind of redistribution of wealth.
Classical liberalism believes that the provision of negative freedom constitutes liberty and is therefore a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism, however, sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals. They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.
Classical liberals such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and others reject social liberalism as a true liberalism. For these authors, government has no duty to intervene in society to aid the disadvantaged as this means taking wealth from others (as taxes). They also consider that interfering in the market is destroying freedom and doing this to make people free is self-contradictory.
My personal beliefs are somewhat related to classical liberalism, I would refer to myself as a Constitutionalist or a Christian Libertarian, we'll examine that in a while.
Social liberalism is totally antithetical to a Biblical world view because it assumes the right of the State to violate the seventh Commandment.
Oh here's a definition of conservative,
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
So Marie, oil and water can not mix, neither can light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, Christ and Satan, God and idols, social liberalism and conservative.
The two philosophies, social liberalism and conservationism can not be mixed joined or married, for they start and end in two totally different places. One assumes mans goodness, and desires to force mankind to be good. The other believes in mans individual liberty and desires as little government as possible.
Now as a Constitutionalist/Christian Libertarian, I believe
"Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply imbedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials…. Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law."
Christian libertarianism is a term used by people to describe the synthesis of their Christian beliefs with their libertarian political philosophy. It is also a political philosophy in itself that has its roots in libertarianism and it is a political ideology to the extent that Christian libertarians promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In general, Christian libertarians believe that Christians should not use government as a tool to control others' moral behavior or to initiate the use of force against others. They further believe these principles are supported by Christ's teaching and by the Bible.
The glossary at Reformation Online says that Christian libertarianism is the view that supports maximum individual liberty under God's law; that Christ came, among other things, to grant men liberty under God's authority. It refers to John 8:36 in the Bible and says that the authority of all human individuals and institutions is strictly limited to what the Bible authorizes.
I would add, go read the Book of Galatians, especially chapter 5, liberty=libertarian.
So I'm suggesting to you, to Dr. Ransom and anyone else who will listen, that there is a better way. Leave the fighting to the liberals and conservatives. Come out from among them and be separate. Become a Constitutionalist or a Christian Libertarian.
40. farmer Tom said the following at 5:28 PM on Mar 10:
35. Texas Craig said,
Dr. Ransom:
I have frequently differed with you, but I must admit I think your comments in #22 are spot on.
I hope that doesn't cause you to rethink them or wonder what you said wrong!
TC, it just shows that given enough time, you will figure out the truth and come over to the Right side. :)
You realize don't you that I gave Dr. Ransom a hearty AMEN for his comments in #22 as well. Careful, your getting very close to having the same opinions as the farmer, are you going to be able to live with that? :)
41. farmer Tom said the following at 6:40 PM on Mar 10:
Dr. Ransom said,
I do see a positive result from President Obama: he is galvanizing political conservatives. All we need now is for these leaders to lead as conservatives after they have actually won.
I agree with that statement, that is why I argue that in reality Rush is not a conservative. Rush is only about making money. History says I'm correct.
Some history Sir, I don't know how old you are, but I've seen this scenario before.
Rush was on the radio for all eight years of the Clinton debacle (administration). Each and every day for 8 years he was on the radio lamenting that there was not a leader of the Republican party. Yes Newt was doing some good things, the 94 Congress, (Contract with America), but there really was not true leader of the conservative ideology espoused by Ronald Reagan.
Throw in the 1996 election cycle, and the Repugnant party ran Juan McCain err Bob Dull err dumb and dumber err the patsy.... and ......
So after 8 years of Bubba, it was once again time for a chance to choose a true Conservative to lead the Republican party. The Republicans controlled the House and were not in real danger of loosing that control in 2000. So what did Rush do?
Lets back up a second.
2000 Republican Presidential Primary Debate
Here is a transcript of the Republican Primary debate in South Carolina February 15th, 2000. There were three men left in the Republican primary. They debated before a national audience, Larry King moderated.
Dr. Ransom, there was only one conservative at the table that night. One!! And in fact the next day on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh acknowledged this fact. But he endorsed the candidate who he admitted at the time was not a conservative, but was the consensus choice of the Republican establishment.
Rush Limbaugh choose a Republican over a Conservative and he did it on purpose.
