Captain's Quarters -

I can think of few things that might galvanize Flyover Land into political aciton than this except maybe bans on NASCAR and BarBQ ;-)

They provide the very figurative rope with which they will hang on election day.

This is just one more reminder of how completely out of touch they are that they don't realize WE CAN HEAR THEM!!!!

Is XM and Sirius behind this?

Do the Democrat dopes not realize that a.m. radio is going the way of the dodo bird? Satellite and Internet connections are the future.

This will just speed the demise of a.m. radio. In 10 years, Air America can air 24/7 on a.m. radio and no one will know because no one will listen.

Two main things make liberal radio unworkable from listening to the opposition just to see what they were saying

1 It was constantly rude and abusive and attack dog mode which may work with the nutroots , but turns many others off

2 The really can't talk about their true agenda, because then it would be out in the open

Technology might enable talk radio to bypass any 'Fairness' ban. There's Internet streaming and satellite radio and cable TV/audio, channels that are not subject to FCC broadcast rules. I can imagine a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity operation handing out free satellite receivers and subscriptions, knowing they will make up the difference in advertising.

Which is not to say that we should submit meekly to the Democrat weasels' attempt to shut down conservative talk radio, but maybe if they realize they cannot ultimately succeed, that will take the wind out of their sails.

/Mr Lynn

MrLynn

As my handle implies I am a daytrader and am too involved during the day to listen live.

I use the evening time while doing my research to stream and time shift Hannity and Rush which allows me the option of pausing both for an adult beverage resupply break or call of nature.

Also it gives the advantage of being able to rewind to pick up a point I may have missed.

So what effect has talk radio had on The president? Did talk radio garner a big win on immigration for the right? Defeating a bad idea is easier than actually delivering a universally agreed upon solution. Talk radio basically pointed the finger at the leader of their party, for once, using John McCain and Ted K as straw-men. But it certainly didn't deliver a" Talk Wing" victory in the name of policy. It defeated one that was attached to it's leader. That seems balanced to me, even if it was slightly disingenuous. Hanging this one on the President and Ted Kennedy sure gets a lot of the RINOs or border GOPers off the hook. So maybe Talk Radio should eat some more of their own to prove their power. Maybe more people will see Talk Wing radio for what it really is, a mangable side effect of free speech.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

... we have less to fear from Boxer and Clinton than we do from Trent Lott and others on the center-right who use talk radio as scapegoats for their own failures and frustrations.

Lott is becoming a poster child for what is wrong with American politics. The man isn't a conservative: he's a plutocrat who happens to have some conservative values. When the little people (you know: like the ones who elected him?) start complaining about his high-handed ways, his knee-jerk response is exactly the same as every tin-pot wannbe dicator since the dawn of time: shut 'em up.

This plays right into the hands of the liberal fascisti who have never like free speech unless it is anti-American. Have a look at the fly-man's June 22, 2007 7:47 AM:

Maybe more people will see Talk Wing radio for what it really is, a mangable side effect of free speech. [emphasis mine - dj505]

Free speech isn't free speech: it's something to be "managed" for "the good of society". Because it's radio, somehow it isn't "free speech" anymore. This is all part 'n' parcel with "hate speech" codes, "free speech zones" and the like. Somebody decides that somebody else's "free speech" is "dangerous" or "hateful" or "unfair", and so they use the power of government to shut 'em up. The pattern has been seen throughout history, from the Pharisees to the nazis to the communists to American politicians.

Glad to know Trent Lott is in such good company.

/sarcasm

It makes me wonder why any conservative defended Lott when he "waxed eloquently" at Strom Thurmond's going away party.

Is it time for the Republican Party to go the way of the Federalist, Whig, "Know Nothing," and Bull Moose parties? The Republicans are not only seriously adrift policy-wise, but thay have now degenerated to disparaging their base.

If had an alternative I'd go there. But there is none on the horizon.

The market goes where the market goes, and it's never forever. Even great things (like jazz) go up and down in popularity. Let the market decide.

I don't know if it's just me, but in some places I see the quality of conservative talk radio going downward. I won't name names, but too many longtime hosts (NOT the hardworking newcomers at Blog Talk) are "mailing it in"--not doing their homework anymore. But maybe that's just my perception. The oldtimers need to remember that it's easy for a good radio host to express passion, but hard to hide a basic lack of knowledge. They need to keep doing the homework. Not every issue is like the one before.

Hate sells is the basis of right wing talk radio...how very attractive! And it appears even rethugs are coming on board to this point of view!

Why stop at Talk Radio? Let's go the whole 10 yards and ban political dissent on the internet as well. Hillary has friends in China, I think they can let her know how it is done. Once you quash freedom of political speech with indiffernce to the Bill of Rights, then take away our guns and finally, set yourself up as dictator for life.

