Conservative Talk Radio Hypocrisy??? Or Not???

[Warfish]

My Local DC/NoVA/MD Conservative Radio Morning host brought up and interesting line of argument I wanted to bring to the forum today:

He claimed that Ronald Reagan had an “11th Commandment” when it comes to Politics, said commandment being “Thou Shalt Not Talk Badly About a Fellow Republican”, with the reasoning being that whilst you may not always agree on every issue with a member of your party, they will nontheless always be a preferable option to a member of the opposition party.

Now, let me be clear, I have no idea if this claim is true. I’ll leave the Wikipedia’ing to others.

The point he was making, however, is the point of this thread. And that is the recent vitriolic attacks on John McCain from all corners of the Conservative Radio Landscape, but specifically Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. To illustrate his point, this host played a variety of cuts from yesterday in which Rush and Mark simply devastated McCain.

Now, I think most of us agree that McCain is a “conservative” in name only, and is far more aligned politically with a Moderate-Liberal/Mainstream ideology over most issues. Whilst he is pro-Iraq War, he is rather anti- much of Bush’s and Conservative though over prisoner treatment for example. If further debate of McCain is needed, we can have it, but I think we’ll agree, he is not deeply Conservative.

However, he IS very likely the Republican Nominee for President in 2008. Like it or not, that seems to be the direction we’re headed as things stand today.

So, with that said (assumed), what are we to think about all the Conservative/Republican Radio Voices utterly crushing McCain (a fellow Republican, even though they disagree on issues) when the result of such abuse may be to drive away the Conservative Base who listens to these programs, inspiring them to stay home in any Clinton/McCain or Obama/McCain election? While McCain may indeed be a poor Republican/Conservative, he would ( I have to assume) still be far superior in the minds of conservatives to a Socialist leaning Clinton or Obama administration.

And for people who endlessly talk on about “Being and Doing What Reagan Would” almost once per minute, are they not contradicting their own ideals, by trashing McCain? Or are they selective in their desire to emulate Reagan?

I thought this was a very interesting argument, and wanted to bring it here for further discussion.

Any thoughts on this?

[ChadLover]

I just wonder what they'll say if he is nominated during the general election. "I hate him but he is better than Hillary/Obama!" ???

[doggin94it]

Two points, 'fisher. 1) Conservative and Republican are not synonyms, and I don't think not toeing the current party line on torture is anywhere near "not-conservative"; 2) I'm not sure when "moderate" became a dirty word in the political world, but that needs to change, and fast.

On the McCain/Reagan issue, talk show host hypocrisy isn't exactly the most surprising thing in the world, is it?

[cr726]

I try to listen to Levin and man it is hard. What a angry old man. He has been attacking Bush like crazy now too.

[quote=Warfish;2317587]My Local DC/NoVA/MD Conservative Radio Morning host brought up and interesting line of argument I wanted to bring to the forum today:

He claimed that Ronald Reagan had an “11th Commandment” when it comes to Politics, said commandment being “Thou Shalt Not Talk Badly About a Fellow Republican”, with the reasoning being that whilst you may not always agree on every issue with a member of your party, they will nontheless always be a preferable option to a member of the opposition party.

Now, let me be clear, I have no idea if this claim is true. I’ll leave the Wikipedia’ing to others.

The point he was making, however, is the point of this thread. And that is the recent vitriolic attacks on John McCain from all corners of the Conservative Radio Landscape, but specifically Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. To illustrate his point, this host played a variety of cuts from yesterday in which Rush and Mark simply devastated McCain.

Now, I think most of us agree that McCain is a “conservative” in name only, and is far more aligned politically with a Moderate-Liberal/Mainstream ideology over most issues. Whilst he is pro-Iraq War, he is rather anti- much of Bush’s and Conservative though over prisoner treatment for example. If further debate of McCain is needed, we can have it, but I think we’ll agree, he is not deeply Conservative.

However, he IS very likely the Republican Nominee for President in 2008. Like it or not, that seems to be the direction we’re headed as things stand today.

So, with that said (assumed), what are we to think about all the Conservative/Republican Radio Voices utterly crushing McCain (a fellow Republican, even though they disagree on issues) when the result of such abuse may be to drive away the Conservative Base who listens to these programs, inspiring them to stay home in any Clinton/McCain or Obama/McCain election? While McCain may indeed be a poor Republican/Conservative, he would ( I have to assume) still be far superior in the minds of conservatives to a Socialist leaning Clinton or Obama administration.