If you could get copies of Limbaugh's shows from those days, you would hear over and over again that the third candidate could not win, that only Jorge the Younger Shrub was the hope of the Repugnant party.
When it came time to choose, Limbaugh chose Republican over Conservative. I was personally on the air with Limbaugh twice during that election cycle. Both times I challenged the host with the fact that Jorge the Younger Shrub was not the conservative, that the third man still in the race was the conservative. And Rush's response was to make fun of the conservative's supporters, called us Keysters. Said that only Jorge could win. And Rush got what he wanted.
Then he spent the next 8 years making excuses for Jorge the Younger Shrub's failure to act as a conservative. Yes he whined when Bush signed McCain/Feingold, he gripped when Bush signed the prescription drug bill, he moaned and carried on about how Bush was not acting in a conservative manner, fought Bush tooth and nail over amnesty and then in 2006 when the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate because they were spending like drunken sailors, Rush had the audacity to say he wasn't going to carry Bush's water any more. The idiotic Mr. Limbaugh helped get Bush elected over a true conservative candidate, what did he really expect??
Since 2006 Rush has again gone on and on about how he is the conservative leader, that we need a conservative president, yet in this election cycle who did Rush support?
Did he support Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative governor? Nope. Did he support Senator Browback, a conservative senator? Nope. Did Rush support Duncan Hunter, a born again Christian conservative, pro-life, strong military, secure our borders, congressman? Nope. And he actively opposed Ron Paul a classic libertarian/Constitutionalist who was a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan and holds today many of the views which got Reagan elected in 1980.
Rush supported, Mitt Romney, a socialist leftist east coast liberal who helped fund $50 dollar copay abortions and paved the way for gay marriage in Taxachusetts.
And I'll make this prediction right here and now. Some time in 2011 Rush Limbaugh will endorse Mitt Romney as the only candidate who can unify the Republican party to take the presidency away from BHO.
Rush Limbaugh in not a conservative. He is a capitalist entertainment entrepreneur who's only goal in to make money and lots of it, "by charging confiscatory rates to his advertisers". Playing a conservative on the radio is his shtick.
42. Dr. Ransom said the following at 6:49 PM on Mar 10:
Thanks, Texas Craig (no. 35). Fortunately, I just checked my very long Enemies List (part of this complete ablogger) and you're not on it. So agreeing with you incidentally does not cause me to become panicked and look and see what I did wrong. ... ;-)
Seriously, I completely forget what we may have disagreed about before. Was it The Shack, perchance?
As for Jeremy's (no. 34) well-thought contribution about the "Fairness" Doctrine: I'm well aware that the First Amendment does not guarantee that anyone must have a platform to air his views. The First Amendment only prohibits government from banning certain kinds of speech (I won't get into national security issues, Justice Holmes' don't-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater and other exceptions here). Unlike many people's false perceptions, private entities are not held liable for censorship under the First Amendment.
However, what is the "Fairness Doctrine" if not an attempt to do exactly what you yourself here say is unconstitutional?
Have you not just yourself backed up my claim that the the law or its potential derivatives are unconstitutional? The very basis of those standards was to provide "fairness," and directly led to requirements that private or government outlets broadcast certain views in the name of "fairness."43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:59 PM on Mar 10:
Jeremy (#34) misses the point. He's right that the first amendment doesn't guarantee a platform, but this unfairness doctrine would be an unwarranted restriction of the content of the speech. I.e. radios that have a conservative talk radio show must "balance" it with a liberal show that couldn't survive on its own (cf. Air America debacle). Of course, the liberal print and TV media will be under no such compulsion.
44. Lauren T. said the following at 7:46 PM on Mar 10:
Thanks, Dr. Ransom. I was trying to formulate a succinct and cogent response to some assumptive statements made here and you did a much better job than I would've!
45. BDB said the following at 8:04 PM on Mar 10:
Here's specific example from tonight's Hannity show.
The video clip showed the new Treasury Secretary talking about a new program to close loopholes of U.S. companies seeking to avoid paying taxes.
Hannity's response: this policy would have more credibility from someone who paid their own taxes.
Um...OK, that's an ad hominem fallacy, the mark of a weak debater.
There was no discussion of what the loopholes were, or what companies were enjoying them.
There was no discussion of how this would or would not create jobs in the U.S.
