top TRUTH—THE NO SPIN POLITICALLY INCORRECT ZONE: 2011 | Conservative Liberal Politics | News Entertainment Debate

Donate Subscribe Angel Investors

Trust Me!

Thursday, August 11, 2011

We Need a Third Party

I assume Newsweek is defensive about the above photo of Michele Bachmann. I am not. I think it represents her perfectly.

It was literally okay with her if we had defaulted, and she blames our downgrade and stock market crash on raising the debt ceiling. She'd rather we not pay our bills, renege on our agreements, and hold the world's economy hostage, for political gain.

I don't imagine she does this maliciously. I just think she truly has no understanding of economics at all. She has no business running for dogcatcher, let alone president.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

We indeed are on a Mission from God!

Please donate, subscribe, and invest in my enterprise to help get this vital truth out to the rest of America. Mine is a unique viewpoint that I believe is part of the salvation for America in our troubled times. It needs and deserves generous support.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers on the Right

I used to think that all irrationality lay on the liberal side of the spectrum. I still judge that most modern liberals, at least the leaders, have entirely lost their reasoning abilities.

Yet I, a conservative, have become steadily disenchanted with the Republican Party. Sadly, I’ve seen most of them, including their leaders, like their counterparts on the left, drift into complete


And, they’ve become the caricatures they were always accused of being, like Scrooge, or wanting to throw Granny off a cliff, and so on. It’s amazing. The final straws for me were their voting against unemployment extensions and now leading us to our first credit downgrade in history.

The Grand Old Tea Party

Presently, the Republican Party represents the Tea Party alone. Their intolerance for diverse points of view fosters scorn for "RINOs" like Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown. These "moderates" commit the sin of voting for compassionate and economically viable things like unemployment insurance extensions. Republicans also deride people like me, not a moderate, for siding with the American people and economists on issues like infrastructure spending.

Well, the Tea Party cannot define Snowe, Brown, or me out of existence as conservatives. I define them out of existence as conservatives. I insist on believing that conservatives are rational, brilliant, and innovative.

The Tea Party loves to go back to our roots and Founding Fathers. However, these historical figures were rebels, innovators, scientists, businessmen, and entrepreneurs. They broke barriers. They were full of "revolutionary ideas." They definitely used Keynesian spending, initiated deficit spending, and built infrastructure to win the Revolutionary War.

Republicans have become far-right wing and unreasonable, with no imagination and no vision for America other than low taxes and spending cuts. That’s it? That’s the great beacon for all our efforts? At least Reagan had the “Shining City on a Hill.”

No Big Ideas and No Flexibility

Unfortunately, under present Republican stewardship, we will never again be a nation of big ideas.

We’ll never do things like go to the moon, build high-speed rail, or even cure cancer. All that costs money. We’ll never be able to fight another World War. We’d just give up and let the Nazi’s take over.

With their idiotic Balanced Budget Amendment, we won’t even be able to behave like the average American family or business. Families and businesses engage in deficit spending all the time, taking on a mortgage, car loan, business investment loans, or inventory loans when the opportunity presents itself or an emergency, like the need for a heart transplant. If we had a balanced budget requirement during the recent recession, we’d have had spending cuts and tax increases — just when the economy was most vulnerable.

So I Like the Dems, Right?

Sadly for me, though, Democrats are preaching what I’ve just said too. I don’t want them as allies in this fight, and I cringe at any association with them. The problem is they have morphed over the years into not only a far-left party, but led by a bunch of lying demagogues. Every time they open their mouths they are spewing bold-faced untruths.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is an example of a purely evil politician. She is a sociopath with no redeeming values.

Present-day Democrats, like Republicans, operate on only one guiding principle. Theirs is to demonize and soak the rich, and business. However, soaking the rich will not pay for all their golden dreams. And soaking, over-regulating, and demonizing business does harm to our economy, and winds up hurting even those they claim to represent, the poor.

Morton's Fork

Therefore, we’ve got the choice between the ideological nutcases on the right, who tell the “truth” but whose truth is dangerous for the nation, versus the demagogic, lying left.

