Politics Who's Gonna Win?

For those thinking Rush got a bad deal and shouldn't have to apologize or this is just some "double standard", you want to see double standard I dare you to go to work and call someone you do not know a slut and a prostitute, and see what happens.

Think your bosses will say, "he brings in a lot of money for us, let's give him a slap on the wrist make him apologize and forget about it." No, they'll be firing your ass and calling legal hoping there isn't a lawsuit. That's the true double standard here.

 

Assuming I am dealing in reality now...the provision you cite will do little to stimulate real competition across state lines and leaves control with the Federal government and each individual state to opt in rather than giving the consumer real choice. It is a nice try and could be the foundation of a better response to the issue.

My idea of compromise would be for a provision like this to be discussed in detail, modified as needed, and once agreed upon it meets the needs of those it affects. I am the holder of an individual health insurance plan, and I have had the experience of moving across state lines. I know a bit about the "realities" of this issue. The transfer of auto, life, home, CGL, E&O, and Umbrella coverages are competitive and can potentially transfer across state lines with the same company in a manner that is smooth - healthcare coverage, particularly for middle aged adults can be a nightmare.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM ---

Rush did not get a bad deal, he did not have to apologize. He choose to apologize, and he respects the right of his advertisers to make business decisions. Seems to me like he admitted his error, accepts the consequences and is moving on. I have never heard anyone apologize to Palin. I have never heard anyone apologize to Condolezza Rice. I have never heard anyone apologize to black conservatives for being called everything under the sun except men and women of conviction...

 

It depends if you still believe the Republican assault on women's reproductive rights across the country is a "media and Democratic manufactured issue". If so, then no, you are not.

Of course, your idea of compromise is to have your position accepted in its entirety....regardless of the adverse impacts of having insurance companies flock to one state with the least regulations and least consumer protections and offer that across state lines with no federal oversight or limitations.

BTW, to compare health insurance to auto,life, home, etc is nonsense. The hope is that one will rarely need or use these types of insurance as opposed to the intent to use health insurance on a regular basis, particularly with cost-saving incentives like contraception to emphasize prevention.

 

Let me say this. Some are motivated by an assault on women's reproductive rights. Some are not. An assault on women's reproductive rights is not a party platform issue, either expressed or implied.

What are you willing to say regarding Democrats on this issue....? Nothing... I thought so.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2012 at 7:30 PM ---

Insurance is insurance.

 

Not a party issue?

Republican platform

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution...​

Democrat platform:

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans – not government – can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction.​

Not in the real world, ace.

 

Well, it was expressed quite clearly in 2008. The verbal assault has been ramped up recently and, in addition to abortion, now includes an assault on birth control. I'll be curious to see if the GOP includes an anti-birth control statement in their 2012 platform.
ht://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/

The right-wing Christian conservative vote is crucial to a GOP win in a national election. The absence of an attack against women's reproductive rights would be political suicide.

As a curious aside, as I was reading through their manifesto, there appeared to be little besides this cause and those concerned with decreasing spending or raising taxes, they have been willing to bother with.

 

Unbelievable.

 

The difference with Rush is that he owns his own production company (EIB Broadcasting). He can only really lose sponsors or subscribers. That allows him to say douchey stuff that would get most people fired while making everyone talk about him at the same time. He'll lose a few sponsors, but I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over it.

What I think the medical community should do is rebrand all contraceptives as prescriptions for the other medically beneficial treatments that they offer. The pill clears up acne and reduces menstral pain and flow. The fact that it may cause you to not have a kid can be one of the many known side effects that may occur while using it. Then the pope is happy and women are happy and Rush can STFU.

 

Have you ever talked to someone who changed their political view because of radio? At best I would say radio has an impact on voter turnout. However, Rush's audience is probably more inclined to vote anyway and are probably more politically active than average.

If you have any proof of what you suggest, I would love to see it.

 

What does that mean? Magnify??? Are voters going to vote with more intensity? When I say voter turnout, why isn't that enough? A person listens to Rush, they get motivated, they hold a event, go to an event, volunteer, etc - they get enthused. But it works for both sides, with liberal talk show hosts. It even works for liberals who listen to Rush from an anti-what-Rush-says perspective. So what is the net impact?