There was no discussion of how the new policy might hamonize/conflict with the tax policies in other countries.
I'll grant you that his guests are getting better looking, and it looks like one of them is on facebook. Wow - she's a grad student at NYU and 10 years younger than me. Religious studies...you folks should invite her to be a guest on a podcast.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. The overall focus was on quick slams against people without grappling with the merits of the underlying policy. It may be entertaining, but it's too shallow to actually build a policy consensus.
One think that Newt Gingrich did before he won the majority was to give speeches to an empty House Chamber - because he knew those long speeches would be carried on C-SPAN. It gave him the opportunity to put his ideas out into the marketplace, get feedback, and refine them into policies.
One of my favorite policies was the decision to make Congress responsible for all the OSHA rules that everyone else was responsible for. Congress had an unfortunate tendency to exempt itself from the rules made for the rest of us. Gingrich promised to end that if he got the majority. America gave him that chance, and he pushed the change through.
46. Texas Craig said the following at 10:58 PM on Mar 10:
Farmer Tom (#40): LOL!!! I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while (we can debate which one of us is the blind squirrel!) :-)
I am going to throw you for another loop. In your post #39, you finished with:
"So I'm suggesting to you, to Dr. Ransom and anyone else who will listen, that there is a better way. Leave the fighting to the liberals and conservatives. Come out from among them and be separate. Become a Constitutionalist or a Christian Libertarian."
I agree completely with the call to come out from the two standard camps. I eschew labels but, if I had to take one, it would likely be Christian Libertarian.
Wow, I have agreed with Farmer Tom twice in one day. All the Boundless bloggers are going to think the world has turned upside down. :-)
47. Bri said the following at 1:12 AM on Mar 11:
People have been belly-aching over how often the conservative talking-heads mentioned Obama's associations (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.), instead of maybe discussing issues like health care.
It was because NO ONE ELSE in the media was talking about it!
Since when did a man's associations NOT come into contention when trying to figure out his character and beliefs?
The liberal media CHOSE to not run stories about this stuff.
(And as a whole it is very liberal...denying it is just a waste of time).
The same courtesy was not extended to Palin. All her dirty laundry was aired for all the world to see.
Those in the media made sure of it.
Even more, when some plumber in Ohio (or wherever) is honest about his opinions of the Democratic candidate, the media quickly pull up any and all "questionable" or "scandalous" info they can find to discredit him.
And this guy wasn't even running for anything, let alone the Presidency of the United States.
Give me a break.
48. Bri said the following at 1:20 AM on Mar 11:
I would also like to add that I find it odd that people are so offended by Boundless offering blogs containing political commentary.
First of all, if you've read anything about Motte, you know that he is very personally and professionally involved in discussing politics. A little bio check goes a long way.
Secondly, why is okay for contributors to The Line to discuss personal reflections on every topic under the sun--except politics?
It generates discussion, gets people to think... Plus, no one is forcing anyone to read, let alone participate in commenting. The titles of the blogs usually are a dead-giveaway about the topic.
I just don't get what the big fuss is.
49. Marie said the following at 6:55 AM on Mar 11:
Farmer Tom,
I appreciate your concern for correctness, but I fear you're missing the point of my response. It's not saying that one group is right or wrong or that I agree with either group. It's saying that this debate puts us at risk of violating the two greatest commandments (see Matt. 22:37:39). Jesus says that the entire law hinges on these two commandments. Reading some of the hateful posts has just shown me that the second (and therefore the first as well, see 1 John 4:8, which is pretty pretty harsh those without love). Jesus loved prostitutes, tax collectors, and Pharisees. Satan is never stronger than when he has divided the Body of Christ.
Love,
Marie
50. BDB said the following at 10:25 AM on Mar 11:
Texas Craig (#46) wrote:
>>Wow, I have agreed with Farmer Tom twice in one day. All the Boundless bloggers are going to think the world has turned upside down. :-)<<
Hey, I know a place that makes well-testing kits. You can check to see what's in the water. Or the kool-aid.
51. BDB said the following at 10:28 AM on Mar 11:
For anyone who is still concerned about the "fairness doctrine," please write to your Senators and Congressmen and ask if it will force the TV stations in California to allow advocates of traditional marriage to speak their side. Because right now, only one side is getting any airtime: the side that lost Prop 8.
