The Guy James opinion as to why Liberal radio will never be dominate

[BeachBuckeye]

We all know that the Right-Wing dominated talk-show industry is fraught with lies and deceptions. Every day you can tune in to one of their programs and hear more propaganda than you ever thought possible. Truth is a casualty of Right-Wing talk radio.

On Saturday evenings Guy James Show I gave my opinion concerning the Roberts nomination. I didn’t endorse the man, in fact, I’m not at all impressed with him. However, I felt that I should explain my position because I feel we have limited political capitol to spend and we must spend it wisely. I think that if we spend our time and treasure on the abortion issue we are wasting those valuable resources. Let me explain why I feel that way. First off, the odds are at least 100 to 1 that we will block the nomination. The Republicans are prepared to use the nuclear option to stop any filibuster we might try and they will use their talk-show network to propagandize the issue like never before. Secondly, and most importantly, I really do not believe the Republicans will overturn Roe V Wade. They have successfully used it as a political club against the Democrats for decades and they relish the thought of continuing on with their “baby killer” rhetoric. My opinion is in no way aimed at demeaning the importance of the pro-choice cause. I’m just being realistic and honest.

I do believe we need to concentrate our efforts on the Rove scandal and keep it in front of the public until all of the sordid details are brought into the light of day. I sincerely believe this issue will totally destroy the credibility of Bush and the Republican Party for a long time to come. Its not about Rove but, rather, its about massive deception on the part of the Bush administration. We must push this issue.

So why am I bringing this up? Because after our broadcast this past Saturday evening we received quite a few e-mails from DU members saying they are canceling their financial support of our show. Frankly, I’m shocked that a single issue would cause someone to withdraw support of a Liberal program especially when Liberal programs are so rare these days. I feel what we do is important, especially since we are in a huge swing state (Florida). These people dropping support of our program may very well cause the demise of our broadcasts. All of this because I was honest and open about expressing an opinion. This is the problem with we Liberals. The Republicans speak with one voice and we use the shotgun approach which is becoming less and less effective every single day. If we are going to be a Party of single issue voters we will never again return to the glory days of the great Democratic Party. We will fade into oblivion because we cut off our noses to spite our faces.

I’m sad indeed that many DU’ers have decided to withdraw their support of our program because of this issue. I have always endeavored to be honest and straightforward with my views on the show and that’s all I was doing last night. I just wanted you to know my opinion as to why Liberal Radio will never enjoy meaningful success. Its because so many Democrats are so friggin’ selfish by having to have their one issue promoted, meanwhile the greater good is forgotten.

Our show may well fade away because of this but if we leave we will leave with our self respect intact.

Flame away,

Guy James

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. Whoever pulled their support should..

be ashamed of themselves. Guy James is the best radio pundit we have. He is popular in a RED area of a swing state. I am really getting sick of people that take one issue over the party as a whole. This is why we can't win, infighting like this is counterproductive.

[sidwill]

5. Leave the donation info--

I'll replace one of the cancellers.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. So will I and I am not a regular listener. n/t

[BeachBuckeye]

11. Thanks very much. Link posted

www.theguyjamesshow.com We have paypal and Amazon plus our snail mail addy is there as well.

[okieinpain]

18. same

[EFerrari]

2. Guy, I think you're as wrong as possible about this

nomination.

But, I'd never pull my support for your show. Who in world would I argue with?

:)

People are so upset and about so many things, it's not surprising that they behave so reactively. Seems to be SOP these days.

Why not schedule a debate on the issue, to air it out?

[Cassandra]

3. If you were a woman...

you would not think that the ability to have legal control of your own body was a issue that "wastes" political capital. That said, the fact that Roberts is the first choice of big business suggests that there are many disturbing issues here, not just abortion.
BTW, I don't think people who support your program should stop over one issue but should engage you about your position.

[BeachBuckeye]

10. I don't mean its a wasted issue

I just think we can't win this particular argument. I know that over 60% of women think pro-choice is the answer and I most certainly agree with them. Perhaps "wasted" is a poor choice of words.

