October
2007
The Most Liberal Justice? And what is “liberal” anyway?
This is rich. It’s election time and the candidate not aligned with the Republican party is once again being called the “most liberal” Justice.
This is a scare tactic.
For years, Republicans have decieved the public into thinking that the big difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of fiscal restraint. This claim never has held water. As long as I remember, Republicans have always been the party of big government and more intrusion into the lives of private citizens.
Nothing has changed.
Just a few years ago, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson ran to keep her seat on the Supreme Court. At that time she was labeled the “most liberal” member of the court.
Now Justice Louis Butler is up for re-election and he’s being labeled the “most liberal” member of the court.
But that brings up the other issue — what is liberal? Many in the public assume that liberal means whatever the Republicans are not. It stands to reason then that liberal must stand for fiscal restraint coupled with effective government if history is any guide. But if Republicans are one thing, it is masters of spin.
Somehow, Ronald Reagan, who under his watch exploded the amount of political appointees and greatly increased the size of the federal government was a master of fiscal restraint. With this increased spending came what was (until the current watch of President George W. Bush) the largest trade deficit and largest national debt in our nations history.
But this is what the Republicans have, with the help of talk radio, mastered.
But talk radio isn’t the only game in town anymore. One has to wonder whether blogs will actually have an impact in the next election. Will the Republicans manage to swift boat Louis Butler also?
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan
RSS feed
Link
unfortunately, one needs to be able to read and think independently for blogs to have an impact. Much easier to just have someone tell yu your opinion over the airwaves.
I think we can look forward to the swift boating of Justice Butler and many more candidates to come.
“Liberals?” They are destroying Wisconsin. I want more leaders like Annette Ziegler - rich, powerful, uncaring about rules and regulations. Give me a Conservative Republican with values like Ziegler, Rush Limbaugh or Clarence Thomas. These are people who know how to break the law and claim they are honest all at the same time.
Being a conservative is the best.
Talk radio is responsible for big government? Wow. I nearly fell out of my seat laughing.
If America is being swayed by talk radio, then why was Clinton elected for 2 terms and the democrat majority in the House and Senate regained in 2006? So much for the power of talk radio.
Or are you still blaming local talk radio for your own ouster as County Supervisor?
If it wasn’t for talk radio, swing seats would swing more to the dems and the public wouldn’t be deceived into thinking Democrats were the spenders when the numbers show the Republicans are the big spenders.
If you fell out of your seat laughing it’s because you aren’t paying attention and you’re too blinded by partisanship that you refuse to look at deficit spending.
Clinton got re-elected because he did what he said and in fact did even better than he said he would. He turned a national debt into a national surplus and it’s got to break his heart to see what Bush Jr. has done to the economic state of this country. (It’s a bit like wasting an inheritance on a weekend bender.)
The dems recaptured the house and the senate because the GOP abandoned any semblance of common sense and sided with twisted war mongering evangelicals while turning their backs on the environment. Finally the country understands that it’s only the kooks who are denying global warming.
As for the ouster, that’s more of a non-story at this point in my life. In fact, it was probably one of the best things that could have happened to me. That doesn’t mean I approve of talk radio swift boating.
So you’re all for quashing opposing views? If you could just eliminate conservative talk radio then the democrats job would be a lot easier? Just because you disagree with their point of view doesn’t mean that your view is the only acceptable view.
And you’re wrong on Clinton’s re-election. Clinton was never elected with more than 50% of the vote. A majority of the country DID NOT vote for him, ever. Had it not been for a weak Republican candidate in 1996 (Dole) then it would have been A LOT closer, if not an outright victory for the GOP. Also keep in mind that Perot prevented Bush from winning re-election in 1992 and also took a chunk away from Dole.
I’m not for quashing opposing views, I’m for quashing lies about political opposition. Lying about a political candidate should be against the law and talk radio does it every day.
Bush Jr. didn’t get a majority of the popular vote his first time either — that went to Al Gore. What’s your point?
And lying doesn’t happen in mainstream media (CBS) or political attack ads from the left? Come on Jim. It is your perception that they are lies, you are not final judge and jury on that. You spew plenty of lies on this blog, should this site be censored too?
My point was that despite your unconditional love for Clinton, he wasn’t as popular as you think. Bush wasn’t either in 2000 but received greater than 50% of the popular vote in 2004…again, I’m sure talk radio was solely to blame for spreading nothing but lies leading up to the election thus ensuring a Bush victory. Funny how talk radio didn’t allow Bush Sr and Dole to win in 1992 and 1996, so much for its power. You can’t pick and choose when talk radio has its power and when it doesn’t just to fit your particular argument.
The whole perception of things can be summed up in Jim’s final comment about Louis Butler being “swift-boated”. Jim obvious wants his heart to ignore what his head must tell him: that what the swift-boaters said about Kerry was true or he would have released his records and used the attack as a platform to discredit the right. What about the phoney memos regarding Bush’s national guard service–now that was a real piece of “swift boating.”
If talk radio lied about a candidate even once, Media Matters and the rest of The MINISTRY OF TRUTH would go into full hissy mode.
The left is only afraid of talk-radio because they cannot win a discussion of the issues. It is republican screw-up which give them the occasional edge. How long can you go on with “Bush lied, people died” or “No blood for oil” or “impeach Bush”?
Its rather sad that a whole political movement can only be expressed in the stinging one liners of Colbert?
Amen Christopher! Oh wait, sorry, didn’t mean to offend anyone on this liberal blog with a religious reference. How about “Right on bro!”? Well actually, I can’t use that one either because I may offend another group. But I digress…
The reason, now, that the left wants to kill talk radio is because despite their BEST effort in launching Air America…it completely fell on its face and failed miserably outside of liberal bastions like Madison and Berkley. Do you remember the never-ending free press Air America got before and after its launch from the mainstream media? The value of that PR was probably in the billions, yet it still failed. So since it failed, the left’s only way to win is to remove conservative talk radio permanently.
Discussing the issues is one thing. Lying about the facts is another.
Talk radio show hosts are entitled to forming their own opinions. They are not entitled to forming facts about those they seek to smear.
I’m a little surprised that Christopher would question why the left keeps saying “Bush lied, people died”. CT, they’re dead. That’s final. The left should continue to beat that drum as long as Bush is in office and soldiers are dying for a war which was based on faulty intelligence the Bush administration knew was faulty (dicey at best) when they pushed it.
How foolish for a Republican to decry “Bush lied, people died” as unfair when for over a decade now they continue to point to Clinton for all that is wrong in the country.