Why I hate Conservative Talk-Radio

by pittcaleb Email    3445 views

I've been listening to less and less conservative talk radio in the past year. I believe it started about 4 years or so ago when they, in general, Rush in specific, became mouth-pieces for the Republican Party. I have always considered there a difference between a political belief system and a political party that aligns itself with those beliefs.

For the record, I consider myself a conservative leaning libertarian, or a libertarian leaning conservative - pick your poison. In the past few years, these talk-radio guys have gone from standing up for conservatism to defending the un-defendable positions of the Republican party and allowing the expanding government to take place under their watch and without objection. Perhaps had they objected and been objective in their reporting and commentating, the republican party wouldn't have lost the last election. But that's all water under the bridge.

In the days since the election, I have found conservative talk radio nearly unlistenable. The icing on the cake was Rush Limbaugh this afternoon (Monday). He was talking about the $1 trillion plan of Obama's to try to fix the economy.

Rush was adamant that Obama "only" received 53% or 54% of the popular vote (he kept changing the number on air). He wants Obama to only have control over 54% of the money - $540 billion, and the Republicans to have control over 46% of the money, since they got 46% of the vote! He was beside himself saying that Obama has a warped definition of bi-partisanship in that he's apparently not permitting a Republican voice in this economic crisis.

Let me say two things here:

#1 - Obama is the president, elected by whatever margin, his party, the Democrats, overwhelmingly control both houses of congress. This is the FAULT of the Republicans and because of this, they (the GOP) have no right whatsoever to control legislation that comes out of congress. If ever there were a mandate, it was in the 2008 election. Obama has not only the right of he and his party to enact legislation in-line with their campaign and political philosophy, but moreso the responsibility to do so with little or no dissenting input. I will add that this mess occurred under GOP control, why do they think they have the right fix it?

#2 - Why does Rush think the GOP should have the right to 46% of the 'bailout' budget in terms of controlling it or 46% of the say in anything? Rush thinks the GOP should be able to control 46% of everything that goes on in congress because they won 46% of the popular vote! Hello Rush - were you not paying attention for the past 7 years? If this rule of governing would have been true, 51% of the troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq long ago by the minority party but majority vote party of the Democrats! Why did he not allow the Dems to control 51% of the budget and military decisions in the past many years?

I could go on and on and on! John Stewart ran a quick snippet the other day using an old Bill O'Reilly segment where he said disagreeing with the president was un-american and treasonous. Then he segued to clips of Rush and others dissing the current president and calling on him to 'fail.' Double standards Conservative Talking Heads? I think so!

I do not agree with Obama's philosophy - but he is our president. The GOP got us into this mess and who is to say, honestly, that Obama's plan would make it any worse? I do not want larger government, but Bush expanded it unlike any before him! Can Obama do any worse?

I don't want this bailout in present form, but I don't see any parties in congress that have a legitimate right to insert their doctrine into the mix. What I fear is not the spending, public works projects are way behind, esp here in NJ, what I fear is the bloat, excess and downright corruption that is inevitable in the process.

I feel that if they *spend* $1 trillion, a solid 10-20% of that will be unnecessary and wasteful spending. Whereas with tax cuts, rebates and incentives, the money will not touch the hands of anyone who could take it and mis-use it. It would go to tax payers and business in the form of lower payments to the government. It just seems that when government spends money, local, state or federal, there is always scandalous ways the money is mis-used. I don't mind paying good money for a good product (a bridge, a building, a car) but I would hate to spend the next couple of decades trying figures in court over their mis-use of federal bailout funds.