Archive for the ‘media’ Category

Stacy McCain does the match on AOL and points out something interesting about the money in the AOL deal:

What it means, I suspect, is that the Left is willing to “invest” in liberal media ventures that are supposedly for-profit but which, in fact, lose money. Because, after all, whose money is being invested? Not theirs.

Five words: Government employee union pension funds.

That, I suggest, explains this whole deal. Private investors are now selling their AOL shares, while managers of pension funds for AFSCME, SEIU and other unions are buying AOL stock, thus providing the investment capital necessary to fund expansion of the Left’s online media presence in advance of Obama’s re-election campaign.

Belvedere notes that this is not an issue for the left:

Profit doesn’t mean much to the Committed Left — not if you mean the word in it’s classical sense [OED: ‘financial gains’]. Oh sure, they need money to fund their various schemes, but the Manic Progressives are always willing to sacrifice dollars for propaganda [see: MSNBC]. Besides, if they play it right, they can always funnel some taxpayer dollars into funding their schemes.

Broadcasting their lies relentlessly until they get absorbed by enough of the masses is a tactic the Leftists have employed successfully for a century now.

The daytime range of my radio show, looks pretty good for ads doesn't it?

I did the math, If I sold every second of every moment of ads for my radio show for one year that comes up to $64,800. If the liberals were to be believed about some giant conservative conspiracy I would have already had the Koch Brothers buying the entire time to support my radio show and blogging for an entire year.

Alas that is not the case, every day I’m going door to door pitching the show, extolling the range of the radio station, the strength of my guest and the appeal of my show to a growing audience, doing my best to make the sale and pay the mortgage.

The “interests” I’m beholden to are Basement Technologies of Western Mass., Aaron Pallet, Putnam Street lanes. and every other advertiser who buys time on my show. Each of them offer valuable services or produces to my listeners and buy ads on my show to attract customers. Yet ironically the left would paint me because I’m a person of the right as beholding to rich interests while at the same time they are paid millions for a product that doesn’t justify its value.

The world is a weird place.

At the time Ronald Reagan was elected I was a democrat who was a hawk on defense.

My greatest influence was a professor Ed Thomas. He had a great love of history and of original documents. He used to say about Ronald Reagan. “I’m afraid of Ronald Reagan”. He seemed to think that Reagan would turn the cold war into a hot one. I was more worried about his economic policies myself

Hindsight is 2020 and looking back now it seems clear that such a worry was unfounded but at the time a lot of people didn’t know what would come. The best experts thought the Soviets were a lot stronger than they were. Reagan had a better grasp of both the international and the economic situation than others did.

It took me a long time to figure this out. It wasn’t until the late 80’s and early 90’s that I understood just how great Reagan was.

Yesterday on the phones of talk radio , seminar callers armed with Media Matters Talking points were spinning Reagan on both National shows (such as Rush) and on local shows (Howie Carr) with a “why do conservatives love Reagan when he did xyz” trying to paint him as “not conservative”.

Their attempts to co-op the memory of Reagan are understandable, they have been unable to change our memory of the Reagan years and have also not managed to make us forget what they thought of him, to wit:

It should never be forgotten that the Left hated Reagan just as lustily as they hated George W. Bush, and with some of the same venomous affectations, such as the reductio ad Hitlerum. The key difference is that in Reagan’s years there was no Internet with which to magnify these derangements, and the 24-hour cable-news cycle was in its infancy. But the signs were certainly abundant. In 1982, the Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in London held a vote for the most hated people of all time, with the result being: Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dracula. Democratic congressman William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was trying to replace “the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” A desperate Jimmy Carter charged that Reagan was engaging in “stirrings of hate” in the 1980 campaign. Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (now a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.” In The Nation, Alan Wolfe wrote: “The United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.”

And in discussing Reagan’s greatest acknowledged achievement — ending the Cold War — liberals conveniently omit that they opposed him at every turn. Who can forget the relentless scorn heaped on Reagan for the “evil empire” speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative? Historian Henry Steele Commager said the “evil empire” speech “was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.” “What is the world to think,” New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, “when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology?”

Or as Jonah Goldberg puts it the only good conservative is a dead one.

While the encomiums to Reagan & Co. are welcome, the reality is that very little has changed. As we saw in the wake of the Tucson shootings, so much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present. It’s an old game. For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, “the most radical activist of them all.” The title of his essay: “If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge . . . ”

Even then, the only good conservative was a dead conservative.