[Walt Starr]

4. I must say, I agree with you on Roberts

Plus, to overturn Roe, you will also need one of the following to retire as well:

Ginsberg
Breyer
Stevens
Souter
Kennedy

The last time the court voted on whether or not to overturn Roe, it was 6-3. Only Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas would overturn. With Roberts that will probably go to 5-4.

With Rovegate, we have a unique opportunity. If we can take back the House in '06, we could potentially end up with President Pelosi before '08 because Rovegate could end up bringing down Cheney and Bush simultaneously.

[kevsand]

23. The problem with saying that Roberts isn't the deciding vote

on abortion is that it ignores the fact that it brings us one giant step closer. I've used this analogy before: it's very much like saying that it's okay to walk the batter with only a one run lead because he's not the winning run. Unfortunately, it makes the guy in the on deck circle the winning run. Walks almost always come back to bite you on the ass.

Unless you can personally guarantee that each of the five remaining justices will serve until we have a Democratic president again, the argument that Roberts won't be the deciding vote is irresponsibly irrelevant. Some issues are so important that we have to fight every single step of the way, even when the odds are against us.

[SillyGoose]

7. Hi, Guy. I appreciate your honesty on this subject.

Quite frankly, I was disappointed that Bush didn't nominate a woman for this vacancy. Having said that I tend to agree with you to a degree on the Roberts issue. But, I do think it is vitally important to question Roberts' about his personal views about abortion and his thoughts about Roe v. Wade with an eye toward how those views might influence his decision making on the SC.

I also agree with you about the Republicans not overturning Roe v. Wade. This is one issue they consistently use to cement support in their base without ever doing anything about it. I see it as grandstanding just as they carried on about Terri Schiavo.

The CIA leak scandal involving Rove, Libby and God knows who else in the White House could very well be the undoing of this administration and it is important that we not let up on it for one minute. That won't happen with a RW-controlled media that suppresses the truth. I'm sorry that some DUers want to withdraw support from your show because you expressed your opinion on the Roberts nomination. That's sad and I hope they will reconsider that decision.

Just remember, Guy, you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

:hi:

[PATRICK]

8. Then the talk show hosts should understand

That the casual opinions and exalted meager presence on the airways drives the outcasts(non-Bushites) to distraction. jerry Springer also voiced the opinion that the GOP wouldn't dare cancel Roe v. Wade with very logical persuasive opinions. Others don't get the vote fraud ruckus here. Others keep addressing themselves to the myths of the deluded as deserving respect which they won't accord to DUers fists clutching reams of ignored evidence, smoking guns galore and archives, archives archives
in the dustbins of truth.

His main point deserves to be heard no matter how thin skinned outraged or patience worn people might be. But abortion? They wouldn't dare? You must be joking. This will be small potatoes as the vote continues to be rigged more right under the noses of people awash in studies and warnings. Only the manner of eradicating Woe V. Rade is in question, possibly the usual cowardly indirection that will leave them some cover but render the "right of choice" moot and impossible. Advocating giving up and rationalizing in this way as wisdom falls a bit short.

On the other extreme is going ballistic as if each particular issue is the end of the world and something new. That too clouds the clear march against humanity that is taking place on a wide front. They wave the gay issue and flag burning to enliven their core commandos. But abortion is great for distracting all sides.

What the RW really wants is economic control, spreading fear and dissension and distraction among any opposition(i.e. the plebeians). They want the goodies of everything imaginable including what they deny or ridicule for liberals. They will have their own abortions on demand. George did. They will have their doles and socialism for the rich. They
will own the means of production and everything else. As the Financial times headlines with utter lack of incredible irony about Bernie Ebbers, "he was a victim of the excesses of the times."

