Appearing on Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Ann Coulter continued her defense of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, telling the Fox host that her fellow conservatives unfairly paint the Republican governor as “too liberal.”
On yesterday morning’s edition of Geraldo Rivera’s radio show, Ann Coulter shared a very interesting anecdote about the late Margaret Thatcher’s complicated relationship with Sarah Palin.
I love talk radio; I love Fox News.
If it weren’t for the arrival of their strong conservative voices, Americans would still have nothing to listen to but the one-sided news and opinions of the left-liberals who run the mainstream New York-D.C. media.
But I’m frustrated.
Talk radio and Fox are getting so boring, so predictable, so shrill, I can barely tune in anymore.
Night after night on Fox, it’s the same issues, the same arguments, the same lame liberal guests showing up to be browbeaten by Hannity and O’Reilly.
How many Juan Williamses does Fox have on its staff anyway? Five? Is my friend Alan Colmes the only liberal in North America who’ll come on and debate Hannity?
Seriously. Is there anything Williams and Colmes — or for that matter, pie-thrower Ann Coulter — will say about Obamacare or the Obama Economy they haven’t said 100 times on TV in the last year?
“The Five” is another example. It gets great ratings, but it’s so stale and predictable.
Can’t Fox find anyone better than Big, Bad Bob Beckel to go 1-on-4 with that show’s conservatives, who, except for funnyman Greg Gutfeld, are like watching Hannity II, III, and IV?
And is there some new FCC law against having two liberals on a Fox show once in a while? (Not Juan Williams, thanks.)
Fox needs to get fresh faces and new voices into its regular lineup. Instead of arguing with Williams night after night, what’s wrong with Hannity or O’Reilly talking to ordinary Americans — people who’ve lost their homes or can’t find a job?
I think even loyal viewers are starting to notice that Fox’s slogan should be changed from “Fair and Balanced” to “Stale and Predictable.”
The other day, after seeing conservative guest Dennis Prager waste most of his air-time watching Hannity tangle his liberal guest, I sent out a Tweet saying, “I think sometimes Hannity invites guests on to watch him argue with another guest just to get their approval. It’s frustrating.”
The response from my conservative Republican followers was quick and one-sided; a bunch of Tweeters agreed with me that Fox was losing its steam.
A guy named Tom said nothing interesting ever happens on Hannity’s show. Another guy said he loved Hannity but said he “needs to find new people to interview, too many repeats.” Sharron tweeted she’s stopped watching him altogether.
This is a serious problem for conservatives and Republicans — and the United States of America.
We’re in a serious fight with Obama and his gang, who seem hell-bent on turning us into a socialist country with enough government spending and debt to qualify for membership in the European Union.
For good and bad, talk radio and Fox have become the national voices of conservatism, the places where conservative ideas and arguments can be publicized and debated.
The Republican Party has made the mistake of allowing Fox and talk radio to become its spokesman, in large part because it has no national spokesman of its own. But Fox and talk radio are letting the GOP and the rest of the country down.
People outside the Beltway are desperate for solutions to our economic and social problems, but Fox and talk radio seem more interested in giving them arguments — tired arguments.
People — our people in the conservative choir — are starting to tune out Fox and talk radio. And it’s because their song — our song — is getting stale and predictable.
We need to start hearing a new tune from the conservative media — and new singers.
Photo Credit: ario_ Creative Commons
A few days ago, Father Joseph McShane S.J., the president of New York’s Fordham University, called Ann Coulter “too hateful and needlessly provocative” as he ordered that she be disinvited to speak at Fordham. Then he had no trouble approving “ethicist” Peter Singer as a speaker. Singer is a man who promotes the murder of children he would consider “defective” within the first two years of their lives.
According an article in First Things magazine, “Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).”
In other words Singer’s “rap” sheet is as ugly as sin. As the founder of a movement elevating animals to equality with humans he has cheapened human life. He is guilty of promoting the murder of the sick and elderly in the name of convenience. He is guilty of promoting the murder of “defective” children to satisfy of his own definition of who has a right to life. He is guilty of promoting necrophilia which is nothing less than Satanic and he is guilty of promoting bestiality – a sin of the gravest degree that certain makes Satan proud.
Nevertheless, somewhere lodged in his own sick mind, Father McShane has determined that the purely political rhetoric of Ann Coulter would be more harmful to his students than the words of the monster Singer. Coulter is therefore not acceptable as a topic for free discussion at Fordham.
The worst thing about Singer is his endearing nature. He is a perfect earthly representative of Satan. By all accounts he is an unassuming charming man who hides behind the same type of masks captured Nazis did when they were put on trial. Despite being evil incarnate they also looked grandfatherly and harmless.
Shame on you, Father McShane! When I was a Catholic grade school student what you are doing was described to me as placing myself or someone else in the near occasion of sin. The question is as always: Why won’t Jesuits defend Catholic doctrine?
