How long will Rush stay interested?

[boombox4]

I understand... this is a bit of a "fool's errand" to try and hold up the madness of other parts of the world and offer a suggestion that maybe we in our country are in some ways showing signs of following in their foot-steps.

"It is based on religious ideology"? What religion has an ideology that calls for pickup trucks loaded down with severed heads?

So, I ask myself: Why are you even messing with this topic? Does it have any importance? Yes, in our own political system in this country I see us beginning to create POLITICAL ideologies that claim to be based on our own RELIGIOUS ideologies. So far we don't have any Congressmen driving pick-up trucks to work displaying human remains, but in the name or religious ideology in this country we have people now and then gun down a abortion doctor.

What will that develop into over the next 4, 8, 12 or 48 years? They had quite a political gathering this weekend in Iowa. Well, they say it was a political event.... but many of the players seem to be having trouble sorting out political theology from religious theology.

Which brings us back to Talk Radio. Talk Radio in America. A bunch of folks who can't seem to figure out if a Political Science Degree or a Theological Degree is the most desired credential.

It seems you disagree with the President on the danger ISIS presents to the world -- as well as to the United States.

As for religion and politics, they have always been connected in the U.S.

The abolition movement in this country had roots in religious organizations. The Civil Rights movement in this country had religious roots. If you haven't forgotten, the great American civil rights leader whose holiday we just celebrated was a religious leader as well as a political figure. Dr King had no problem worrying about mixing religion and politics.

The prohibition movement, which gave us a Constitutional Amendment, arguably had its roots in religion.

Current liberal political and civil leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't seem to mind mixing religion and politics. The Reverend Al Sharpton has a talk show, it plays on a local AM station. The Reverend Jesse Jackson ran for president more than once.

Religion and politics have always been intertwined to a certain degree in the U.S. It's the same with movements to separate them. The mixing of politics and religion -- as well as movements to separate the two -- has been going on since the founding of the Republic.

As for your question about what religion calls for pickup trucks full of severed heads -- I don't know of a particular religion, but there is a religious ideology that calls for it. That is why I used that specific term. There is a difference. A religious ideology does not necessarily follow the tenets of a specific religion.

And like I said -- the President deems it important enough to respond to it. And that is why we are talking about it. We are discussing the SOTU and radio's reaction, aren't we?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Religion and politics have always been intertwined to a certain degree in the U.S. It's the same with movements to separate them. The mixing of politics and religion -- as well as movements to separate the two -- has been going on since the founding of the Republic.

As for your question about what religion calls for pickup trucks full of severed heads -- I don't know of a particular religion, but there is a religious ideology that calls for it. That is why I used that specific term. There is a difference. A religious ideology does not necessarily follow the tenets of a specific religion.

And like I said -- the President deems it important enough to respond to it. And that is why we are talking about it. We are discussing the SOTU and radio's reaction, aren't we?

And that is why every generation has to have conversations like this. A couple of centuries ago, these conversations may have taken place around evening campfires between settlers moving west by wagon train.

150 years ago a generation had these same conversations while huddled around a fire in a Union or Confederate bivouac.

In the WWII era the conversations that took place between country boy Baptists from the South and city boy Italian Catholics in battlelfield foxholes opened up whole new conversations in this country.

I guess my point is this: (1) We don't want to dignify and empower the bad-boys in another land, another culture, by allowing them to camouflage their bad-boy behavior by wrapping the cloth of a phony, shabby religious claim around themselves. (2) We don't want to dignify and empower the bad-boys of our own land, our own culture, by allowing them to camouflage trheir bad-boy behavior by making the religions we cherish into phony, shabby religious claims.

The history books are full of tales, good and bad, successes and failures, of people who have struggled throughout history to find the balance, to find the truths that wear well.

Our political system is tested every day by this struggle, our media system is tested every day by this struggle, and our personal conversations are tested by this struggle every day when we stop for coffee at the neighborhood hangout, when we go to the break room at work, when we push our shopping cart through the supermarket, and at home when our kids either ASK, or give us the opening and OPPORTUNITY to pass our heritage to the next generation.

One of the (sometimes unspoken) questions we deal with when we come to forums where we discuss broadcasting is this: Can the professionals currently in broadcasting go home tonight and assure their children the world is a safer, more pleasant place, a more prosperous place to live because of what I did at work today. And those of us who are alumni of the industry have to ask ourselves: Will my children and grandchildren have a world that is safer and more pleasant and prosperous because of the programming I chose to listen to, and the programming I bypassed and refused to listen to or watch.

