President Bush, Talk Radio, White House
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
In Bush Visit With Hosts, Lefties See Controversy
Proving that absolutely anything President Bush does can become a justification for lefty anger, a White House visit by several radio talk show hosts has sparked the kind of rage we've come to expect from the party opposite.
The meeting came to light after the New York Times covered it, with a particular emphasis on the "shoring up the base" angle:
For two days, your Radio Equalizer has been receiving delightful emails demanding to know why we haven't covered this massive scandal. Why weren't any liberal hosts invited? Where were Al Franken and Randi Rhodes? Didn't he have better things to do? Why was the visit kept off of his official schedule? Isn't this a sign the GOP faithful are wavering before the election? Excuse us for a moment while we get some Advil.
As a result, on this one, we'll go ahead and take their bait. Here's your Radio Equalizer's take on the gathering:
First of all, this really wasn't a reason to become unhinged. One would expect the President to meet with various groups of people during the course of his day and there's no reason why radio talk show hosts shouldn't be included. How about key bloggers, don't they deserve a similar event?
On that note, if anything, this effort is too little, too late. The GOP has largely taken talk radio's support for granted in recent years and a last minute, pre- election pep talk with just five hosts will accomplish little.
Why should Bush invite liberal talk hosts to this kind of event? They are his political opponents and some would probably set off the alarms coming through the front door anyway. They aren't going to be open to what he has to say and even if they were, their audience sizes are too small to justify Bush's time and energy.
Why does the Times make such a point of Michael Savage's supposed disloyalty? Savage has never been a Republican (that we are aware of) and even a casual listener can make the reasonable determination that his ideology is all over the place. It's a non- issue.
Where are the big dogs? Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly should have been there, why didn't this happen?
Why was this particular group selected? It's a peculiar assortment of successful and not- so- successful syndicated hosts. Sadly, it looks as though somebody at the White House accepted Talkers Magazine's moronic version of who is popular in talk radio.
Why only five hosts? The combined reach of this group isn't big enough to make a serious impact on the election. Your Radio Equalizer would have suggested adding several of the biggest local talkers to this mix from cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. Next time, skip the Talkers clique and check with us, guys.
That's it! Nothing more to see here, folks...
Next "controversy", please, we're in a sparring mood.
NYT in bed: David A Lunde
FOR THE LATEST on key Massachusetts races, visit Bay State Showdown, our other site.
ELSEWHERE: Rush has praise for bloggers.
Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!
Technorati tags: air america radio progressive liberal talk talk radio conservative talk al franken air america Bush michael savage rush limbaugh white house new york times mainstream media 2006 election
In Bush Visit With Hosts, Lefties See Controversy
Proving that absolutely anything President Bush does can become a justification for lefty anger, a White House visit by several radio talk show hosts has sparked the kind of rage we've come to expect from the party opposite.
The meeting came to light after the New York Times covered it, with a particular emphasis on the "shoring up the base" angle:
On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president.
News, updates and insights on the midterm elections, the race for 2008 and everything in-between.
For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended.
The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past.
Conservative radio hosts are breaking with the Republican leadership in ways not seen in at least a decade, and certainly not since Rush Limbaugh’s forceful advocacy of the party in 1994 spawned a new generation of stars, said Michael Harrison, publisher of the industry’s lead trade publication, Talkers.
Disgruntlement can now be found not only among the more flamboyant radio voices, like Michael Savage, who raged against Mr. Bush’s proposals on immigration and other issues, but also among more mainstream hosts, like Laura Ingraham, who told her listeners in the wake of the scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley and under-age Congressional pages, “You have to ask yourself, the people who are in positions of power now in the Republican Party, are they able to credibly articulate the conservative agenda to the American people — to rally the base, to rally the country?”
Such questions, coming from such quarters, have created yet another challenge for the White House and the central party leadership as they work to steer Republicans to victory next month in the face of low approval ratings and dissatisfaction among the party faithful.
Strategists on both sides agree that the party’s greatest hope for holding control of Congress now rests with its ability to get core Republicans to vote, and that talk radio, which reaches millions of them, is crucial to the task.
Democratic strategists say talk radio remains a fearsome Republican advocacy force for which they have little direct answer. (Air America, which features liberal hosts, including Al Franken, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.)
The top two rated conservative hosts, Mr. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have done more than their part to rally their listeners this year, especially during the Foley scandal, to the great relief of Republican Party officials. And even those critical of Mr. Bush or the party on specific issues still consider themselves major supporters in general, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Savage.
But Mr. Savage is the third most popular host in the nation, with at least eight million listeners weekly, according to Talkers. And the Democrats have watched happily as he and others have at times sent reverberations of conservative frustration into what they often call the “Republican echo chamber.”