All Hail Hillary! Seig Heil!

Hate sells is the basis of right wing talk radio...how very attractive! And it appears even rethugs are coming on board to this point of view!

Re: madmatt at June 22, 2007 8:33 AM

I wasn't talking about "hate." I was talking about hearing a talk host saying "Kim Jong the Third," and not catching it. That's what I'm talking about.

You want pure hate? Try Janeane Garofalo.

Front page @ Drudge:

SENATOR CLAIMS: Clinton, Boxer Conspiring to Rein In Talk Radio...

An estimated 14 million people will see this headline story at Drudge today alone. I don't think this kind of attack on "free speech" is going to be a "winner" with the majority of Americans.

If Clinton is to be the next President of the United States, she had better start coming up with solutions to real problems, and she had better start explaining her ties with Soros and his many creations.

Hey rbmn

when did janeane ever call for death or imprisonment of fellow americans?

Dear madmatt,

Please provide your definition of "hate."

No, wait, I'll do it for you:

"'Hate'" is:

a) An opinion or fact that challenges your received wisdom...and is backed by verifiable supporting evidence.

b) A statement, principle, or fact that shows your position is demonstrably wrong.

c) Any view that is to the right of where you stand.

Whaddaya think? Am I right...or am I right?

Well done...

Great interview with Sen. Inhofe.

The Captain is impressive as always.

If Talk Radio on the AM band is neutralized, then other venues will take over, satellite and internet.

In my office and home, I already listen to "streamed" music. No need to use AM or FM here.

If the media really is liberal, conservatives should be thriled by the idea of the fairness doctrine. Think of it, a conservative rebuttal to Glenn Beck and all those other libs over at CNN. When libs go on the air to talk about how badly the war is going, a conservative can come on with a rebuttal. Of course that would mean less time to cover important issues like drunk hollywood starlets, but hey, equal time!

If this occurs, then Trent Lott needs to be shown the door.

Hey Markj;

I define hate this way:

Do you play up stereotypes of minorities and homosexuals for money? (rush, beck, h&c, reilly)

Do you accuse people who disagree with you of being traitors and in league with al queda? (rush, beck, oreilly, h&c)

do you refuse to condemn the violent/hateful actions of your brethren ?(rush, beck, orielly, h&c)

do you support violence against people who disagree with you?(beck and rush and oreilly)

Now see markj...Ibring up a point, argue the point, and point to examples of right wing media figures who do these things. Try not make up silly crap that has nothing to do with my question.

Slow down madmatt; think your way through a sentence; read what you write before hitting the "post" option...

Jeeeez

Oh yes madmatt, leftwing hosts are so kind and gentle.

I mean, peace, love and heroin just flow from the voices of Randi Rhoades, Garafalo, Colbert, Stewart, Sharpton, Moore, etc.

No need to balance the left. They are fairness incarnate.

NoDonkey, Colbert and Stewart have comedy shows in which they skewer those in power. I agree that they are to the left, but they still nail the dems pretty hard from time to time.

Any of the others you listed must be on some network that I can't get here in Houston (or I'm just not aware of them). Our radio dial is solid conservative.

Democracy Now is only available on cable access and the conservatives have been trying to get rid of access here for the last couple of years.

"but they still nail the dems pretty hard from time to time."

There isn't a conservative talk show host out there who hasn't been brutally hard on the Republicans.

So if the laughingly named "Fairness Doctrine" is enacted and for example Rush bashes Lott, Specter, Hagel, Bush, etc., who will supply the other, other side?

This silly legislation is clearly unenforceable in practice and is only being put together to keep conservatives from "speaking truth to power". The Democrats know that there won't be any "balance" to be provided, since radio stations will no longer feature political hosts.

And no one has answered this question - why no Fairness Doctrine for broadcast TV? AM and FM are regulated by the FTC, but so are the networks. Why no Fairness Doctrine for ABC, NBC and CBS?

I didn't realize that there is no Fairness Doctrine for broadcast TV. That is very interesting.

I don't dispute that they want to mute the conservative voice -- and I would put forth that conservatives have been trying to do the same for some time now with quite a bit of success -- but a little balance would be nice. I meet conservatives who still believe Valerie Plame wasn't covert, or in regard to the attorney firings they'll say "well, Clinton fired em all," having not been informed by their guru that all presidents do that when they first take office. The radio hosts are doing these people a disservice, because when they try to argue on a blog they get nailed with the real facts on these things.

As far as not getting the ratings, I submit Phil Donahue losing his MSNBC gig because he was "too liberal" even though his ratings were better than all that station's conservative talkers.

I admit that you are right about the conservative talkers taking Bush to task these days, although I notice it's mostly only about immigration. Funny how as the war turned bad, immigration became the only thing to talk about.