I think the guy(no pun intended) lefty pundits make that pragmatic mistake of picking strategies and parsing this big picture into small packages that leave babies thrashing out in the cold. Calm, cool, collected and callously dumb. When the women wax emotional on the whole inhumanity of these goons it becomes quickly clear that if any particular evil is still unthinkable it is only because that stop on the railroad has not been reached yet. Yet that is called hysteria and the men are called turncoats.

We need to be cool but not indifferent or smug. We need to be passionate but not unrealistic and over the top. We need to aim at the truth and take the lies down and get at the truth like the proverbial Clinton laser. It isn't just about SCOTUS or one law being overturned, but it certainly includes that and much more, too much to bring to every encounter and comment. Writing off anyone invites reciprocal behavior and those charging the entrenched positions of media and might
are going to look plain stupid wasting time fighting and discouraging each other.

In other words, disagree strongly with James but keep on. Save your wrath for the real enemies. And the best news(real news) and opinion(real wisdom) will be rewarded, maybe less than the sensational bad stuff is with propaganda subsidies in progressive fashion. I am sure James forgot the normal risks of his trade when he walked into the meatgrinder, but no one here should be proud of trying to create a propaganda echo chamber because these guys, these happy few, are so dependent on our meager resources. The freepers are not different. Only their pundits keep weaseling to tell them what they want to hear. Some I think would be very happy to have that shallow inauthentic presence on radio, but it is a lie and a lie is only the strength of the other side. I see it also in the curious hope that some newscaster or political messiah will suddenly throw off his shackles and lead the charge. Another desire for delusion.

Every talk show host on our side has taken heat because they listen to us but have varieties of ignorance and "wrong" opinion. Sounds like DU itself.

[scarletlib]

9. I am a woman and pro-choice, that being said, however,

I do not withdraw my support of your program because of your opinions on this issue.

One of the hallmarks of a liberal, progressive is the willingness to tolerate the opinions/reasoning of others who may not be with you 100% on every issue.

As for the Roberts nomination: bush would have to be much, much weaker than he is now for us to have any hope of his nominating a relatively moderate person to the supreme court and the dems standing alone cannot change this by themselves.

i do not know what will happen to this country in the future. i do not think we can place any hope in the institution of the supreme court for justice.

Good Luck to you Guy--I love your show and you can still count on my support as long as you are on the air.

[mcscajun]

12. "We fight the fights we can win."

In The American President, Michael Douglas, as President Shepherd, and Martin Sheen, as his chief advisor, A.J. MacInerney, have a heated argument. A.J. quotes something the president said in an earlier conversation:

A.J.: “We fight the fights we can win.”

Shepherd: "Don't..."

A.J.: "You fight the fights that need fighting!”


==============
We must fight, even if we go down fighting. We can fight more than one political battle at once. We may lose, but like the frog in the stork's throat, never give up.

[Nite Owl]

13. Missed the show last night

we had some company so have to catch it later on White Rose.

We have time to do something about Roberts. They put him out there now to change the subject and and we shouldn't fall into their trap and not continue talking about Rove. I am not as afraid of Roe being in jeopardy as I am for him increasing the power of the corporations. We need more materials and questions on how he would make decisions like that and hopefully the dems will ask. At that point we have to start screaming but for now I agree with you we can't let them go on Rove, we have to get that message through to the public.

[KharmaTrain]

14. So Is It The Issue Or The Money

I followed and agreed with this post. I think wasting valuable political capital and energy on fighting Roberts is playing right into the Repugnican hands. I, too have been flamed for it. But that's how it goes. Also, I've seen wingnut fighting on their end...some think Roberts isn't wingnutty enough. I'd rather see this fight in their tent. Let this guy record and any dirty laundry work its way through the system and when it gets to a confirmation hearing then we'll see where things are. Right now, there's a lot of angst without knowing how this game is gonna be played.

That said, what lost me here was how this thread turned from standing up for principal to financial support for a radio show. Seemed from this reading, the concern turned from standing up to what might be an unpopular stand into a bitch about those who got mad and aren't sending in donations anymore...and that it's the money, not the issue that issue. And this works both ways. Those who are trying to manipulate the show with their donations and how the money is so important that it had to be the real reason for the post.