And for people who endlessly talk on about “Being and Doing What Reagan Would” almost once per minute, are they not contradicting their own ideals, by trashing McCain? Or are they selective in their desire to emulate Reagan?

I thought this was a very interesting argument, and wanted to bring it here for further discussion.

Any thoughts on this?[/quote]

not an "interesting" argument per se
but rather one designed to justify, support,
or quell dissent of mccain

the reason for all the talk radio outcry is simple
(yes so simple a lib... etc)

the gop nomination is still up for grabs
and it reflects conservative gopers' desire to try to influence
the selection while they can before super tuesday

not the msm's populist/maverick/outsider candidate du jour
or secondary / tertiary choices polluted by open primaries

if mccain should win the nomination what do you think most
sane gopers will do
pull the lever for osama or rupaul or bloomberg?

ro_ p_ taught gopers that reagan's party unity theme could be
[I] rent asunder[/I]*

(*note: special sci-fi / comic book type jargon bonus for
basement-dwelling rupaul fans)

if enough were dissatisfied

but he also taught us that 3rd party runs were a divisive
waste of time years ago

'06 elections were enough of a gop reform "lesson", thanks

mccain's right on the #1 issue but is sorely lacking on the rest
a domestic / fiscal policy leader he is not
personally i hope he will be eclipsed soon
still he is stronger and more electable than dole,
the weakest gop candidate since ford
as a vp? secretary of defense? great choice
if hes the presidential candidate im holding my nose while i vote

overall all gopers should be happy all candidates pluses and minuses
are out on the table & open for discussion

that is where the internet & talk radio serve a valid function
for public discourse
which furthermore illustrates what a remarkable achievement the
reagan rise was , when these media avenues did not exist

the good news is that there's plenty of solid business
and gov't experience to choose from

not a airy-fairy fable of hope and change from
inexperienced dilettantes

[kaol]

McCain is Republican in name only. His positions on ilegal immigration, the economy, and relationship with Kennedy make him faux.

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=kaol;2317770]McCain is Republican in name only. His positions on ilegal immigration, the economy, and relationship with Kennedy make him faux.[/QUOTE]

What about Guiliani? Is he a "republican in name only" based on his position on abortion, gay rights, and his endorsement of liberal icon Mario Cuomo for NY governor.

[MnJetFan]

I would think Romney and Thompson are the only true Conservatives running as Republicans and I think Thompson will step up his attacks on McCain and Huckalberry!

[doggin94it]

[quote=kaol;2317770]McCain is Republican in name only. His positions on ilegal immigration, the economy, and relationship with Kennedy make him faux.[/quote]

And this is what I hate about the Republican party - if you don't toe the party line on all issues, you're suddenly "not a republican"

[URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm[/URL]

Fact is, McCain is clearly a conservative, though a moderate conservative.

As for the economy generally [URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Budget_+_Economy.htm[/URL]

Not sure I love his stances (cutting funding for the arts is a very bad idea) but that's a separate issue

[kaol]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;2317858]What about Guiliani? Is he a "republican in name only" based on his position on abortion, gay rights, and his endorsement of liberal icon Mario Cuomo for NY governor.[/QUOTE]

Those are tenets of the conservative party, more than the Republicans. Giuilian's fiscal policies are clearly Republican; unlike McCain. Remember Rudy garnered the support of the liberal party in his run 4 mayor.

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=kaol;2317903]Those are tenets of the conservative party, more than the Republicans. Giuilian's fiscal policies are clearly Republican; unlike McCain. Remember Rudy garnered the support of the liberal party in his run 4 mayor.[/QUOTE]

So then you agree that Rudy is a "Republican in name only"

[jets5ever]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2317897]And this is what I hate about the Republican party - if you don't toe the party line on all issues, you're suddenly "not a republican"

[URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm[/URL]

Fact is, McCain is clearly a conservative, though a moderate conservative.

As for the economy generally [URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Budget_+_Economy.htm[/URL]

Not sure I love his stances (cutting funding for the arts is a very bad idea) but that's a separate issue[/QUOTE]


The major contending GOP candidates have more diversity of opinion than do ALL declared Dem candidates combined. There is MUCH MORE serious and substantive intelelctual and philosophical debate going on today on the Right than on the Left. I don't think any reasonable person can argue that.