If enough people bring this up, it will likely kill any attempt to re-impose it.
52. BDB said the following at 10:37 AM on Mar 11:
Bri (#47) wrote:
>>The liberal media CHOSE to not run stories about this stuff.<<
And the conservative media chose to focus on minor issues and completely ignored the big things, like health care, that really matter to people. This simply reinforced the perception that Republican's don't "get it."
Yes, it takes a little more work to explore a health-care policy and show how it reveals someone's character and philosophical beliefs. It takes work to think through the trade-offs that someone is being asked to make. But that's how you win an election and forge a governing majority.
When one side stands up and says, "Every American deserves affordable health care!" The answer is NOT, "Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist!"
It was political malpractice for the Republician party leadership and these intellecually lazy talk-show hosts to waste so many hours on this foolishness. It's like seeing someone driving drunk, and these guys are arguing about whether the mag wheels on the car had too much chrome.
53. Al said the following at 5:33 PM on Mar 11:
I say this as a former Rush Limbaugh fan, a conservative, and a critic of Obama-- I'm not sure why "defanging" Rush Limbaugh-- or rather, defanging a career marked prominently by disrespectful mockery and ungracious namecalling-- would be such a bad thing. I mean, we just might have to resort to civil, nuanced political discourse.
Limbaugh sometimes makes sense. Often enough I can even agree with him. But I can also count on him to be completely unbalanced towards the right as I can count Keith Oberrman to be unbalanced towards the left. And it was actually in looking seriously at Jesus and my faith where I fell out of love with Limbaugh. I could no longer gleefully endorse the sort of character assasinations Limbaugh commits regularly upon left-leaning figures as part of his routine, entertainment or otherwise.
As much as I find Obama's brilliant but disingeuous politicking distasteful, I don't see Limbaugh deserving much defense-- and it wouldn't be a bad thing in my book if conservatives and Republicans did put some distance between themselves and Rush, at least until he changes his tone some.
Who knows-- maybe a firm, measured, gracious and civil voice for conservative ideals might rise in the void resulting from Obama's efforts. The sort of voice that might beat Obama at his own game.
54. Matthew said the following at 6:00 PM on Mar 11:
farmer tom #39/BDB #46:
hooray for Christian Libertarianism!
55. Katie P. said the following at 10:40 PM on Mar 11:
Bri (#47) said:
"The liberal media CHOSE to not run stories about this stuff."
Respectfully, I am curious as to which "liberal media" you are referring to? I am genuinely puzzled by the assertation that the mainstream media (who, I will be the first to admit, leans liberal) does not discuss these issues. I listen to NPR for at least an hour a day, and all of these controversial issues that are supposedly ignored are actually given quite a bit of coverage. Also, on NPR at least, the issues are discussed and a representative for BOTH sides of the debate is present. Shows like the Diane Reem show on NPR provide a forum for actual issues to be discussed and debated from both perspectives, even though Diane (who moderates the discussions) clearly leans to the left. I appreciate that she consistently finds intelligent people to come onto her show who disagree with her.
On the other hand, I find it very interesting that conservative talk shows like Rush and Hannity very rarely have guests, and when they do, they are usually treated very disrespectfully. To me anyways, this communicates that they know that their arguments are weak, and have to hide their weakness behind...loudness. Anyone can yell their opinion into a microphone unchallenged with no accountability, but ideas are seen as more credible if they are fairly debated, and still come out on top. I know that Rush has challenged Obama to be a guest on his show, but I think he only did this because he knows that the President of the United States is not going to come as a guest on his talk show. It is a safe challenge; he never expected Obama to accept. If he was really serious about having a debate about the issues, he could call any one of a number of Obama's economic policy advisors to be a guest, or one of the many other supporters of Obama's policies.
56. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:20 PM on Mar 12:
Not sure what Katie P. is talking about. See for example A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media by Bernard Goldberg. This leftist bias was confirmed by the Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, self-described as a liberal and an Obama voter. She recognized An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage and Obama's [3-1] Edge in the Coverage Race, and that "some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid", and that steps need to be taken in Remedying the Bias Perception, e.g. with more intellectual diversity among journalists.