For two days, your Radio Equalizer has been receiving delightful emails demanding to know why we haven't covered this massive scandal. Why weren't any liberal hosts invited? Where were Al Franken and Randi Rhodes? Didn't he have better things to do? Why was the visit kept off of his official schedule? Isn't this a sign the GOP faithful are wavering before the election? Excuse us for a moment while we get some Advil.
As a result, on this one, we'll go ahead and take their bait. Here's your Radio Equalizer's take on the gathering:
First of all, this really wasn't a reason to become unhinged. One would expect the President to meet with various groups of people during the course of his day and there's no reason why radio talk show hosts shouldn't be included. How about key bloggers, don't they deserve a similar event?
On that note, if anything, this effort is too little, too late. The GOP has largely taken talk radio's support for granted in recent years and a last minute, pre- election pep talk with just five hosts will accomplish little.
Why should Bush invite liberal talk hosts to this kind of event? They are his political opponents and some would probably set off the alarms coming through the front door anyway. They aren't going to be open to what he has to say and even if they were, their audience sizes are too small to justify Bush's time and energy.
Why does the Times make such a point of Michael Savage's supposed disloyalty? Savage has never been a Republican (that we are aware of) and even a casual listener can make the reasonable determination that his ideology is all over the place. It's a non- issue.
Where are the big dogs? Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly should have been there, why didn't this happen?
Why was this particular group selected? It's a peculiar assortment of successful and not- so- successful syndicated hosts. Sadly, it looks as though somebody at the White House accepted Talkers Magazine's moronic version of who is popular in talk radio.
Why only five hosts? The combined reach of this group isn't big enough to make a serious impact on the election. Your Radio Equalizer would have suggested adding several of the biggest local talkers to this mix from cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. Next time, skip the Talkers clique and check with us, guys.
That's it! Nothing more to see here, folks...
Next "controversy", please, we're in a sparring mood.
NYT in bed: David A Lunde
FOR THE LATEST on key Massachusetts races, visit Bay State Showdown, our other site.
ELSEWHERE: Rush has praise for bloggers.
Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!
Technorati tags: air america radio progressive liberal talk talk radio conservative talk al franken air america Bush michael savage rush limbaugh white house new york times mainstream media 2006 election
19 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 11:05
"Why should Bush invite liberal talk hosts to this kind of event? They are his political opponents and some would probably set off the alarms coming through the front door anyway. They aren't going to be open to what he has to say and even if they were, their audience sizes are too small to justify Bush's time and energy."
This is why the American people need the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.
By hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 12:06
hash, you're right. After all, if you're going to invite radio hosts, you need to invite hosts of every political stripe. Just like when Clinton invited Rush to the White House ...
...wait. That didn't happen? So this scandal is nothing more than hypocritical opportunism?!? Imagine my surprise.
By BF, at 19 October, 2006 13:20
speaking on "inviting liberals", I believe I remember Mike Malloy being invited, as a courtesy, to speak at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee). Instead of saying "why I'd love to", Malloy sent a scathing email to them, comparing them to Nazis.
Since the person who'd sent him the
invite was a Jewish-American, that didn't go over too well...
By raccoonradio, at 19 October, 2006 14:05
...to be exact:
-----------------------------
Malloy:
"Um . . . you're kidding, right? Why would I have any desire whatsoever to attend or participate in a convocation of neo-Nazis????? I had two uncles fight against you [expletive] in WW2. And, now, surprise! surprise! here you all are on US soil. Kindly get the [expletive] off my email. Thanks."
Saul said she was stunned by his response. "I'm all for a difference of opinion, but this is entirely uncalled-for, and all the more offensive when you consider that I'm Jewish, lost family in the Holocaust and had a grandfather almost killed during WWII." Her complaints to Air America execs have gone unanswered. A spokeswoman said the network would have no comment.
-------------------------------
By raccoonradio, at 19 October, 2006 14:07
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Malloy's response was absolutely perfect and entirely appropriate for the situation.
As for the president, we need a new government. We need a free press once again.
And he knows it.
By hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 14:46
This is why the American people need the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.
So that AM radio stations can watch their ratings tank.
Great plan...
By Snowed In, at 19 October, 2006 14:50
A humorous post today Maloney.
By none, at 19 October, 2006 15:50
>>only pull the media to the right
good point. The Mallard Fillmore comic brought this up: "Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bill Clinton's right and Fox News is biased. That would leave, say, four networks in the liberal majority and
one in the conservative minority. Wow...we need 'affirmative action'
for the conservative media!"