Goldberg is spot on. It is a simple attempt to use Reagan to hit the conservatives of today.

I would suggest skipping the tributes from liberals for they come from the same sentiment as this scene from Braveheart (script via corkey.net):

Robert: Does anyone know his politics?

Craig: No, but his weight with the commoners can unbalance everything. The Balliols will kiss his arse so we must.

The American people honor Reagan’s memory so the left which hates him and always has hated him must too or at least seem to honor him. Ignore them and instead concentrate on one like this from No Sheeples here.

Ronald Reagan was a great president, perhaps the greatest in my lifetime, I wish I appreciated him more when he was in power.

Update: Interesting Palin/Reagan note from Byron York

Lee Edwards, a Reagan biographer and fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was in the audience and took note of the fact that Palin was speaking to a strongly conservative group at the Ranch Center. She likely wouldn’t be invited to speak to a more general audience at the Reagan Library, Edwards said, “because she’s not a member of the establishment, and they’re not comfortable with her.”

“The irony,” Edwards continued, “is that neither was Reagan.”

via Sissy Willis:

There’s a whole army of patriotic Davids out there across this great country ready to stand up and to speak out in defense of liberty, and these Davids aren’t afraid to tell Goliath “don’t tread on me.”

That’s just one line (Sissy has more here) but consider.

That is the second time in under a month in a major presentation that she quoted Glenn Reynolds (the other was the blood libel line from his WSJ piece).

Can we assume that Sarah Palin reads Glenn Reynolds? (Some enterprising radio host should have him on his show.)

Glenn Reynolds draws between 250,000 and 500,000 hits a day and gets 30-60 posts up per day EVERY DAY. If Sarah Palin is quoting him them perhaps a wise reporter would get to know him, or a smart producer would have him on the air.

Then again I don’t expect much from the MSM, supposedly the NYT was there and couldn’t even get her meeting people after the speech right

Prospective candidates, particularly if they are courting supporters, routinely sit through dinners and mingle with guests. But in her case, Ms. Palin entered the room only for her speech and left immediately after.

Actually Palin stayed and took photos with attendees as was announced at the start of the speech. If they can’t get that detail right when they were supposedly there why would I expect them to follow-up on this kind of story.

You know there is a reason why Instapundit took down the “NYT of bloggers” comment from his site. The times should work for the day when they can be called the “instapundit of newspapers”.

Update: Conservatives for Palin notices

Question: When is it OK in the age of civility to call for lynching, stringing up or sending a black man back to the fields?

Our friends on the left decided to protest the Koch Brothers conference. In the event sponsored by Common Cause, AFFCE, The Ruckus Society, 350, Greenpeace, Code Pink, the Progressive Democrats of America, the public attending had some choice words for Justice Clarence Thomas:

Big Government noted something missing:

At the morning panel event featuring UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, activist Jim Hightower, Center for American Progress journalist and “Koch Brothers expert” Lee Fang, California Nurses Association co-president DeAnn McEwan, and President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones, we were forewarned of the impending demise of both the environment and democracy at the hands of corporate lobbyists and their government shills.

There was eerily no mention of GE, AEP, Goldmann Sachs, Pfizer, Aetna, Alcoa, Xerox, Google, Motorola, IBM, or several other corporate giants who profit at taxpayer expense via their K Street connections to the Obama White House as well as the very economic and regulatory policies they lobby that these Common Cause panelists commonly endorse. But I’m sure that’s only because no one wanted to point out the obvious. Right?

I’m sure the No Labels crowd, the Major networks and the Cable networks will rapidly report on these racist declarations of white folks against a black man with power? Hot Air asks:

Will the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the “Rage on the Left” and label Common Cause a racist hate group?

R.B is more blunt:

Let’s just imagine if the video above was taken during a Tea Party rally and several participants stated that a sitting US Supreme Court Justice should be sent “back to the fields” or “strung up”. Picture the news coverage. Predict what Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann (if he still had a show) would be saying right now and over the next few days. It would be non-stop. Democrat Congressional members would be using the tape as “proof” of what is really behind the opposition to ObamaCare or any other piece of legislation they want to get passed.

Nonsense I’m sure they will give this story all the attention the big three gave the Planned Parenthood story this week.