[BeachBuckeye]

15. You are not even close!

The only reason the money was mentioned was to let DUer's know how "one issued" members of the Left have become. It was to show that "if you don't do what I want I'll take my toys (or in this case the money used to broadcast the show) and go home". I've paid for over half of the cost of the show out of my pocket for 2 1/2 years and will continue to do so for as long as possible. The loss of the money will not alter my opinion about this issue one iota.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Just What I Was Reading

I'm not into flames or justifications...just as a casual DU poster and the impressions I got from reading the thread.

As a radio-type myself, I understand a lot of the problems you and your show face far more than a majority here. I know the frustrations from all sides involved in doing what you love to do and what you believe is right. It bothers me when money become the focal point of a program, website or other relationships...it poisons friendships and almost always destroys the site/show. I'd hate to see that happen here.

You're fighting the good fight, just the fact the money came up bring up the old saying "when they say it isn't the money, it's the money"

BTW...money is the major reason I invest and no longer play in radio stations.

Cheers

[Eric J in MN]

17. "no longer play in radio stations"

what does that mean?

[KharmaTrain]

20. Means What I Said

Again, not getting into flame games here. Those who want to know can contact me privately.

BTW...the OP mentioned why liberals won't "dominate" talk radio, that's what got my interest. That wasn't what this post was about.

[BeachBuckeye]

22. That IS what the original post was about

We're too damned fractured for any one radio program to be able to appeal to a large audience. For that reason, Liberal talk-radio will always struggle to reach the top. Conservative hosts only have to appeal to a very narrow minded audience. Liberal hosts have to appeal to an audience with a far more broad spectrum. Conservative talk host's audiences stick with them no matter what. Liberal hosts lose a portion of their audience each and every week because they have stepped on someone's toes regarding a single issue.

Believe me if it was about the money I would have thrown in the towel long ago. If it was about the money I would need to raise enough to take a salary for the program. I take nothing. Its NOT the money.

[KharmaTrain]

24. I Agree...

Just hate when the money issue comes up in discussing a principal. And I've seen your posts and heard your program for a long time to know you're not out to scam and are as strong a Progressive as I've heard or seen here.

I'm more concerned about those who play with their donations and the struggles you've had in keeping your show going...and that it could be easily read by a third-party that this was about the money, not the principle.

Peace...

[BeachBuckeye]

19. I suppose it would help if I spelled it "dominant"

[jzodda]

21. I agree with you 100%

If this board is representative of our party then on any given day you can spend 10 minutes here and from some posts think that the world is about to end.

There is this "no room for compromise" attitude that seems to be growing on the left that espouses the notion that if we are "in your face", and aggressive to the extreme that it will somehow win the vast majority of moderate US voters. That notion is of course a great delusion.

If we have no room for people of differing opinions on the left then we have already lost. The big tent that we used to be sometimes feels like a pup tent these days.

People that would cancel support for your show over the fact that they disagree with you on some issues are really not worth having as supporters anyway. The day you have to conform your views to meet the needs of a financial supporter is the day you would have lost all credability. I am a strong believer that good radio, good talk always finds an audience. Keep the faith, forget the "doom forecasters" on the left and on this board, and tell those people who send you emails about withholding funds to go jump in a river :)

[kevsand]

26. Some issues are so important that there really IS no room

for compromise. That's what so many here fail to understand.

And financial support for something like radio is a very special gift, not something that should just be automatically doled out indiscriminately. Personally, my current financial status doesn't allow me to support ANY broadcast media right now. I can certainly understand how someone would be reluctant to continue their support for a show that is willing to consider abortion rights as though it were just another piece of leverage or an item to be sacrificed in negotiations, i.e., as just so much "political capital."

Besides which, we ARE the majority on this issue. The public agrees with us. Why are we throwing in the towel just because the odds in Congress are bad?