Other than in the age before TV, peaking with the War of the Worlds broadcast (afterward radio cred dropped), what are you talking about? Other than gutter installation, payday loan firms, florists, termite control companies and a few other local businesses who advertises on AM radio??? I bet it is not a big money maker for anyone other than a few, like Rush. Meaning it has virtually no impact.

 

I would agree that Rush is unlikely to convert anyone to his way of thinking and that conservative voters who listen to him would vote the same way if he suddenly ceased to exist.

What he does do is distort and manipulate the truth, above and beyond any of his counterparts.

Does it matter to you that voters are mislead and make such important decisions based on false information given out with the sole intent of incitement?

You appear, for the most part, to be a reasonable and conscientious voter, Ace - a fiscal conservative whose vote is reflective of your own fiscally conservative values. Though I don't agree with them, I understand the thought processes and theoretical logic behind them .

How does it sit with you knowing that so many of your fellow Republican voters are casting votes based on economic fantasies or on volatile social issues that either don't exist or are distorted beyond all reality - but which are all accepted as fact because they believe everything 1 man with a radio program says?

If I were you, I would want less of him going out over the airways, distorting the real issues. He does your side no favors by influencing so many listeners to vote for who he believes should be the next Republican candidate rather than who would be the most fiscally responsible.

 

In the absence of all opinion based media and organizations with suggestions on how to live, I would bet society would be a little different.

The whole global warming/climate change thing is a perfect example of how Rush and the other talking heads all gang up on conservative listeners who might be rational and want clean air and fuel efficient cars, but call them traitors and not true conservatives if they have any ideas other than the hard line right extreme ones.

And yes, the Tea Party started off ok, talking about fiscal issues. But then Fox News and the Right wing radio empire got a hold of it and brought in the social issues.

 

How does this translate into anything of substance? Other than Rush losing some of his sponsors and political pundits having something to talk about for a few days, this fades to nothing. There is not going to be any sustained movement resulting from this. there is not going to be policy change because of this. There is not going to be anything worthy of note. That is my point. This is simply a lot of noise.

You actually think that if not for radio...???

They tried radio psychological warfare during WWII. Psychological warfare, generally, in terms of communicating truthful or untruthful information to opposition to gain strategic advantage has been used since the dawn of war/large scale conflict. But, isn't this different from American AM radio in 2012?

Rush is the king of AM radio. That is like saying someone is the bridge (card game played by old people) king on the Titanic on April 14, 1912 (the day before the boat sank).

I'll explain the above. You see bridge is a card game still played by some people, with great passion - like some listen to Rush. In some circles the game was extremely popular and being good or the best was a big deal - like Rush is the good or the best AM radio talk show host. Oh, but bridge never had mass appeal - and is well past its peak. Conservative AM talk radio is past its peak. I would say AM's future is similar to that of the Titanic on 4/14/1912. Even me, in the past 6 months or so, in my car I am listening to Podcasts, specific to my interests, mostly commercial free. Rush is the king of a dead industry.
--- merged: Mar 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM ---

I don't underestimate the intelligence of the public. People who listen to Rush know what they are getting. The people who listen to Maher know what they are getting.

People say I over simplify things, but the truth is the things that motivate people are not that complicated. If you listen to some of the people who call into Rush's show the pattern is that many are simply concerned about their family's financial security and the future for their children/grandchildren. No person can distort this. These concerns are real. People know excessive debt is bad. People know when their freedoms are being trampled upon. Again, I don't underestimate people - liberal or conservative.

 

Just when you think you've heard it all, Michelle Bachmann brings a new perspective to the contraception controversy

government mandated contraception coverage ---------> government limits on number of children per family

I wonder if that qualifiies her to be Santorum's HHS secretary.

 

If radio din NOT influence voters.... then why does Clear Channel buy up all the higher wattage stations to put on Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, Hannity, Fox News, etc so that every major city and just about every populated area receiving a terrestrial AM radio signal is covered by Clear Channel's agenda? Obviously they believe they can change voters opinions via their stations.