I love Democrats who talk about toeing the party line, when every single one of them basically has the same platform and they have epileptic seizures when they are confronted with a minority who is a conservative or a Dem who supports the Iraq War, like Lieberman. Actual, meaningful diversity exists on the Right, not the Left. The Left has boutique diversity; differences in melanin or genitals, while all agreeing on every issue. Why do you think Hillary and Obama have devolved into a series of sniping about race and gender and things like her tears are getting traction? It's because they agree on everything and there is nothing else to differentiate them aside from race and genitals and who can talk about Hope more eloquently.

"My universal healthcare plan has slightly less big government coercion than your universal healthcare plan."

"No, my universal healthcare plan has no Big Government coercion, only a mandate."

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=jets5ever;2318133][B]The major contending GOP candidates have more diversity of opinion than do ALL declared Dem candidates combined. There is MUCH MORE serious and substantive intelelctual and philosophical debate going on today on the Right than on the Left. I don't think any reasonable person can argue that.[/B]

I love Democrats who talk about toeing the party line, when every single one of them basically has the same platform and they have epileptic seizures when they are confronted with a minority who is a conservative or a Dem who supports the Iraq War, like Lieberman. Actual, meaningful diversity exists on the Right, not the Left. The Left has boutique diversity; differences in melanin or genitals, while all agreeing on every issue. Why do you think Hillary and Obama have devolved into a series of sniping about race and gender and things like her tears are getting traction? It's because they agree on everything and there is nothing else to differentiate them aside from race and genitals and who can talk about Hope more eloquently.[/QUOTE]


True , its just the republican candidates are wrong on most of the things.

Btw, funny you bring up Lieberman. Tell me , what has the Rights reaction been to guys like Chuck Hagel???..........right. Carry on

[jets5ever]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;2318145]True , its just the republican candidates are wrong on most of the things.

Btw, funny you bring up Lieberman. Tell me , what has the Rights reaction been to guys like Chuck Hagel???..........right. Carry on[/QUOTE]


Maybe they are wrong, maybe they aren't. But at least there is debate and true, meaningful diversity. We could nominate a protectionist Fair Tax guy like Huckabee, or a free market guy like Romney, or somewhat in the middle like McCain. Could nominate a guy (Guiliani) who supports abortion and gay marriage, etc.

[doggin94it]

[quote=jets5ever;2318133]The major contending GOP candidates have more diversity of opinion than do ALL declared Dem candidates combined. There is MUCH MORE serious and substantive intelelctual and philosophical debate going on today on the Right than on the Left. I don't think any reasonable person can argue that.

I love Democrats who talk about toeing the party line, when every single one of them basically has the same platform and they have epileptic seizures when they are confronted with a minority who is a conservative or a Dem who supports the Iraq War, like Lieberman. Actual, meaningful diversity exists on the Right, not the Left. The Left has boutique diversity; differences in melanin or genitals, while all agreeing on every issue. Why do you think Hillary and Obama have devolved into a series of sniping about race and gender and things like her tears are getting traction? It's because they agree on everything and there is nothing else to differentiate them aside from race and genitals and who can talk about Hope more eloquently.

"My universal healthcare plan has slightly less big government coercion than your universal healthcare plan."

"No, my universal healthcare plan has no Big Government coercion, only a mandate."[/quote]

5ever, the democrats basically adopted the tactic after watching the republicans use it to successfully move from a minority to a small majority to a bigger majority in congress, and its what helped the democrats take back the house. Party discipline is a more recent phenomenon on the Democrat side of the aisle than the Republican (and I find it equally repugnant there as well). Even so, its rare that you hear democrats calling someone "not a true democrat"; even with respect to Lieberman, the party supported him in his primary and his opponent didn't say he wasn't a "true Democrat" - just that he was wrong on the issues.

I just find the whole RINO thing (which the social conservatives in the republican party use to label anyone who isn't in opposed to legal abortion/gay marriage/etc. and the fiscal right wingers use to label anyone who doesn't think "cut taxes" is the correct answer to every economic or social problem) ridiculous.

[jets5ever]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2318162]5ever, the democrats basically adopted the tactic after watching the republicans use it to successfully move from a minority to a small majority to a bigger majority in congress, and its what helped the democrats take back the house. Party discipline is a more recent phenomenon on the Democrat side of the aisle than the Republican (and I find it equally repugnant there as well). Even so, its rare that you hear democrats calling someone "not a true democrat"; even with respect to Lieberman, the party supported him in his primary and his opponent didn't say he wasn't a "true Democrat" - just that he was wrong on the issues.

