The Democratic Party Is Losing the Propaganda War (AM Radio)

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by amarone *
**Thank you, Boris B. It also looks as if the split in the vote may have been more on geographic lines than party. As the Democrats held more of the southern seats, then more Democrats voted against the act than Republicans did. **

Amarone, this is exactly the half-truth telling that we are talking about. The quote, which I called ludicrous, was this

“…it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act and implemented affirmative action – and it was the Democrats who were the segregationists.”

It doesn’t say that “more Democrats voted against the act than Republicans did.” It was also voted for by more Democrats than Republicans. Find some integrity.

Who is the one politician most associated with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, and this act (yes, presume 1965 please) specifically? Come on, you cannot truly be that unaware. Certainly, this act was one of the hallmarks of Lyndon B. Johnson’s career. You might have to google this, but I’ll give you a heads up - he was a Democrat. You may have heard of John F. Kennedy - he was a Democrat too (I swear! It’s a fact!) Need cites: here is a Kennedy press release from 1963.

This excerpt from notes of the minority leader at the time, Everett Dierksen (R-IL), indicates that, although he was supportive in general of the bill, and critical in its ultimate passage in the Senate, he was not burning with moral fervor to pass this legislation, as might be inferred from Rush’s characterization.

For historical context, see also this description of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, extensions of which were opposed by the Reagan administration, and Trent Lott.

Now, I say again that the statement is ludicrous, and defending it makes one appear pathetic. A person of integrity might better describe it thusly: The Civil Rights Act of 1965, sought by Kennedy and with vigor by Johnson, as an improvement upon the more modest Civil Rights Act of 1957, was supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives. Both parties were represented on both sides, with many in the opposition being southern Democrats, who had a history of splitting with the party on matters of civil rights (e.g. S. Thurmond, 1948).

Then again, such a characterization is not black and white, and easily digested by a dittohead.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**I’m still trying to figure out why it is that Republicans seem to read more than Liberals as well? **

I’m trying to figure out why it would seem that way too, since there is no credible evidence for any such appearance. And I pity the poor liberal republican, left out entirely (or counted twice?)

[Chumpsky]

*Originally posted by december *
On the tape, Jackson said, Lott might be rehabilitated if Since this would mean Lott taking liberal positions, Limbaugh characterized this as "becoming a liberal."

Nowhere in that tape, or ever, has Jackson stated that Lott could rehabilitate himself by becoming a liberal. That is simply a lie, no matter how you try to spin it.

Isn’t the difficulty involved in finding 200 consecutive words written by Limbaugh that are lie-free kind of amusing and pathetic? Not pathetic for Limbaugh–he’s no idiot–but for the people who will continue to defend this liar.

[Sam_Stone]

Byrd left the KKK after he discovered what it was truly about, six decades ago.

Before then he thought they were what, getting together to compare how good their laundry detergent was? A halloween ghost convention?

I might be able to buy some kind of bullshit excuse for being in the Klan, as long as you’re willing to take the time to at least make it creative. C’mon, Bob. Tell me you were working undercover for a secret government project. Say you have an evil twin. But the old, “I didn’t know that the Klan was racist” line is just weak.

[Milossarian]

Chumpsky -

You’re a liar.

As proof, I offer that you said this:

**That is simply a lie, no matter how you try to spin it.

**
And it’s a lie.

How do you like it?

[Boris_B]

Sam Stone, you raise good points. The Klan was obviously a racist organization and I didn’t mean to parrot the idea that this was somehow a big secret. I do, however, think there is something to be said in defense of people who do stupid stuff when they are young and naive. Does his past with the KKK mean he is a racist? I don’t see how. The man was old enough to vote before jet aircraft had been invented. People change.

I abhor the Klan. Every time I see on television men wearing robes, it turns me off. I look upon the Klan as a silly, asinine group that tries to act outside the law, and uses violence and intimidation as their currency.

Does it mean he was a racist? Sure. He said that he’d rather die than fight alongside a black man.

Am I to believe that the Democratic Party is horrible organization because one of its Senators was once a racist? And perhaps a more pertinent question, and the one I would ask of a couple of well-known talk radio personalities - am I to believe that no one in the Democratic Party can legitimately criticize any racism happening in the present day because one of its Senators was once a racist?

Sorry, that is not fighting for racial progress. It is an attempt to shame your political opponents into silence, and it disgusts me.

Furthermore, what is this that I always hear about liberals revering Byrd and never criticizing him? I’ve heard plenty of liberals express their doubts about him and their opposition to him - about his Klan past, his use of racial epithets, his pork-barrel economics, his tepidness in confronting Reagan when he was majority leader.

Oh yeah! He was majority leader! That means the whole party supported him! Yeah right. It means a few dozen of his Senate buddies supported him, several decades after his days in the Klan were over, long after his ugly letters had been written.