Stuck in the Middle With You

In my opinion, my position is where the nation needs to be, if you’re a conservative. I’m a hardcore conservative with some progressive ideals. I find myself on the conservative side of most issues, but I am not tied to ideology. I’m tied to what works for America.

Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger

This should not be confused with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stance, which sounded the same. He, in my opinion, was a man with his finger in the air. He was a “moderate.”

I don’t have my finger in the air, and I’m not a moderate. Rather, I’m focused on what will work, based on economics, science, and research. I’m an empiricist. It just so happens that most things that work in these areas take on a conservative hue. But, not always.

John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes
One example is Keynesian spending. Almost 99% of conservatives nowadays do not believe in it. They think it leads to debt and a weaker economy. They are wrong. WWII was our most massive Keynesian spending in history. It worked.

Keynesian spending should be increased when the nation needs an input of money, and shrink when the economy is doing well. When unemployment is high and GDP sluggish, an injection of funds into the economy is required.

So, Why Didn’t Obama’s Keynesian Spending Work?

Basically, it was poured down a rat-hole. He wasted it on cronies, unions, and government jobs. None of this had a multiplier effect for the economy, and its positives ended when the spending stopped. No new roads were built, or bridges, or factories for future employment.

Therefore, he “proved” that Keynesian spending doesn’t work, right? No. He proved that dumping money down a rat-hole doesn’t work.

Never Trust a Leftist with Keynesian Spending

Anyway, I wouldn’t trust Obama or the left with any Keynesian spending. I’d run from all community organizers for this job. I’d only trust a businessperson or economist. They’d have to be pro-business, have a conservative bent, and be meticulous at assessing cost-benefit.

I Will Remain a Conservative

But I cannot vote for the insane, vision-impaired, and cruel Republican Party we have now. My goals might be considered progressive, in that I want to help the poor, for example, like any good Democrat. But I don’t see Marxism or socialism as the way to effect this. Only market based solutions make any sense to me.

We Need a Third Party

So, I must create or find a third party. I don’t have a name yet. But I would simply describe it as hardcore conservative with some progressive ideals. Incidentally, I believe most Americans occupy this part of the political spectrum. They don’t want to snatch unemployment extensions away from the unemployed, but they do think we need to be careful with our spending. They seek a strong defense, but don't accept ten-year wars.

I’ll be filling in more details about this in the future.

Have a wonderful day!
Your Comments are Welcome Here


Have a wonderful day!

My links are:
Rock's World (#cartoons)
Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
@RockyII Twitter
Rock It Productions (Website)
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook

You can contact me at:
Rock's Email

To copy these, here they are:
Rock's World (#cartoons) 
Truth--the No Spin Blog  
@RockyII Twitter            
Rock It Productions (Website) 
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook


TwitterStumble ThisFav This With TechnoratiAdd To Del.icio.usDigg ThisAdd To RedditAdd To FacebookAdd To Yahoo
Your Opinion Matters

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Hardcore Conservative with Some Progressive Ideals

Elwood: "They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God."                                                                      (Blues Brothers 1980)

We indeed are on a Mission from God!

Please donate, subscribe, and invest in my enterprise to help get this vital truth out to the rest of America. Mine is a unique viewpoint that I believe is part of the salvation for America in our troubled times. It needs and deserves generous support.

Hardcore Conservative with Some Progressive Ideals

Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone is the philosophical bedrock for my filmmaking, and for my cartoons blog, Rock's World.

This TRUTH includes an exploration of vital issues in our politics, news, entertainment, and culture.

My thesis is we need all our citizens involved in the national debate, both the left and right wings. I believe each is vital in a thriving democracy. Sometimes truth will lie with the left, other times with the right, and usually in a combination. This is not centrist, or moderate. It is hardcore truth.

Having said this, I often find myself on the conservative side of things. Even when I passionately support a progressive ideal, like Social Security benefits, I usually seek a conservative approach, such as voluntary privatization. I advocate means testing, raising the age requirements, and rigid cost-benefits analyses. In other words, I'm basically conservative, even when I promote a progressive ideal, and I want SMART.