I just find the whole RINO thing (which the social conservatives in the republican party use to label anyone who isn't in opposed to legal abortion/gay marriage/etc. and the fiscal right wingers use to label anyone who doesn't think "cut taxes" is the correct answer to every economic or social problem) ridiculous.[/QUOTE]


RINO is ridiculous, but I completelty disagree about the toeing the party line being a new phenomenon on the Left.

The left is a monolith, philosophically. Do you disagree? What actual, substantive debate is going on right now on the Left?

[doggin94it]

[quote=jets5ever;2318181]RINO is ridiculous, but I completelty disagree about the toeing the party line being a new phenomenon on the Left.

The left is a monolith, philosophically. Do you disagree? What actual, substantive debate is going on right now on the Left?[/quote]

Right now? None, other than the difference between John Edwards (extreme left, class war) and the other candidates.

But go back into the archives and look at the articles being written about the Democrats' electoral failings pre Pelosi, and the common theme was "nobody can stay on message, everyone is going off in a different direction, there's no real "Democrat issues" the way there are "Republican issues" so they get creamed in national elections (when the presidential campaign highlights the overarching issues and the local candidates can riff off of those talking points)"

Pelosi's big thing was she was going to bring in party discipline.

I'm not saying the Democrats were never like that before - but for a good decade and a half (~1990 is about as far back as I can remember, politically) they were not a party of unified themes and party line votes.

[nuu faaola]

[QUOTE=Warfish;2317587]My Local DC/NoVA/MD Conservative Radio Morning host brought up and interesting line of argument I wanted to bring to the forum today:

He claimed that Ronald Reagan had an “11th Commandment” when it comes to Politics, said commandment being “Thou Shalt Not Talk Badly About a Fellow Republican”, with the reasoning being that whilst you may not always agree on every issue with a member of your party, they will nontheless always be a preferable option to a member of the opposition party.

Now, let me be clear, I have no idea if this claim is true. I’ll leave the Wikipedia’ing to others.

The point he was making, however, is the point of this thread. And that is the recent vitriolic attacks on John McCain from all corners of the Conservative Radio Landscape, but specifically Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. To illustrate his point, this host played a variety of cuts from yesterday in which Rush and Mark simply devastated McCain.

Now, I think most of us agree that McCain is a “conservative” in name only, and is far more aligned politically with a Moderate-Liberal/Mainstream ideology over most issues. Whilst he is pro-Iraq War, he is rather anti- much of Bush’s and Conservative though over prisoner treatment for example. If further debate of McCain is needed, we can have it, but I think we’ll agree, he is not deeply Conservative.

However, he IS very likely the Republican Nominee for President in 2008. Like it or not, that seems to be the direction we’re headed as things stand today.

So, with that said (assumed), what are we to think about all the Conservative/Republican Radio Voices utterly crushing McCain (a fellow Republican, even though they disagree on issues) when the result of such abuse may be to drive away the Conservative Base who listens to these programs, inspiring them to stay home in any Clinton/McCain or Obama/McCain election? While McCain may indeed be a poor Republican/Conservative, he would ( I have to assume) still be far superior in the minds of conservatives to a Socialist leaning Clinton or Obama administration.

And for people who endlessly talk on about “Being and Doing What Reagan Would” almost once per minute, are they not contradicting their own ideals, by trashing McCain? Or are they selective in their desire to emulate Reagan?

I thought this was a very interesting argument, and wanted to bring it here for further discussion.

Any thoughts on this?[/QUOTE]

This is a cyclical phenomenon, if you ask me.

The left has been in the wilderness for awhile, and has effectively united in opposition to Bush and his policies. This is the beginning of a movement, and the early stages of movements tend to be unified. (The only major differences between the dem candidates this year involve how they'd go about implementing changes they all agree should be made, and to what degree they';d implement them.) If you look back at the early days under Reagan, or even at the Republican Revolution in 1994, you'll see a similar lockstep on the GOP side.

Conversely, the Republicans are at the other end of this cycle. Their revolution is on its last legs. The failings of Bush II have made it difficult to keep the Reagan coalition together, and what you see there is clearly a civil war of sorts between the economic and social conservatives over who gets control of the party going forward.

Through that lens, McCain is being touted as the "least bad" choice, because while neither the fiscal cons or the social cons love him, they prefer him to someone who they view as entirely in the opposite camp (Romney or Huckabee).

[LyonMtJet]

I could stand to watch only about 10 minutes of the Democratic debate tonight. I really really really hope that Republicans put aside their philosophical differences and support the nominee, whoever that is. I support McCain and dislike Romney, but I would support Romney over Hillary/Obama any day.