A detailed survey of the political and social beliefs of producers, editors, writers, and staff in the television industry shows that they are biased against Christian morality. Two-thirds of them believe the structure of American society is faulty and must be changed. 97% say women should have the right to decide whether they want to have an abortion, 80% believe there’s nothing wrong with homosexual relations, and 51% see nothing wrong with adultery. And they openly admit that they push their ideas into the programs they create for their audiences. The media’s willingness to push evolutionary hype is consistent with their anti-Christian stance. [Lichter, S.R., Lichter, L.S. and Rothman, S., Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives, 1992]
57. BDB said the following at 8:16 PM on Mar 12:
Incidentally, Karl Rove is someone who understands policy AND politics. His analysis is deeper than most of the other voices out there.
58. Texas Craig said the following at 8:57 AM on Mar 13:
Dr. Sarfati (#56):
I don't think Katie P. was disagreeing that the media is liberal (she admits as much in the parenthetical in her second sentence). Rather, she was challenging the assertion that the liberal media "chose not to run stories about this stuff." She then goes on to talk about how she has heard all kinds of such stories on liberal media sites.
So, while your post is helpful, because you provide further evidence of the liberal media bias (which certainly exists), I do not think it is contrary to what Katie P. was saying. Rather, her point is that even the liberal media addresses the issues referenced.
59. BDB said the following at 1:27 PM on Mar 13:
Katie P (#55) and Texas Craig (#58) are right.
The "Liberal Media" did in fact make reference to Rev. Wright.
But what they did was juxtapose his comments against those of prominent religious conservatives. The three comments I can remember are:
1) Saying 9/11 was God's punishment for homosexuality
2) Saying Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for New Orleans' sin
3) The Focus on the Family spokesperson who said (I believe in jest) that we should pray for rain on Obama's acceptance speech in Denver stadium.
Then they would wrap up by saying we need to keep religion out of politics because look at all the crazy things religious leaders say.
60. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:58 PM on Mar 13:
BDB (#59): here's the glaringly obvious difference: none of the GOP candidates had sat under the preaching of these other ministers for 20 years, donated to their churches, and had them as marriage celebrants and baptizers of their children. Yet Obamov sat under Wright's loopy America hatred and Hamas support for 20 years, and his family also attended for ages.
And in a sane world, it would have counted against a candidate to have launched his political career in the home of unrepentant terrorists, and had other alliances with them.
61. Katie P. said the following at 10:19 PM on Mar 13:
Texas Craig,
Thanks for helping to clarify my intent!
Dr. Sarfati,
I agree with you, as I stated in my last post :) The mainstream media leans to the left. Conservatives know it, liberals know it, and liberals in the media admit it.
Everyone has a bias, which is inevitable. I think the important thing is to try to recognize a source's bias, and realize that what is being reported is being filtered through someone else's worldview. However, that doesn't mean that they NEVER have anything good or true to say, it just means that extra discernment should be used when listening to someone speak. That is what I appreciate about sources like NPR - the host (Diane Reem, in this case) has a bias and doesn't try very hard to hide that, but she still regularly invites people onto her show who disagree with her. An intelligent debate often takes place that addresses the actual issues, and doesn't deteriorate into name-calling. The assumption is that the listener is intelligent enough to make hear both sides and make up their own mind, instead of being told what to think, and ridiculed if their opinion deviates from what they are being told.
BDB - Very true. Cases like this are frustrating, and make our jobs as Christians that much harder. What do you think is a good way to communicate this skepticism of the media's portrayal of Christianity without focusing too much on the negative? Does anyone know of any good, independent journalistic sources that are not beginning with some assumption about the direction they want their news to take?
62. BDB said the following at 12:31 AM on Mar 15:
Katie P (#61) wrote:
>>Does anyone know of any good, independent journalistic sources that are not beginning with some assumption about the direction they want their news to take?<<
At one time The Christian Science Monitor was considered to be one of the least biased sources for print journalism. CSPAN is unbiased precisely because it allows no commentary by its employees - it only broadcasts directly.
But that can be interesting. I watched Kareem Abdul Jabbar on CSPAN one day. He was giving a speech about his book, Black Profiles in Courage. When he started taking questions from the audience, his answers were so thoughful that I went out and bought his book.