As opposed to my far-right fellow conservatives, though, I do passionately believe in the social safety net, including humane unemployment insurance, universal healthcare (market-based), and reformed SSC, Medicare, and Medicaid.

See previous related posts, Towards an Activist Conservatism
and Left Versus Right, Two Hulks Bursting with Anger.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Invisible and Visible Hands

Adam Smith
I trust, with my compadres, in Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market, but I don't think it solves all of society's needs. The invisible hand is necessary for business and economic success, but it requires a visible hand too, that of a government actively seeking to solve the other problems, like homelessness. Albeit, with market-based solutions.

I also want active and enduring support for the arts, science, research, and infrastructure investments.

I promote reasonable financing for education, but also its release from the clutches of teachers’ unions, and from liberal, anti-American ideologies.

The History of Left vs. Right

I am surprised as I learn the history of our great nation that we repeatedly revisit the very same arguments our Founding Fathers had in the eighteenth century. There have always been liberals, and conservatives.

Present-day conservatives, and their radical right-wing proponents, like Bachmann, the Tea Party, and even Beck, proclaim conservatism as the guardian of our national history, and they promote a return to the values of our Founders.

Thomas Jefferson, States' Rights
John Hancock, Federalist

Well, I’ve got news for you, my fellow conservatives; the values of the Founding Fathers were exactly like ours. They were split between Federalist and States' Rights people, those that desired a republic and those who wanted pure democracy, and yes, between liberals and conservatives. It’s tiring to think we’ve made no progress since then. Or, is it? Maybe this kind of balance and tension is exactly what our republic needs.

What If the Hard Right Ruled?

Thinking of our own times, what if the hard right, which is now controlling the Republican Party, ruled absolutely?

Well, we’d have Texas. There’d be drastically reduced unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. The military would still be fully funded. Taxes would be flat. We’d have no illegal immigration. There’d be an abundant energy supply. The air and water would be a bit more polluted.

Dallas Oil Refinery and Skyline
Unions would shrivel and no longer destroy our companies, and city and state governments. Teachers unions would stop emulsifying our children's minds in the interest of teacher benefits and anti-American liberal philosophy. Our history would be re-written again to make America the hero of the world. Students would be allowed to attend quality schools with a voucher system.

Our economy would rocket under these conditions. Small businesses would thrive and hire.

On the other hand, the unemployed, the poor, the mentally ill, many sick people, the elderly, education funding, science, research, and the arts would suffer. Millions of government workers would lose their jobs and flood the job market. The poor would be vilified. They would get enough food from charities to live, on the streets, and then be arrested for vagrancy. Some elderly would be at the mercy of relatives or charities. Mental health would be decimated, and we’d have even more Jared Loughner’s. Millions would have no health insurance, and continue to flood and bankrupt our public hospitals.

The Post Office and public transportation would no longer serve small towns. We’d never have high-speed rail. Our roads and bridges would crumble waiting for private enterprise to repair them. NASA would not exist, and we wouldn't have even gone to the moon. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program would be defunded, removing a vital investment tool for American manufacturing.

Regulation would be diminished so much that our food supply would be tainted.

We'd be in Afghanistan another thirty years.

We'd be dominated by religious dogma. Pornography would be banned.

The useless war on drugs would be expanded, and even more people would be in prison. Speaking of prisons, they'd be even more of a hellhole. Which means, yes, the incentive would increase not to offend, but jails would turn out a more determined class of uneducated criminals, who only know crime, to prey on us.

What if the Hardcore Left Ruled?

We’d have Los Angeles. There'd be humane unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. We’d have lots of government jobs. The elderly would be okay. The poor could survive in dignity. The mentally ill and challenged would have programs and be off the streets.

Los Angeles Slum and Skyline
Science, research, and the arts would thrive.

The Post Office and public transportation would continue to serve small towns. We’d have high-speed rail. Our roads and bridges would be repaired. We’d revitalize our space program and other technological advancements. The SBIR program would help revive American manufacturing.