"taking Bush to task these days, although I notice it's mostly only about immigration."

"Valerie Plame wasn't covert"
- She didn't fit the definition of a covert agent under the statute that would make it crime to reveal her identity. The CIA never said that she was covert and Fitzgerald didn't charge Libby with "outing" a covert agent, because Plame didn't fit the definition. BTW, do covert agents regularly drive from their swank suburban homes to CIA HQ at Langley? If so, how covert are they?

Besides, the shibboleths subscribed to by the left are far too numerous to mention, including virtually anything having to do with the Iraq War and Global Warming. It would take too much bandwidth to list all of the delusions of the left.

You are correct that conservative hosts have not been bashing Bush from the left because - they're conservative hosts. Because of conservative talk radio, we now have Chief Justice Roberts instead of the second coming of Sandra O'Connor.

I must dispute you: she was covert. That's what the whole case was about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml

From what I understand this is all based on a supposedly overheard conversation. This is a non-issue. There is no Fairness Doctrine revival and there is no legislation on the horizon restricting talk radio, unless it's some kind of eventual shift in FCC regs to limit market saturation by conglomerates - which would have some effect but is not actually being proposed and remember that said saturation required a shift in FCC policy to begin with).

Seems like an excuse for a Friday sh*tfit by the right. Hey, we all do it, but that's all this is.

Ozett said:

" I must dispute you: she was covert. That's what the whole case was about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml"

Gee, Tom Shipley came up with a new name!

By the way, Tom, posting an opinion piece by a left wing blogger parroting Fitzgerald's claim that Plame was "covert" won't work around here.

Just because Fitzgerald claims she was covert doesn't make it a fact or the truth. A Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York also ruled that Iraq was tied to 9-11, after all. If you're going to believe Fitz, you have to also believe Judge Baer.

I assure that I am not Tom Shipley, whoever that is. Today is the first time I have ever posted on this site. I googled "Was Valerie Plame covert?" And that was the first link that came up. I suppose I should have posted a link from an actual news source. Sorry. Here's one from the Washington Post (although I'm sure you'll tell me this is a liberal paper).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html

Libby was sentenced by Judge Reggie Walton who was nominated by G.W. Bush, so....back atcha at that accepting all or nothing business.

Sorry folks, V. Plame was Covert. Put you fingers in your ears and just drone la la la la la la la......I can't hear you

Delmonte, the CIA classified V. Plame as COVERT. That's not an allegation it's fact. Oh, I forgot that's one thing you folks have an aversion to, the facts. The speed of this sites posting is reflective of the right wingers mental capacities.

I'm going to start deleting comments that drift off topic. We have plenty of Plame threads here at CQ already.

You're the Captain. Is that Queeg or Marvel?

Ozett said:

"I don't dispute that they want to mute the conservative voice -- and I would put forth that conservatives have been trying to do the same for some time now with quite a bit of success --"

Can you give us examples of conservatives trying to "mute" the liberals' voices? I don't ever recall Republicans trying to shut down Air America using the Fairness Doctrine, or trying to cancel hurricane warnings on South Florida's most powerful radio station just because that station carries Rush Limbaugh.

Air America's problems are its own doing. They're not in trouble because of meddling by conservatives. They're not doing well because their finished product sucks!

I don't doubt that the conservation happened; the ladies deny it took place, but the good senator seems to have left out the information that it took place 3 years ago. That is according to FOX's O'Reilly. So in 3 years the liberals have not managed to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine; but they now control, barely, the House and the Senate and the Left really, really hates talk radio, so we might see an attempt to re-instate it shortly.

She was covert. General Hayden confirimed Plame's sworn testimony. The CIA took the leak seriously enough to file a criminal complaint.

You people just can't let go can you? When confronted with the fact that the sky is blue, you continue to insist it's red. I feel sorry for our country when there are so many out there that will believe whatever bs suits their agenda, regardless of the truth.. God help us all.

amr said:

"I don't doubt that the conservation happened; the ladies deny it took place, but the good senator seems to have left out the information that it took place 3 years ago. That is according to FOX's O'Reilly."

1. Unless it happened before the beginning of recorded history, also known as January of 2001, the date isn't important, since these people serve terms that last more than 3 years.

2. Talk about spinning on a dime-the left regularly trashes O'Reilly, yet will never hesitate to quote something he says if it will support their opinion.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either O'Reilly is scum or he's a prophet.

Randy, who obviously never read what Captain Ed said earlier in the thread, posted this:

"She was covert. General Hayden confirimed Plame's sworn testimony. The CIA took the leak seriously enough to file a criminal complaint.

You people just can't let go can you? When confronted with the fact that the sky is blue, you continue to insist it's red. I feel sorry for our country when there are so many out there that will believe whatever bs suits their agenda, regardless of the truth.. God help us all."