The Wall Street Journal is one of the few newspapers that still has a reporting staff. They actually predicted this financial mess years ago. By that I mean they documented the risks that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking, and then they got Letters to the Editor from the CEO of Fannie Mae saying they were dead wrong, and Barney Frank writing in saying they were wrong, etc. So, they have a record of their warnings and how government offcials refused to listen.
They also were he only ones to really analyze the competing health care proposals during the election. Just before the election they were the ones who realized that Obama's economic advisors had previously endorsed the health-care plan that McCain made part of his platform.
Unfortunately, top Republicans and their talk-show allies wasted all their time whining about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers to bother looking into it. They had six months to look into the matter, but only the WSJ got the job done.
The WSJ has an openly conservative editorial page, but they are grown-ups who admit when they are wrong. Their news operation is completely separate from their editorial page, as journalism should be.
63. BDB said the following at 10:47 AM on Mar 15:
#60 wrote:
>>here's the glaringly obvious difference: none of the GOP candidates had sat under the preaching of these other ministers for 20 years<<
Yes, I heard that talking point during the campaign, thank you for regurgitating it.
That talking point is irrelevant to what I said: the "liberal" media are saying that EVERYONE who lets their religious beliefs inform their politics (e.g. everyone pro-Life) is listening to a wacko and should be voted against.
They took the logic behind the Rev. Wright attacks (e.g. that a person's 20-year career ought to be defined by 5 minutes of out-of-context quotes) and applied it to all religious conservatives. They repeat the refrain that anyone who prays publicly about an election outcome or public policy outcome must be crazy and therefore we should force them out of decision-making roles.
Frankly, over on the discussion about "Earth-Shattering Events," there's a lot of give-and-take about a certain pastor's potentially controversial comments. When it's "one of ours," we seem to be more willing to parse the meaning, give the benefit of the doubt, or at least separate the controversial comments from the entire body of someone's career.
64. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:39 PM on Mar 15:
#63 is more gullible than I thought, if he thinks that the well-known snippets of Wright are "out of context" or unrepresentative. Obamov himself tried that dodge, but later had to disown Wright anyway when Wright made it clear that he really thinks that way. Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog could discern that Hamas-promoting Jeremiah "God damn AmeriKKKa" Wright was hardly a wise Christian guide.
McCain was an idiot for censoring this damning connection from his own campaign, such as it was.
Of course, the media (amply documented as liberal) don't mind mixing religion with politics, as long as the religion supports leftist politics. For example, they were happy when John "I married a rich heiresses" Kerry claimed Christian sanction for his socialistic wealth redistribution policies.
65. BDB said the following at 9:25 PM on Mar 15:
Here's an interesting article from Monday's WSJ on why conservatives can't win among minorities. Note that this article is written Shelby Steele, not Michael Steele; the latter is chairman of the RNC.
66. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:59 PM on Mar 15:
Limbaugh, Obama, Stalin and Leadership by Frank Turek, 16 March 2009.
67. BDB said the following at 1:47 PM on Mar 16:
#64 wrote:
>>McCain was an idiot for censoring this damning connection from his own campaign, such as it was.<<
And that belief is precisely why you fail. It is also why the conservative talk show hosts fail to persuade anyone with their ranting.
Sen. McCain recognized that there was zero advantage in jumping on the bandwagon to attack a non-combatant. The issue was fully aired in the press. Obama showed the same decency when he refused to go after Bristol Palin, who was not a candidate for office. Instead, Obama attempted to diffuse the issue by pointing out that his own mother gave birth to him at age 18. Neither Rev. Wright nor Bristol Palin were running for office. But vast amounts of time was wasted on them instead of the actual issues of the candidates themselves.
The best example would be Bill Ayers beliefs on education. After all, Obama was on the board of an education foundation tha adopted Ayers philosophies. The Wall Street Journal was the only news outlet that really dug into those education philosophies. There was a LOT there that could be questioned. Education is an important issue, and it would have been far more relevant to press Obama on his education philosophies. Instead, lots of time was spent whining about Ayers being an unrepentant terrorist.
This technique of focusing on small things to create a stir is used against the church, too. It is done to maximize ratings and sensationalism, but not get to the truth. I will relate a specific example.
The State of California generally will not license people to work with children if they have a felony conviction. There is a program to grant waivers for convictions that are not directly relevant to allow people to work. A local TV station decided to engage in some hidden-camera journalism against church-affiliated schools who had employees with waivers. Keep in mind, these people all working legally - they were following the law.