We’d advance our Green Technology, which would mean a socialistic choosing of winners, which would fail miserably and cost billions, but also lead to a few important advancements over the years. The air and water would be very clean.

The prison population would shrink with the end of the war on drugs. This would mean, however, flooding the job market, roads, and hospitals with addicted and inebriated citizens. Still, this would reduce the crime rate, and lower gang and organized crime involvement in the drug trade. Replacing these, though, would be the black market and gang involvement for cigarettes, and establishments where smoking would be surreptitiously allowed, kind of like speakeasies.

French fries and milkshakes would be outlawed.

Prisons would be run humanely, and would educate inmates so they’d at least have a chance on the outside, and stop robbing us.

The military would be denuded. We'd be out of Afghanistan and unlikely to get involved military again with boots on the ground.

Religion would be kept out of government. Pornography would be allowed.

Regulation would metastasize, so that we’d theoretically be a safer, cleaner society, and with no financial risks of world meltdown again. In reality, though, the regulations themselves would crush business, commerce, and the financial system.

There’d be an eternal energy shortage, as we’d be mired as we are now, forbidden to utilize our vast resources.

Unions would multiply and thrive, with unabashed cronyism and payoffs. “Stimulus” programs would funnel money to their leaders and some of their members. They’d be free again to destroy our manufacturing base, and city and state governments.

Taxes would skyrocket. Government would confiscate money from all successful individuals and corporations. The economy would tank, just like Los Angeles. We’d eventually suffer another Depression.

Everybody would have health insurance, but on a par with Cuba. There would be long lines, cues for treatment, and even death panels, though denied by present proponents.

Teachers unions would guarantee higher teacher wages and benefits, but also that children remain in low-quality schools. They’d continue to fill children’s minds with hatred for America and anything to do with business or success. They’d just about ensure that future presidents of the United States would go around apologizing for America.

We’d be flooded even more with illegal immigrants. English would be the second language of the land.


Perhaps you can tell I’d prefer that the hardcore right rule rather than the hardcore left. Control by the far right would lead to a Darwinian paradise, and the U.S. would conquer and thrive. Unless, of course, it wasted everything on Afghanistan-like, black-hole militarisms of ten-year wars.

Survival of the Fittest
Yet, I don’t want a Darwinian paradise. I am against the hardcore right’s inhumane treatment of the poor, the aged, and the arts. They’ve even shown they will oppose the advancement of science, higher education, investment in infrastructure, and wonderful programs like the SBIR. And I don’t want ten-year, black-hole wars.

I want a humane society. I love progressive ideals, like helping the poor. I just don’t like the left’s socialist and communist solutions to these ideals.

I want a Darwinian paradise for the economy, and for defense. But for other issues, like poverty, I want a Dickensian sensibility backed up with market-based or at least cost-effective solutions devised by conservatives, not by deep-pocket, dreamy eyed liberals.

Still, as I think I’ve demonstrated, we need liberals and conservatives.

Without both wings, our society would flounder.

Have a wonderful day!

Your Comments are Welcome Here


My links are:
Rock's World (#cartoons)
Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
@RockyII Twitter
Rock It Productions (Website)
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook

You can contact me at:
Rock's Email

To copy these, here they are:
Rock's World (#cartoons) 
Truth--the No Spin Blog  
@RockyII Twitter            
Rock It Productions (Website) 
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook


TwitterStumble ThisFav This With TechnoratiAdd To Del.icio.usDigg ThisAdd To RedditAdd To FacebookAdd To Yahoo
Your Opinion Matters

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Solving Intractable Problems in a Polarized Society

Snapshot of Our Present Political Landscape

At this time in our history, America is considered a






Tea Party in the House

Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party commands much power and attention, especially after 2010, when Republicans gained 68 seats and control of the House and added six Senate seats. Prognosticators believe Republicans are likely to win control of the Senate in 2012, and possibly regain the White House.