What I find amusing is that a bunch of people who have for decades told us that the US government-and especially the American military, CIA and FBI -are "evil"-would suddenly all rally around one single CIA agent. And then defend her cause by quoting all sorts of other CIA people, and American military people, etc.

Why all of the sudden support for a so-called "spook" who started her career before Dubyah "stole" the 2000 election?

Simple. They don't have any better material to work with.

Randy: if you think that a CIA agent is a "saint", as it appears you feel about Val, does that mean you support and endorse what she did for a living?

You rightwingnuts are really bad listeners and readers as well. You don't argue the real facts, but just drivel the likes of the admitted drug addict Rush spew. It is pathetic. I don't think the issue is really defending Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA operative, as I think she is quite capable of defending herself. Have any of you idiots ever answered why there was a leak in the first place? Who did it benefit? If you delusional bunch don't want to answer that it is understandable, but it is evident from your silence that you are either dumb or just fucking liars. Which is it ? Oh, and as far as conservative hosts not criticizing Bush because well they are conservative as some brainiac posted some time ago, you have strengthened the other sides argument right there, you Mensa member. Read your own post you mental midget. I apologize for being somewhat strong, but you are proof Darwin was right.

Do you play up stereotypes of minorities and homosexuals for money? (rush, beck, h&c, reilly)

I think you slander them--I'm sure they do that for free. Then again, if doing up gay stereotypes for money is "hate", what do we do with the cast of "Will & Grace"? What cruel fate have you in mind for Nathan Lane?

Do you accuse people who disagree with you of being traitors and in league with al queda? (rush, beck, oreilly, h&c)

Sure--when they disagree with me about not doing what Al Qaeda said we should do, and ooze down the path of aid and comfort to our enemies aka "treason". Disagreeing with me about nuclear power isn't treason. "redeploying" to Okinawa, is.

do you refuse to condemn the violent/hateful actions of your brethren ?(rush, beck, orielly, h&c)

Yes, every day goes by I don't beat my breast and bewail what somebody else did without my knowledge.

do you support violence against people who disagree with you?(beck and rush and oreilly)

When did they do that?

There's something these guys are forgetting about the Fairness Doctrine--the last time it was around, we didn't have 12-20 million 'undocumented Americans' coordinating megamarches through Radio Telemundo. Try shutting them up, Senators.

Inhofe forgot to mention that this supposed conversation occurred three years ago, not "a few weeks ago"...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/talk-talk-talk.html

The problem is the people that listen to rightwing radio are the fringe. The mainestream person agrees with the issue,so their is no conversely which means no arugements,= no rateings.That's why progressive radio is a hard sell. When everyone agrees with you why listen to the show?

While the political aspects of this are certainly attractive topics, there are other factors that need to be recognized.

Radio spectrum is a commodity, and while it doesn't behave like traditional commodities, it is most certainly something that has economic value and can be bought and sold - but within the context of sometimes byzantine and poorly-understood government (and politically-driven) regulation.

AM radio's current value is driven today by conservative talk radio - regardless of what you think of it, you have to acknowledge that LOTS of people listen to it, which translates into $$ for station/license holders. Remove conservative talk radio and AM licenses won't be worth nearly as much as they are now - regardless of what broadcast format replaces it. AM radio is a poor medium for music, with fidelity, noise and dynamic range comparing very poorly with FM radio, and the characteristics of the frequency range make installation of new transmitters expensive compared to FM in today's technology.
So the consequence of "killing" conservative talk radio will be to create an incentive to change AM radio from it's traditional role of "local broadcasting" into something more commercially profitable - I won't risk making a specific prediction, but I bet digital will be involved...

My point here is that current AM radio station license holders will either object (loudly) to any attempt to curtail conservative talk radio, or they will start taking steps to try and maintain the value of those licenses by other means - not necessarily a bad thing, but they will NOT "go quietly into that good night" and watch their properties' value disappear.

What we ALL should fear (regardless of political persuasion) is the principle that venues for free speech (electronic "speaker's corners") can be controlled in the interest of one political party or point of view - no matter what the medium. If we sanction the destruction of conservative talk radio because it suits the desires of democrats/liberals/whoever, how can we object to our "political masters" working to suppress opposition in ANY media? Conservatives would seem to have excellent reason to question the "fairness" of the television media, and both sides intermittently complain of "bias" in Internet affairs - do we really want our political "leadership" telling us what we should be listening to?

Yes, I know this thread petered out a couple days ago, but even if nobody reads it, I wanted to get that off my chest..:-)

Keep in mind, Inhofe has told this story on several occasions. He has several different locations where he heard these remarks and he quotes several different YEARS when this was supposed to have occured.

Good reporting! You can have your own opinions but not your own facts!