At one church school they obtained hidden camera footage of someone saying that no, they did not hire felons. This person was not in a position to know about the waiver system.
When confronted, the pastor granted a two-hour interview. After securing permission from the individual with the waiver, he explained, on camera, that the individual had a conviction for driving under the influence a few years prior. They were in a non-driving position with the school. It was all done quite legally.
What did the reporter do? They only ran the 10 seconds of (illegally obtained) undercover footage and named the church, then said "we know they hired a felon." They showed none of the pastor's interview, they did not explain it was a DUI for someone in a non-driving position. They deliberately left the impression that the church was hiring child molestors or violent individuals to work with kids by omitting facts that were provided to them.
The pastor, to his credit, explained this all to the church before the segment aired. The parents of the children at the church understood the situation, there was no significant fallout.
But it was a dramatic example of how members of the press deliberately use their megaphone to create false characterizations of people by omitting facts tha balance out the situation. After a while, people tune out those commentators who refuse to be balanced, and assume that they're simply lying all the time.
68. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:56 PM on Mar 16:
BDB doesn't differentiate between outright lies about a church and telling the truth about Obamov's allies. Now we are seeing what Obamov is really like: the radical and socialist mentors he sought for years.
Conversely, the Leftmedia went after Palin and her family and chcurch viciously, despite Obamov's soothing words.
And yeah, McCain's wimpy tactics worked so well, huh?
69. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:33 PM on Mar 16:
Dr Thomas Sowell, himself African-American, has long argued that Republicans have been inept at trying to win blacks. For over a decade, Sowell has pointed out the futility of trying to woo blacks by offering them things they can get more from the Dems. Instead, they need to point out how leftist policies hurt blacks, and provide a real alternative. For example:
The GOP could promote school vouchers that would allow black kids to escape failing schools, and show that the Dems care more about the teachers unions than black education.
The leftists have excused black crime with their grievance-mongering, but this means that black crims are more free to prey on the black community.
The Dems just love abortion, including partial birth, which kills far more black babies than white ones.
Welfare has done far more to harm black families than slavery or Jim Crow laws. And this is the main reason more blacks are poor. Married blacks are just as well off as married whites; there is just a lower percentage of them.
The GOP was the party formed to abolish slavery, and a higher percentage supported the civil rights legislation. The Dems were the party to keep slavery, the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, school segregation, and which filibustered civil rights laws. They are still the enemy of blacks (aborting them, patronizing them with "affirmative action", sending criminals back to prey on them, keeping them in failed public schools), but have convinced 90% of them that they are friends. But as Sowell says, they are friends like Iago.
And of course, most blacks oppose abortion and gay "marriage", sacraments of the Dems.
Instead, the GOP still tries to appease race-baiting grievance mongers. Yet they still manage to win about 10% of the black vote at the most. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
But all they need to do is win 20% of the black vote, and the Dems would be deservedly finished as a political party.
See his articles:
Republicans and Blacks 2008
Republicans and Blacks 2006
Dems, GOPers and blacks 2000
Dems, GOPers, and blacks II 2000
Will the Republicans ever learn? 1998
70. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:32 PM on Mar 16:
Here is today's column by the outstanding Sowell, The Republican Civil War about the crass embarrassment the RINO elite feel about Sowell:
As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.
At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.
New Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele's cheap shot at Rush's program as "ugly" set off the latest round of in-fighting. That is the kind of thing that is usually said by liberals who have never listened to the program.
Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.
Why Michael Steele found it necessary to say such a thing-- except as a sop to the liberal intelligentsia-- is one of the many mysteries of the Republican Party. Steele has since apologized to Rush but you cannot unring the bell.
More important, the mindset it betrays is at the heart of many of the problems of the Republican Party, going back for years, long before Michael Steele appeared on the scene.
There has long been an element of the Republican Party that has felt a need to distance themselves from people who stand up for conservative principles, whether those with principles have been Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh or whomever.
...
71. Amanda said the following at 10:23 AM on Mar 17:
What does this article have to do with Christianity? This is blatant right wing propoganda.
Here is a news flash for boundless and the author of this article: many Christians don't like Rush.
Here's another one: Not all Christians are republicans.