Our love of having the first black president in history has been overshadowed by our dissatisfaction with his job performance.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Canaries in the Coal Mine

Our canaries, independents, continue to be center-right on most issues, and very unhappy with government spending and the Democrat and Obama’s handling of the economy. While Obama’s job approval rating is now 47% approve, 49% disapprove, an astonishing 51% of independents strongly disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy.

Democrat Glimmer of Hope

On the other hand, Democrats have found a glimmer of hope. Senator Paul Ryan’s "Roadmap" Medicare plan is unpopular with Americans, and the Republicans have signed on to it.

Senator Paul Ryan
Republican Representative Jane Corwin’s support of the Ryan plan led in part to her 2011 special election loss for the New York 26th congressional district House seat, long-held by Republicans. The loss was stunning in that Corwin was leading comfortably weeks before the election, until Democrat challenger, and now new congresswoman, Kathy Hochul, started to hammer Corwin for her support of the Medicare part of the Ryan Plan.

Democrats feel they’ve found a winning issue. Some of them are daring to dream of re-gaining the House, and perhaps retaining the Senate.

Third Rail

The fact is, Medicare, like Social Security, is a third rail for politicians. It’s hot and deadly. Independents, Democrats, and even Republicans like their Medicare, and don’t want anyone messin’ around with it.


Medicare illustrates my central thesis of this post. Medicare was created in 1965 by The Great Society’s Lyndon Johnson. Eighty percent of Medicare is a government run program, and the rest is handled in various ways privately. Of course, it is highly regulated.

Personally, as a conservative, I don’t mind this percentage of government and private control for a healthcare program, as it seems to work reasonably well. Except, of course, that as we all age, the program will go bankrupt.

So, it must be reformed.

How to Reform Medicare

My conservative reforms would include means testing, raising the age requirements, and so on. Liberal “reforms” would include raising taxes on “the rich” and business to pay for increasing costs.

In my opinion, my solution would help the economy. The liberal reforms would further impoverish the country.

But, all this doesn’t matter. Nobody wants my kind of reforms, and the hard right will not accept the liberal reforms.

Obstacles to Medicare Reform

Liberals Hate the Rich, and Business

If liberals could just accept raising taxes a bit on “the rich” and let business off the hook, I could have more sympathy for their Medicare plans. But, they won’t. They hate the rich and business, and will never rest until America is a country with equal wages for all.

Every person would take their hard-won daily fifty cents and buy a loaf of government bread and a stick of butter, then go to their glorious healthcare shack to wait in line for their cancer cure by their top-notch medical team, Larry, Curly, and Moe, and salute the next leader like any good communist Cuban.

The Three Stooges: Larry, Nurse, Curly, Moe
Even Castro has admitted that his socialism did not work for his people, but our leftists still worship him as the ideal, another tyrant who uses guns to seize property from the “evil rich” and business.

The Hard-Right Hates Big Government, and Loves Survival-of-the-Fittest

My problem with the right is the opposite. According to their present world view, anything that smacks of being a government program is automatically an evil thing.

I’ve got news for them. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all big government programs. As well as the Department of Defense, SBIR programs, research grants, you name it. All these have worked relatively well. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have served us as a nation, but will now have problems due to the coming population bulge of the elderly. So, again, they must be reformed.

The radical hardcore right will take me up on this challenge, and say “You’re darn right. But don’t reform them. Get rid of them.


We don’t need ‘em.” (As Scrooge said, “Are there no workhouses?") Let’s just abolish these big government entitlements, and go to a pure survival of the fittest.

That’s why I can never be a Libertarian, and don’t endorse Libertarians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or even Larry Elder (an otherwise wonderful and wise man), anymore than I can approve of socialists Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders.

In a Nutshell

The far left wants to steal every gulden from the “rich," and from “evil business,” reducing us all to grubs and turnip roots; and the far right actually does want to toss Grandma out into the street, and off a cliff. These are not exaggerations.

Eighty percent of Americans like their Medicare, the way it is. Regardless of which party, regardless of any hard-coriness.