There may be some rank-and-file liberals outside of West Virginia who revere him as a hero. I’ve never met any and I’ve never seen any quotations.

Isn’t it unfair that those bad liberals are heaping criticism on poor Thurmond when he’s the moral equivalent of their very own Robert Byrd?? Who is heaping criticism on Thurmond? People make fun of him for being old, it does worry me that his is third in line for the Presidency*, but most folks consider him a pretty mainstream conservative. Lott isn’t getting his head handed to him because he praised anything Thurmond did as a Republican, or anything he did in the latter half of the 20th Century. Lott praised a campaign that was launched and run specifically to support segregation.

This isn’t exactly split-second timing we’re dealing with here. We’re talking the better part of a Century.

[Chumpsky]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**Chumpsky -

You’re a liar.

As proof, I offer that you said this:

And it’s a lie.

How do you like it? **

I don’t mind it that much, since it is false. And, it is easily verifiable that it is false. It is a fact that Jackson did not say what Limbaugh said he said. Ergo, Limbaugh was lying.

Some more fun with Rush and lies:
The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality

[december]

*Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian *
** The Civil Rights Act of 1965,…was supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives. **

Another poster (IIRC jshore ) made a similar point recently. It depends on how you distinguish “liberal” from “conservative.”

If the criterion is racial equality, then the statement is true, but meaningless; it’s a tautology.

However, if the criterion is government spending, then the Dixiecrats were generally liberals. Many of them were entrenched in Congress and accustomed to getting lots of federal pork back to their states or districts.

[ranwashingt]

quote from Dec.

Several liberals made similar attacks. Note the Clinton quote above, which is worse than Limbaugh’s.

I for one have never viewed Clinton as the stout heart for the Liberal agenda…He did more to cave into Republican majority and squander the progresses in Enviormentalist and Women’s causes than any previous Republicans…He just looked good doing it.

Rand…just a stepping and fetching my way’s outta here, cause Mr. Trent sure’s gets the furies afore he eats his VitaMeal!

[december]

*Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian *
** The quote, which I called ludicrous, was this

“…it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act and implemented affirmative action – and it was the Democrats who were the segregationists.”

It doesn’t say that “more Democrats voted against the act than Republicans did.” It was also voted for by more Democrats than Republicans. Find some integrity.**

Basically I agree with this criticism, Hentor, although the % of Republican Congressional support was higher. As you say, LBJ really deserves the lion’s share of the credit.

However, Rush’s unfairness pales in comparison with Bill Clinton’s ugly smear or with the New York Times. I’ve mentioned Paul Krugman’s vituperation. Bob Herbert had a similarly ludicrous charge:

But Mr. Lott is not the only culprit here. The Republican Party has become a haven for white racist attitudes and anti-black policies. The party of Lincoln is now a safe house for bigotry.

I agree that Rush Limbaugh’s comment was ludicrous. However, it did not sink to the vile slanderous depths of the New York Times and Bill Clinton.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by december *
**Another poster (IIRC jshore ) made a similar point recently. It depends on how you distinguish “liberal” from “conservative.”

If the criterion is racial equality, then the statement is true, but meaningless; it’s a tautology.

However, if the criterion is government spending, then the Dixiecrats were generally liberals. Many of them were entrenched in Congress and accustomed to getting lots of federal pork back to their states or districts. **

You’re right, December, if you did define liberal strictly using “racial equality,” my statement would be tautological. Defining it thus would also be stupid. A stupidity only exceeded by defining liberal as “accustomed to getting lots of federal pork” and distinguishing such from conservative. However, if one were accustomed to thinking clearly, they might attempt to utilize more standard definitions of terms, and employ liberal to mean “one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways” or “an advocate or adherent of liberalism esp. in individual rights.” One might distinguish this from conservative by employing that word to mean “one who adheres to traditional methods or views.” Or, alternatively, one might listen to Rush Limbaugh and regurgitate dittoheaded statements in an unthinking manner.

In any event, two questions remain for me: in what way would Rush’s characterization of support for and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 be more appropriate than the one I suggested, which you are criticizing? Secondly, again, what color is the sky in your world?

[Please note that I composed this off-line, and noticed that you have added more in another post. Please forgive me if you have further addressed this matter - I haven’t time right now to read and include any response to whatever else you might have said.]

[december]

*Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian * However, if one were accustomed to thinking clearly, they might attempt to utilize more standard definitions of terms, and employ liberal to mean “one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways” or “an advocate or adherent of liberalism esp. in individual rights.” One might distinguish this from conservative by employing that word to mean “one who adheres to traditional methods or views.”