Now, may I. at the risk of providing more boredom, suggest that every president and every SOTU speech is somewhat hemmed in, limited and driven by the reality of politics of the day. This history books 50 years from not will probably not mention Mr. Obama's speech this week the same way they talk about Jack Kennedy's "Ask Not" comments at his inauguration. But this and other presidents will be remembered for what they did or did not contribute to the effort to see that 50 years from now people, hopefully, will not be driving around pickups loaded with human body parts, here, there, or other parts of the world that are not even on the tip of our tongue today.

 

[Ravens]

Where I live, every time you turn around when a decent, peaceful group of Muslims go to city hall and ask zoning approval to establish a place of worship, the conservative Christians and conservative political groups show up and try to crowd them out, shut them out, run them out of town.

That's totally the same as stoning women for adultery or throwing gay men to their deaths off the roof.

For all your criticism of conservative talk hosts, you're ten times worse when it comes to straw man arguments and false equivalencies. You'd fit right in with the fantasy world of broadcasting that you seem to think exists.

 

[Ravens]

To try to get back on topic, Rush's producer Kit Carson (H.R.) passed away today.

http://twitchy.com/2015/01/26/heart...dbye-to-late-friend-eib-colleague-kit-carson/

I always thought H.R. and Kit were two different people.

 

[TheBigA]

How people respond and deal with losses like this can shape & inspire them in unpredictable ways.

 

[NewsStud]

But Rush also said when he stopped being interested, he would quit doing the show. He had reached the point where he was no longer interested in the State of the Union address. But he assured us he did not think he would ever lose interest in doing this show.

Rush has been saying this for years, going back to the Clinton Administration. He maintained it through the Bush years as well. He has a strong criticism of the yearly address, dubbed by Rush as the "State Of The Union Show." He argues it really serves no purpose other than to give the president (whomever it may currently be) a chance to make uncontested arguments across national media platforms, while regularly interrupted only by applause. It's just political theater and a pointless exercise.

I can't say Rush is wrong here.

While a SOTU address is customary for each January, it's not fully mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 3 only mandates the president "from time to time" keep Congress informed about "the state of the union." Jefferson hated the idea of the political speech and routinely gave Congress written reports.

It would be refreshing for a President to deliver a "boring SOTU address" one year; To stand at the rostrum in the House of Representatives, rattling off data and minutiae that only bureaucrats bother with when keeping government running as best they can.

 

[TheBigA]

It would be refreshing for a President to deliver a "boring SOTU address" one year;

Some people think it's boring every year.

Kind of hard to do what you suggest with live prime time national TV coverage. Not an issue in Jefferson's day.

The real "political theater and pointless exercise" is the opposition response, which was never mandated by the Constitution. Totally useless.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That's totally the same as stoning women for adultery or throwing gay men to their deaths off the roof.

You lost me on that one. I can't figure out how that fits into the conversation.

No, that is my mistake. I thought we were trying to have a conversation.

I gather conversation is not your goal.

See ya' later.

Like the tag-line says.... some attempts at conversation are a waste of good posting space.

 

[Ravens]

I thought we were trying to have a conversation.

You never have a "conversation". You tell people how they're wrong, rattle off a few logical fallacies, then cry victim when they prove you wrong. You are right about one thing. This is a waste.

 

[Ravens]

The real "political theater and pointless exercise" is the opposition response, which was never mandated by the Constitution. Totally useless.

The speech itself isn't mandated by the Constitution. All it says is:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

That could be a letter every other year. Or a phone call once a week. The entire SOTU speech is just grandstanding. Always has been.

 

[TheBigA]

That could be a letter every other year. Or a phone call once a week. The entire SOTU speech is just grandstanding. Always has been.

In today's media world, what the President says or does, no matter who he is, is news. The TV networks want this annual thing, regardless of what the Constitution says.

But the opposition response is usually a PR thing from the other party. It would be newsworthy if it came from a leader. But that's not usually who is chosen.

 

[boombox4]

I think the State of the Union Address serves a purpose. It gets the President on national TV at least once a year.

I don't know if it's just my memory glitching or not, but it seems that the last several presidents just haven't had press conferences very often. So the SOTU at least gets the President out in front of the American public, on prime time, at least once a year.

 

[Ravens]

In today's media world, what the President says or does, no matter who he is, is news. The TV networks want this annual thing, regardless of what the Constitution says.

But the opposition response is usually a PR thing from the other party. It would be newsworthy if it came from a leader. But that's not usually who is chosen.

It gives some semblance of balance at least.

I think the State of the Union Address serves a purpose. It gets the President on national TV at least once a year.

I don't know if it's just my memory glitching or not, but it seems that the last several presidents just haven't had press conferences very often. So the SOTU at least gets the President out in front of the American public, on prime time, at least once a year.