It has worked. Part big government, and part private enterprise, it crosses the hard-core lines.

Can it be fixed?

Only if folks give up their irrationalities.

Have a wonderful day!

Your Comments are Welcome Here


My links are:
Rock's World (#cartoons)
Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
@RockyII Twitter
Rock It Productions (Website)
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook

You can contact me at:
Rock's Email

To copy these, here they are:
Rock's World (#cartoons) 
Truth--the No Spin Blog  
@RockyII Twitter            
Rock It Productions (Website) 
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook


TwitterStumble ThisFav This With TechnoratiAdd To Del.icio.usDigg ThisAdd To RedditAdd To FacebookAdd To Yahoo
Your Opinion Matters

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

A Review of Political Talk Show Hosts

I’m going to briefly review some of the popular political talk show hosts in America. I divide them into

ed Meat Radicals with Charm

Red Meat Screaming Radicals with No Charm, Cheerleaders Blinded by Agenda, His Agenda is Himself, Rational But with a Clear Agenda, and The Great Communicator.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

I Listen to Them All

I consider it my duty, and that of all Americans, to consider both the left and the right. We have two parties for a reason. Each is correct. Each is wrong. Choosing sides is natural, and okay. Making decisions based solely on purist thinking is not a good thing. The world is complex.

Red Meat Radicals With Charm

Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck

The first two of these political talk show hosts are vision-impaired by their views of the world. They ignore facts that don’t support them, and seek only evidence that proves they’re right. They demonize their opponents.
Rachel Maddow

They are also, however, charming, entertaining, and sometimes funny.

Both are demagogues. Maddow is pedestrian and common. Beck though, approaches mythic proportions, because he has the huge ideas, some of which work, like the Restoring Honor rally on the Washington Mall. Both are good for the nation, and bad for the nation.
Glenn Beck

Both often get their facts right, with good research. Beck is the finest researcher in American politics. Both, however, misinterpret the facts they find with their top-notch research, Maddow blinded by progressivism, and Beck by his conspiratorial paranoia.

Should we listen to them? Yes, but not on a daily basis. It’s worth checking in to see what they’ve uncovered. You won’t find what they broadcast anywhere else on the media. But, it’s not a good idea to get sucked into their visions of the world, which are dark and warped versions of the truth.

One small note on Beck

See my previous Truth articles on him, Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party and The Fall of Glenn Beck, in which I explain more of how I feel about him. I just saw one of his shows two days ago, and it was wonderful. He was concerned about what liberals are doing to our kids through the education system. He was spot on, but this time without his usual end of times foreboding. He was actually working with parents and educators on how to fix the situation.

This is the persona he ought to keep forever, instead of the Huey Long firebrand warning everyone to avoid stocks and buy gold and food insurance. I have little hope for this, however. Beck seems to be getting more religious and end of times, more radical, and more Huey Longish with every passing day.

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin

Ann Coulter
Coulter is charming, funny, outrageous, and often correct. I find her more grounded than Maddow or Beck. She is outrageous, and says truths that pinpoint exactly who liberals are today. She’s not a demagogue, as she comes close to the truth always, and is entirely sincere. She doesn’t say anything to gain an audience. Is she ever wrong? Yes, as when she opposes unemployment insurance extensions.

Michelle Malkin
Malkin is similar to Coulter in every way. Both are attractive, intelligent, and rigid.

Should we listen to them? Yes. All the time, even if we disagree with them. They are brilliant, funny, charming, entertaining, and all their views touch truth.

Red Meat Radical Screamers with No Charm

Keith Olbermann, Michael Savage, Mark Levin

Keith Olbermann
All three are the screamers, and none of them have any charm. They are unpleasant, hate-filled, and dogmatic. Olbermann is on the far left, and Savage and Levin on the far right.
Michael Savage
Mark Levin

Should we listen to them? Yeah. Force yourself once in awhile to hear them. They do speak truth often, but go so far that they exclude truth from the rest of the spectrum. And, they hate.