Yes, this was the definition I leaned in high school. But, I don’t think it’s in use in the US today. By this definition, Newt Gingrich epitomizes liberalism and Ted Kennedy is conservative. This actually makes sense to me, but it’s not the way anyone communicates.

in what way would Rush’s characterization of support for and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 be more appropriate than the one I suggested, which you are criticizing? … Please forgive me if you have further addressed this matter

As you have noticed by now, I agreed with your criticism of Rush’s statement as being unfair and misleading.

Secondly, again, what color is the sky in your world?

To say that Rush was almost as unfair as Bill Clinton and New York Times columnists is harsh criticism indeed.

P.S. Getting back to the OP, Bill Clinton might be the perfect candidate to run a liberal talk radio show. He’s smart. He’s personable. He’s knowledgable. He’s a good debater. He goes for the jugular without appearing to be mean. And, with no video, he could receive blow jobs while on the air.

[ranwashingt]

Another poster (IIRC jshore ) made a similar point recently. It depends on how you distinguish “liberal” from “conservative.”

Actually it breaks down quite easily

Republicans… The stoic societal vanguards pouring hot oil down upon the Barbarians at the gate.

Democrats… The Barbarians

Rand…smacking his lips over that savory deep fried flavor as Harvey burst into flame

[mack]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**I’m still trying to figure out why it is that Republicans seem to read more than Liberals as well? Judging by book sales, that seems to be the case. **

I’ve never been asked my political affiliaition at the bookstore, online checkout, or newstand (at least not yet), and I doubt anybody else has. What book sales are you basing this supposition on?

[Spoke]

Hentor the Barbarian wrote:

[T]here is no point in worrying about Democrats losing anything to the absolutely stupid morons producing and listening to this shit. Anyone who could listen to this is so far gone as to not possibly consider voting Democrat, embracing a progressive thought, or for that matter, walking 10 yards without saying “right, left, right, left, right, left” under their breath.

Sorry, Hentor, but that’s the sort of attitude that could kill the Democratic Party. If the Democrats are not able to muster a populist response to Limbaugh, et al., they are doomed. You cannot maintain a national party that appeals only to college professors. You must be able to get down and dirty and explain to the common man why your policies are better for him, and just how Republican policies are hurting him. And you cannot hold the attention of an average under-educated voter without providing some entertainment value. That means confrontation and hyperbole, but I also think it can be done without the sort of slander you get with Limbaugh.

Sam, it’s no surprise that the talk show hosts we’re discussing are bestselling authors. That demonstrates the power of the medium of talk radio, not the erudition of the readers of these books.

Your comparison to Phil Donahue is inapt. Unlike television, where there are plenty of conservative and liberal voices to be heard, talk radio has only conservative voices. Democrats have virtually abandoned the field.

And unlike TV, radio follows workers in their cars, on their jobs, etc. A commuter with 45 minutes to kill who wants to hear some political analysis is going to hear only conservative analysis. A captive audience!

december, I have thought about Bill Clinton as a radio personality, but I’m not sure he’d be confrontational enough for the job. I wouldn’t mind hearing him try, though. He certainly has the mental acuity and the verbal skills needed.

[MMI]

So far in this thread there have been three main rationales offered for the dominance of talk radio by conservatives

[MMI]

oops, hit submit too soon.

1. Democrats/ Liberals are both ideologically/morally bankrupt and too stupid to successfully run a talk show.

2. Corporations crush and shut down the occasional liberal voice in the wilderness of radio

3. There is a large supply of competent and entertaining conservative commentators/personalities but few parallel liberal voices for whatever reasons.

I feel that it may be that there is a fourth reason - absence of demand for liberal talk radio. for the past few decades there has been relatively little for liberal masses to gripe about - most of the liberal agenda was on the books in one form or another. There is I think a much bigger sense of outrage and victimization on the conservative side, over Roe V. Wade, Civil rights/affirmitive action, welfare, secularism.

Liberals didn’t need voices stoking their anger and feeding resentment because the battles were largely won.

If I am right then as more of the conservative agenda is passed liberal anger may increase and support (with ratings) voices that actively promote the liberal view.

[mack]

*Originally posted by december *
** And, with no video, he could receive blow jobs while on the air. **

Nice cheap shot. When does your fair and balanced show air?

[Spoke]

MMI, I hear what you’re saying, but part of the reason there is so much anger and resentment toward the Democrats is that talk radio has created that resentment. (Sub-debate topic: Is talk radio the cause or the effect?)

I think there are plenty of issues for Democrats to discuss, starting with a deconstruction of the Republican agenda. Why wait until the Republican agenda is implemented before making the argument that it’s a bad idea?

I think that if a wise-cracking Democrat were to explain in detail just what Republicans are up to, and just how those plans (if implemented) will affect the middle-class voter, s/he can build an audience.

[ranwashingt]

quote:

Originally posted by december
And, with no video, he could receive blow jobs while on the air.

Damn-it!..And I just dropped Communication for Poly Sci!
Rand