You no doubt heard over the weekend that radio legend Paul Harvey has died. Harvey had been on national radio since 1951--and was one of the most popular radio hosts here on WOSH. I was never a big Paul Harvey fan--jokingly calling his "News and Comment" "Comment and Advertisement" as it always seemed to be a little light on hard news--and heavy on Paul's opinion. But in my 8+ years here at WOSH, we never received a call of complaint about something Paul Harvey said on the air--so listeners apparently liked what their heard.
ABC Radio has not told us yet if "News and Comment" and "Rest of the Story" will continue following Harvey's death. Since he had not hosted them in more than two years, I would imagine they will continue featuring his son Paul Harvey, Jr. Some of his most popular "Stories will air all this week during the WOSH Evening News Hour. We will also carry an hour-long career retrospective from ABC News tomorrow during the 8:00 hour.
In a totally unrelated matter, Rush Limbaugh addressed the Conservative Political Action Convention over the weekend--and now there is a grassroots movement to have Rush run for the White House in 2012. Let me go on the record right now as saying I am vehemently opposed to such an idea. Rush Limbaugh is a cash cow for radio stations that carry him--as sponsors specifically request to be part of his show. Rush gets great ratings during Republican administrations--and even better numbers during Democratic ones. Even the "opposition" listens in--as proven by the calls we get from liberals demanding that we pull Rush from the air because of what he has said. Question libs: If you hate Rush so much, why do you keep tuning in?
Besides, do you think Rush really wants to go through another round of grilling about his prescription drug scandal a few years ago? Or having to answer more questions about his comments on Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb? Besides, Rush would have to take a major pay cut to run for office--and given the taxes people in his bracket will be paying the next four years, he will need all the money he can make.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Re: Rush Limbaugh for President.
ReplyDeleteJust another symptom of how mortally wounded the divise right-wing brand of Republicanism is, to even consider a buffoon like that for leader of the Free World.
Yes, by all means, Republican Party: take a giant step backwards. Your name will be enshrined with the Whig Party, and the Federalist Party, and the Know-Nothing Party, and other extinct dinosaurs of American politics.
You've said it before, Jonathan, and I agree: the Republican Party needs to get back to REAL fiscal conservatism and forsake the ignorant redneck religioso hatemonger crowd that led to its destruction. Mr. McCain had my vote for president ... until he sold out to those braying yahoos and picked Gov. Palin as his running mate.
Only by categorically repudiating the abject stupidity and chicanery of the past 10 years of Republicanism can the party hope to get the votes of myself and other Independent voters someday. We're here, and we're willing to listen. Sing us a sensible tune, and we'll follow along. Bray like a jackass, pining for the foolishness of the past, and Your Distinguished Opponents will get our votes. It's up to you.
Hey Mr. Jet,
ReplyDeleteI will never understand how a voter can meander from voting for a Republican to a liberal Democrat over an issue such as a running mate. Although all parties continue to move to the left, if you have core beliefs, you are either for the conservative idealogies, or liberal. Unfortunately, moderates such as you control the direction of this nation's policies with your swing votes. Although I am a conservative, I have more respect for flaming liberals (although terribly misguided)than wishy washy moderates with no core convictions.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Peterman.
ReplyDeleteYour key phrase is, "if you have core beliefs."
I certainly do, and one of those core beliefs is my firm conviction that the job of running the country is FAR too important to let a personal matter like my core beliefs interfere.
When we elect representatives and leaders, our goal should be to "hire" the person who can BEST DO THE JOB. The person who is best qualified to lead or to represent us. That person may see things as I do, or may not. So be it. The IMPORTANT thing is to get someone who will do a good job of it.
For president, I want the person who has demonstrated great intelligence, fairness, patience, temperance, a good work ethic, charisma, etc. His or her core beliefs are secondary. After all, the job is "president" not absolute monarch. Presidents can only do so much. Mr. Bush was against abortion, but it stayed legal, right? He can only do so much.
I felt that both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama displayed these traits, that both were honorable gentlemen who would put the nation first. Mr. McCain had the advantage of experience and long service, Mr. Obama of greater communications skills and youthful vigor. A real toss-up; we couldn't go wrong.
Then Mr. McCain, an old man with health problems, picked a dim-witted ex-beauty queen ideologue to be his successor. I could not in good conscience contribute to the possibility that someone who was scarcely qualified to be a small-town mayor might end up the leader of the free world. No, sir. That's MY core value: don't let idiots run things.
People who swear allegience first to a political party are either mindless patsies or traitors to what America stands for. You want to look at what happens when people put The Party first, put their Core Values first, instead of the good of the nation? Look at Germany in the 1930s. THAT's where your approach can lead. No thank you, Mr. Peterman. I'll keep voting for the best person.
Mr Jet,
ReplyDeleteYour key phrase is "best do the job." Putting all idealogies aside, the man has no experience in a real job in the private sector, or running a business. Now he is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. His brief time in his Senate seat was obtained by default through a means of eliminating his opposition. Do you really believe a community organizer is someone who can "best do the job?"
Yes. He evinces considerable intelligence. An inexperienced man with intelligence and the proper attitude can outperform and experienced fool any day. Sadly, here in Wisconsin, stupidity and ignorance are held in high regard, and intelligent folks are chastised as "elitest".
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, experience is vastly over-rated. George Bush had a great deal of executive experience but was as dumb as a box of rocks; as a result of his abject stupidity, despite considerably executive experience, the country is in the crapper.
A smart man can think his way through a situation. An experienced man acts by force of habit.
And in any event, the experience comparison was not between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama. It was even odds that McCain would not live out his second term, so the proper comparison of experience was Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin. She was even more lacking in experience than Mr. Obama. What executive experience she did have did not bode well; she was scarcely a model mayor or governor. Add to that the fact that she was nearly as ignorant as Mr. Bush, and the only intelligent choice was Mr. Obama.
Do I believe he is some superhuman savior who can do no wrong? No. But I do believe he has the potential to do a superlative job for us. Only time will tell if he actually does.
A pleasure conversing with you, sir. Nice to see a discussion here that does something more than rip on unions.
Mr Jet,
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. We shall see who has made the intelligent choice.