Except that the president isn't questioned or challenged on anything in the SOTU. It's just a laundry list of wishes. At least it has been my entire life, since Nixon. Probably before that. What I'd like to see is a number of how many things the past 6 or 7 presidents have asked for in SOTU addresses, and how much of that they've gotten. I'm guessing it's a pretty low number.

None of this is a bad thing, but it has to be seen for what it is.

 

[TheBigA]

It gives some semblance of balance at least.

It would be balanced if it was given by a leader. But that's not often who does it.

 

[boombox4]

It would be balanced if it was given by a leader. But that's not often who does it.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a 'leader', if they are speaking for the Party.

 

[boombox4]

Except that the president isn't questioned or challenged on anything in the SOTU. It's just a laundry list of wishes. At least it has been my entire life, since Nixon. Probably before that. What I'd like to see is a number of how many things the past 6 or 7 presidents have asked for in SOTU addresses, and how much of that they've gotten. I'm guessing it's a pretty low number.

None of this is a bad thing, but it has to be seen for what it is.

Actually, in a way the President's speech is challenged. Just not while he's making the speech.

During the days following the SOTU, talk hosts were ripping it apart, of course.

And on news shows, Republican senate leaders were asked what proposals would be workable, and which ones were dead on arrival.

But you're right overall, it's just like an official version of a convention speech or campaign speech.

 

[NewsStud]

Actually, in a way the President's speech is challenged. Just not while he's making the speech. During the days following the SOTU, talk hosts were ripping it apart, of course. And on news shows, Republican senate leaders were asked what proposals would be workable, and which ones were dead on arrival.

No, the President is not being directly challenged on arguments he makes, or on the conduct he exhibits during the SOTU address. He (whoever the president is, be it Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter...) would show up, get rounds of interruptive applause, tell Congress what he wants, tell Congress what he'll do if he doesn't get it, boast, make veiled threats to his political opposition in the legislature, and essentially campaign for his party's midterm candidates or his own re-election without anybody questioning him on the spot about what he says or why he says it.

The opposition response (whoever the opposition may be) is usually scripted in advance, before hearing the address or before even reading an advance copy. Now, every tiny sub-faction of both parties has their response, which sometimes even get airtime on the cable networks.

It's theater. And it's intellectually dishonest and insulting.

The president has no problem getting on television. He's on TV every day, whether he wants to be or not. And if the president wishes to be on TV on a certain day, all the White House needs to do is ask. No network or newspaper will turn down a president's offer for a sit-down.

The SOTU is more of a White House communications exercise more than it is an actual fulfillment of a constitutional duty to have regular communication with Congress. I will tell you from firsthand knowledge that the broadcast networks would rather not air it, as it's a tune-out factor.

It's easy content for the cable news networks, but they have their loyal prime-time audiences watching regardless.

But none of them want to incur the wrath of the White House media machine by not airing it. Each administration has a "give and take" approach with journalist groups. If you don't do what they want you do, you start being excluded from things. Not airing the SOTU could preclude you from ever getting an interview with a president. It could exclude you from being invited to the "on-background" or "off-the-record" conversations which allow the journalists to plan for the coming events.

 

[TheBigA]

It doesn't necessarily have to be a 'leader', if they are speaking for the Party.

That's why I called it "political theater and pointless exercise." It's very different from the SOTU, which is the administration addressing Congress.

The other is strictly an unpaid political advertisement

 

[TheBigA]

No, the President is not being directly challenged on arguments he makes,

Except when one of the tea partiers shouts "You lie" at him. Look, what he say doesn't matter. The people in that room get to decide if what he says gets funded or not. They get as much time as they want to discuss his proposals. In a way, it's demeaning to have our elected leader stand there and beg for money. But that's what he's doing.

 

[NewsStud]

Except when one of the tea partiers shouts "You lie" at him.

That wasn't a questioning. That was a disorderly outburst, one that earned the ire of both parties. You know the difference between the legitimate questioning to which I was referring and that uncivil act.

In a way, it's demeaning to have our elected leader stand there and beg for money. But that's what he's doing.

Demeaning how? Our nations purse strings (our tax dollars) are controlled by the Congress by design.

Everybody else who speaks in front of Congress to devise or deliberate policy does so in a hearing-style format. They're sat before a committee to make a presentation and answer questions about their claims or idea. Why not conduct the president's constitutionally-mandated act of informing the Congress in the same manner? Would there be contention? Yes. Would there be heated exchanges? Probably. Would the president be able to make long speeches interrupted by applause? No. Would political opponents be afforded the chance to challenge or question the president in a civil, respectful and productive manner? Yes. Would it make the news? Yes. Would it get prime-time live coverage. Doubtful.