Cheerleaders Blinded by Agenda

Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell

Ed Schultz
Lawrence O'Donnell
I find Schultz and O’Donnell insufferable. But the left love them.

They are also guys who hate, but they at least don’t scream all the time. They are totally blinded by their leftist agenda.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity

Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh is the king of talk radio. He is a genius. He is the one who converted me to conservatism. A great and good man. Rush is funny too, and irreverent. But, he is totally blinded by his agenda. Obama is always wrong, and conservatives are always right. I do buy his vision for a conservative America, but I don’t subscribe to his complete rejection of things like unemployment insurance and the social safety net. He goes way too far.

Ditto with Sean Hannity. They are both charming. One of the things I dislike about Sean and Rush is that I can predict every word out of their mouths. They believe the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith will solve all the world’s problems, and that isn’t true. It’s partly true. Lower taxes and charity will help the poor. But charity will not pay the rent for people who are unemployed. They go too far, and are blinded by agenda.

Should we listen to them? Yes, frequently. They are two of the best spokespersons for their point of view. And, they are often correct. Just don’t join their religion, which is pure Darwinian conservatism.

His Agenda is Himself

Dylan Ratigan
I’ve followed Dylan Ratigan for years. He used to be the host of Fast Money. He’s always been a know it all who used to sound conservative when he was among the investment crowd, but has converted to hardcore liberalism now that he has his own show on radically liberal MSNBC. How anyone who knows business can be liberal I can’t imagine.

Should we listen to him? Yeah. He’s bright. He’s got good guests. You can learn some things from him. Just don’t make him your American Idol.

Rational But with a Clear Agenda

Chris Matthews, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Larry Elder

With Matthews on the left, and Prager, Medved, and Elder on the hard but cogent right, all are principled representatives of their viewpoints. All are rational, except for Matthews 40% of the time.

Chris Matthews

Why do I include Matthews then in the rational crowd? Because he can certainly be reasonable, and will surprise you often with his fair opinions. It’s just when he gets off into calling Tea Partiers racists, or saying that it is his job to ensure Obama succeeds that I want to throw rocks at the TV.
Dennis Prager

Prager and Medved are two of the most reasoned talk show hosts in America. I don’t agree with them on some issues, like unemployment insurance, but I do share many of their other views.
Michael Medved
Larry, a black conservative, I absolutely love, and especially that he is charming, funny, fair, and rational. However, he is a Libertarian, and I disagree with this party on many issues. Again, unemployment insurance, and others.
Larry Elder

Should we listen to all these? Absolutely, often. You will learn a great deal, and feel good about humanity.

The Great Communicator

Joe Scarborough is the only honest political talk show host who is able to enter into the worlds of both the left and right, while maintaining a basically consistent personal philosophy. He is far from the late William F. Buckley in intelligence, and even much below Prager and Medved, but he’s fairly smart.

He is a conservative, but is named a RINO by the hard right. For example, he will often bash conservatives for calling Obama a socialist, and so on. So, he thinks being honest is cruel, and politically suicidal.
Joe Scarborough
Obama is a socialist. There, I’ve said it.

Still, of all the talk show hosts, Scarborough can actually understand the need for both the left and the right, which is my position, and which is essential in a functioning America. Too bad we’re a minority in holding that view.

The Battle Goes On

Republicans won the last election for a reason. And, Obama is none too popular now that people have gotten to know his radical leftism and Chicago style politics.

Still, rational progressives do have a point against this Republican House, and especially the new members of congress. They are cruel proponents of survival of the fittest, when they could settle for just being fiscally rational. It’s an old argument that began even as far back as the election of 1800, when Federalist John Adams ran against states’ rights Jefferson. Progressives versus the Tea Party.

Listen to all the talk show hosts. Just know whom it is you’re listening to, and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Your Comments are Welcome Here


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


TwitterStumble ThisFav This With TechnoratiAdd To Del.icio.usDigg ThisAdd To RedditAdd To FacebookAdd To Yahoo
Your Opinion Matters

Rock's Political Blogring

Home/Join | List | Next | Previous | Random