- “More Engaged” Is Democrat-speak For “more Enthusiasm” A new USA Today/Gallup survey delivered more bad news for…
- A Letter To Ann Coulter Regarding Her Support Of “Conservative” Romney “Dear Ann, In the past, you have been our warrior…
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein
In the end, it was another Democratic Party rout. On Election Day, President Obama defeated Mitt Romney by over three million popular votes and 126 electoral votes.
The President won every battleground state except one and ushered two more Democrats in the Senate and at least seven more in the House. While Obama recorded seven million fewer votes than in 2008, Romney was one million votes shy of reaching John McCain’s losing total.
Although it was not a landslide, it was nowhere near the nail biter that many GOP pundits and consultants were predicting. In fact, many of these supposed geniuses were forecasting a Romney “landslide.” How foolish do Dick Morris and Karl Rove look today?
In their post-election analysis, many of these same “experts” are giving poisonous advice to a party in serious trouble. They are recommending that the party move in the direction of Democrats on issues such as illegal immigration, gay marriage, drug use, taxes, and abortion to name a few. Following such advice would be the death knell of the Republican Party.
To succeed, the GOP must stand for principles that are starkly different from the Democratic Party; otherwise, there is no compelling reason for any voter to support the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is controlled by the moderate “country club” establishment wing, also known as Republicans in Name Only (RINOS).
This controlling faction is opposed to a true conservative ever getting the nomination of the party. The party establishment has successfully destroyed every conservative candidate for the nomination since Ronald Reagan.
The result is that the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The RINOS have given us Gerald Ford, Bush Sr. and Jr., Bob Dole, John McCain, and, most recently, Mitt Romney.
As is custom, in the last primary season, every viable conservative candidate was savaged by the party elite who backed Romney’s candidacy. They were joined by the Fox News commentators, powerful pollsters like Karl Rove and Dick Morris, and influential columnists like George Will and Ann Coulter. All of them claimed the Romney was the most electable candidate; and, in the end, all of them were quite wrong.
After a billion dollars wasted on feckless advertising, Romney could not even match McCain’s pathetic level of support. He did not inspire or motivate the conservative GOP base and thus lost a quarter of the evangelical vote on Election Day. These voters knew Romney was uncomfortable with social issues and had switched his position on everything from gay marriage to abortion.
In the general election, Romney did not employ the same hard ball tactics against Barack Obama that he effectively used against his GOP opponents in the primary season. Like John McCain in 2008, Romney’s kid glove treatment of the President was an utter failure. There is no better example than in the last debate, when Romney played nice with the President and agreed with many of his positions on foreign policy. Tragically, he refused to criticize the President for his deception and disastrous handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Romney’s campaign was the political equivalent of a football team playing the prevent defense, trying not to lose, but not trying to win. This led the GOP nominee to disregard the “Fast and Furious” scandal and the President’s decision to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens under the age of 30. Worst of all, the President’s unpopular plan to socialize healthcare was not attacked by the Romney campaign, thus wasting a powerful issue. As the father of socialized medicine in Massachusetts, Romney was the worst possible candidate to criticize “Obamacare,” so he solved that problem by ignoring it altogether.
Romney tried to make the entire campaign about one issue, the economy. As a result, social conservatives were given no reason to vote. The grassroots movement that delivered the House of Representatives to the Republican Party, the Tea Party, was completely ignored by the Romney campaign. Tea Party favorites like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin were not even invited to the party’s convention in Tampa. To add insult to injury, Ron Paul delegates were rudely treated in Tampa, and many of them were denied credentials to the convention. The Romney team wanted a “unanimous” convention, but it was a counterproductive tactic as disgruntled Ron Paul supporters did not forget this disgrace on Election Day.
Will the GOP ever learn? The correct response is not to become more like Democrats but to nominate a candidate with courage who will embrace the conservative principles outlined in the Republican platform. In contrast, Mitt Romney treated the platform like it was the bubonic plague.
The quest for 2016 now begins, and this will be an effort to see whether conservatives can stay within the GOP or find a new home, as recommended by former presidential candidate Herman Cain.
To survive, Republicans cannot allow the beltway, establishment wing of the party to dictate who will be the next nominee. If so, it guarantees another loss, like Romney and his predecessors.
The next nominee cannot be another moderate flip flopper, but someone who can communicate powerful conservative principles while energizing, not insulting, the base of the party. The next nominee needs to embrace the Tea Party movement and use this enthusiastic group as the foot soldiers for the next campaign.
Over the next four years, the last thing the Republican Party should do is move more to the political left, which is already owned by the Democratic Party. Even though this was another painful defeat, Republicans should not abandon their time-tested principles; instead, they should finally start to proclaim them.
- Why You Can’t Trust Either Political Party This Election We have elections, but we no longer have representative government….
- “Tea Party” Pols Sell Out The Tea Party In March of 2011, former Rep. John Leboutiller predicted in…