By raccoonradio, at 19 October, 2006 16:03
"As for the rest??
Pffffffffft, please.
Lefty radio sucks. You clowns already HAVE news media, Am air america ( sick ) printed press aka NY Times, LA Time and so on and so forth."
You forgot to mention Pacifica--AKA Commie Radio!
By The Real Bob Anthony, at 19 October, 2006 18:50
Franklies said:
"You can't just dismiss someone's presentation solely based on the source"
I agree with you Frankinlies. I just ask the right wing freaks to remember that the next time someone cites Media Matters or other left-leaning partisan site since 9 times out of 10 it is the neocon sheep here who are dismissing the arguments made based on the sourcing.
By none, at 19 October, 2006 21:47
What some of you are forgetting is that the President has an obligation to ALL Americans, not just its extremist right wing and its pundits.
The press and media had unfettered access to the President during the Clinton administration.
Those who represent more moderate and progressive constituencies should not have to beg for what it is they are already entitled to.
By hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 22:26
Anyone demanding the return of the "fairness doctrine" is, by definition, admitting actual defeat in the arena of political ideas.
If the only way you can get your political message across to the masses on a day-to-day basis is to compel broadcasters to carry it based on some measure of Guvmint-established 'fairness,' then perhaps you should take some time and examine the weakness of your political beliefs and figure out a way to make them more commercially palatable to the masses.
Or you could do it the old fashioned way and buy your own frickin' radio station, like Nova-M is doing. That way you can broadcast whatever the hell you like as long as you don't let fly with the Seven Words.
Hash - "Unfettered access" during the Ultimate Answer's presidency? Remeber Travelgate? The "Secret Service Protection Privilege?" The Rose Law Firm billing records that were under subpoena for more than two years and magickally reappeared on a table in the White House residence level? The renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom to contributors?
Yeesh.
Sorry to say, hash, but sometimes you make even The Strawman look intelligent by comparison.
By SierraSpartan, at 19 October, 2006 22:44
Hash, Liberal Outlaw, and the other lefties/secular progressives,
like you, most liberals I know are as shallow as the thickness of your average loose leaf paper page. They do not reason, they scream their emotions and when confonted with facts and reason, they scream their emotional nonsense even louder. You are nothing different. All you did here was scream louder.
By PCD, at 20 October, 2006 08:34
JD, PCD....who cares what you morons think of me? I'm not going anywhere!
If Bush can't live up to his commitment of being the president to all Americans, rather than just neocons, maybe it's time for impeachment proceedings to begin.
There's certainly enough grounds already....
Get him and his filthy minions before they hit the Paraguayan border!
By hashfanatic, at 20 October, 2006 11:15
PCP,
The Republicans are cowardly dogs who run from the media if they cannot manipulate it. This is one example of it.
By none, at 20 October, 2006 11:50
Conservatives crying and whining about the "liberal media". Hysterical as usual. The meeting with the lemmings and the drug addled male cheerleader prove that these are not talk show hosts, Hannity, Ingrham and the rst are propagandists,and Limbaugh sitting around with Rove proves it as well. Never again may a right winger scream " soros soros soros lib lib lib media blah blah Franken soros blah blah", it is OBVIOUS at this point "conservative" talk show hosts are PROPAGANDISTS for the RNC.
END OF STORY
The FCC should have a warning on these shows "the views are not of these hosts or this station but rather the views of the RNC, the Bush administration and the Republican party. The hosts will present these ideas as their own observations, but they are politcal talking points not ideas of the host".
The listener deserves to know the show is PROPAGANDA, not opinion. This is outrageous, the FCC allowing this to happen is astonishing.
PCD is a punk. I have never encountered this creeps drivel. Well, punk meet MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA. I will humiliate you publically in this forum over and over. I suggest you keep your vile mouth shut. "secularists", what does that imply, you are religious, spiritual? You are vile human excrement.
By Minister of Propaganda, at 20 October, 2006 17:30
"PCD is a punk. I have never encountered this creeps drivel. Well, punk meet MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA. I will humiliate you publically in this forum over and over. I suggest you keep your vile mouth shut. "secularists", what does that imply, you are religious, spiritual? You are vile human excrement."
That's sure some good embarrassment there, Strawman. I'm sure PCD feels appropriately chastised by your measured and well-formulated comment there.
Allow me to embarrass you a bit, Strawman: (insert randomly selected MOP nonsensical yawp here).
Damn. Sure feels good to elevate the level of political discourse in this nation.
By SierraSpartan, at 22 October, 2006 21:55
You mean, like you elevated the national debt and the size of big government??
By hashfanatic, at 22 October, 2006 22:36
Post a Comment
<< Home