72. BDB said the following at 12:04 PM on Mar 17:
#68 wrote:
>>Now we are seeing what Obamov is really like: the radical and socialist mentors he sought for years. <<
You seem to have missed the point. Because the talk-show hosts focused on minor truths, they ignored the larger truths. Only political science majors (and economists) have a real understanding of what "socialist" means and can distinguish it between pure capitalism, communism and mixed economies. Throwing out the word "socialist" is pretty darn irrelevant for everyone else.
And it's only partially true. The point of the story about the TV station was not that they were telling outright lies, it was that they choose to emphasize partial truths in order to sensationalize and create the appearance of impropriety in order to get ratings.
In a court of law, it's the same as a prosecutor hiding exculpatory evidence - prosecutors are not legally allowed to do that; they must share ALL evidence with the defense. Journalists are supposed to do the same things - objectively report on what they find. These talk-show hosts are not real journalists, they are commentators - one should never take what they say as "truth." It can be assumed that they are leaving things out.
Amanda (#71) is making an important point. A large portion of the electorate has simply stopped listening to anyone who regurgitates Rush's talking points. Leonard Pitts explores how "organized religion" has driven people away in his article here.
73. A.M.C. said the following at 1:14 PM on Mar 17:
Re: Dr. Sarfati (#70)
Instead, the GOP still tries to appease race-baiting grievance mongers. Yet they still manage to win about 10% of the black vote at the most. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
But all they need to do is win 20% of the black vote, and the Dems would be deservedly finished as a political party.
I've addressed this issue in a previous post.
[Summary: The GOP only has themselves to blame because they were the ones who had applied the Southern Strategy in the 1960s. Before that, they have been able to win >20% of the Black vote even as far back as FDR's presidency.]
==> To be fair, the Dems aren't innocent either. So, as things now stand, I would even go as far as to argue that a serious American Christian should reject BOTH major parties because neither is serious about upholding Biblical standards. The problem is that those who are either aren't running or can't win elections on the federal level simply because they could be seen as divisive "theocrats." [On the other hand, you Australians at least have one member of the Family First Party in the Senate the last time I checked.]
74. BDB said the following at 2:11 PM on Mar 17:
A.M.C. brings up an interesting point. What if religious leaders mentioned that racism is a sin as often as they mentioned homosexuality as a sin?
My pastor does.
75. BDB said the following at 3:06 PM on Mar 17:
In a bit of irony, there was a Washington Post article decrying the decline of newspapers in favor of blogs - which tend to cite newspaper articles and comment on them...
76. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:18 PM on Mar 17:
BDB (#74): here's the difference: we don't have the President, media, educracy and influential politicians promoting racism as a good thing, unlike homosexual behaviour. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, many whites voted for Obama; <10% of blacks were prepared to vote for his white primary or presidential opponents.
77. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:29 PM on Mar 17:
A.M.C. (#73), I would still rather heed the wise words of Dr Sowell, who after all is himself African American. He was born in 1930 so has seen the trends first hand. One thing he notes is that blacks made their biggest advances in the decades before civil rights legislation and "affirmative action" were introduced.
Amanda (#71), who says anything about Christians having to support the Republicans? However, it's bizarre to see them support the Dems these days, since they regard partial birth abortion as a sacrament.
78. BDB said the following at 6:29 PM on Mar 17:
#76 - Discussing racism as a sin isn't solely a question about who voted for President Obama. There are lots of racist comments that get mixed in with the immigration debate, for example. Christians who are concerned about immigration at their top issue need to think about how the sin of racism can affect their policy goals, just as the sin of greed can impact their economic policies.
79. farmer Tom said the following at 8:08 PM on Mar 17:
AMEN
Now if we could just convince people like Amanda to understand that voting for politicians who are advocates for infanticide, income redistribution and sodomy, is an act of spiritual rebellion against God's revealed will, maybe we could begin to see a renewed spirit of conviction among those who claim the name of Christ to act and vote in a manner consistent with Biblical truth.
80. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:52 PM on Mar 17:
BDB (#78): most objections to illegal immigration have nothing to do with race and everything to do with ... illegality.
The sin of greed is universal. It doesn't just affect capitalists, and can't be cured by leftism (aka generosity with other people's money). As Dr Thomas Sowell says:
“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”