[BeachBuckeye]

27. This appointment is a trap

This man was carefully chosen so that the mainstream of America would look at him and say: "Gee, how can those nasty Democrats possibly vote against this saint"?

That is what this is about. We will NOT stop this appointment. Don't misunderstand what this is about. I have been involved in protests against those who would overturn Roe V Wade. I believe in the cause. But, I am a practical man and must face facts. Sure, we need to push our people to ask him tough questions and grill him on issues and beliefs. I support that completely.

[kevsand]

33. Of course Roberts was carefully chosen.

I said that myself earlier this morning on a thread by nashuaadvocate. And of course Rove has laid a trap with this choice. Unfortunately, sometimes you just have to spring the trap. Sometimes you have to go on the suicide mission. Sometimes, you just have to say "Fuck the odds" and go for broke.

At those times, it doesn't help at all to have people who are normally allies start playing Eeyore. Realism is one thing. Defeatism is quite another. I don't fault you for your assessment. I fault you for telling the rest of us not to bother.

The majority of the public agrees with us on all of the issues that Roberts is such a neanderthal on. Even if we lose the fight this time, by going to the wall, we actually are building capital for the next one.

So questioning this nominee isn't enough, I'm afraid. We need to try as hard as we can to stop him, and that means devoting energy to finding the chink in the armor. You can help us. You know you really want to...

[jzodda]

31. When did "no compromise" become "no discussion allowed"??

First off I did not listen to the show in question so I can not comment on what you said about this "show that is willing to consider abortion rights as though it were just another piece of leverage or an item to be sacrificed in negotiations" I will not get into a lengthy debate over what you said but unfortunately Abortion IS political and so any issue thats political is going to get people talking about it and how it affects one side or the other. I would EXPECT a radio talk show to do just that.

Next I do not know where I stated that money should be doled out without any careful thought either. My point is that One issue parties always lose and if we become that we are sunk.

One issue parties have no room for debate, no room for differing opinions, no flexability at all.

How selfish and boring is it for people to want to listen only to positions they always agree with? Good radio promotes debate, should make you think about your positions and should challenge them. A host of a politcal talk show that can not debate issues and who gives opinions 100% the same as your own is not worth listening to.

People that listen to a radio show over a period of time and like it SO much that they would be willing to donate money and then all the sudden over a small tiny part of a much larger issue say they can not support the show any more sound to me much like the folks in the other party. Narrowminded, Smallminded, Petty, and boring.

[kevsand]

36. I never said "no discussion allowed."

I said that some issues were so important that there can be no compromise. Discuss it all you want. But once you cross the line and begin actively advocating a position that says a woman's right to control her own body or health can be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, then you should also expect spirited disagreement. And yes, some people will withhold sponsorship from a platform for that position. That's just human nature, thank goodness.

Did Guy actually cross that line? Like you, I haven't listened to the show, so I can't say for sure, but can only go by what he has said here. I'm also speaking in general, and trying to point out that withdrawal of financial support is a legitimate response given sufficient provocation.

If someone said that we should allow an advocate of slavery to be appointed to the Supreme Court with nothing more than throrough questioning because the Repubs had the votes to win, would that trigger an alarm for you? Some people feel the same way about abortion. That's why I maintain that, in principle, some issues are too important to compromise. Since when did that cease to be true?

[davsand]

28. There IS "no room for compromise" on the issue of choice.

Sorry, but there IS no room for ANY compromise on that issue, and if the DNC won't hold to even THAT line then it isn't worthy of my time or support. I want to get that message out there right NOW.

I am not gonna plunk down my qualifications as a Dem or as a woman because that is too easy. I've been fighting the "choice" fight for more years than I care to disclose here in public. I'll leave it at the place where I say that I have paid my dues, probably just as you have.

What I DO want to say is very simple: When abortion is illegal WOMEN DIE.

Allowing any attack of reproductive freedom is not something I can stomach in any form because I honestly think that the Dems allowing this appointment to pass without question is every bit as immoral as voting to line women up and shoot them outright. I honestly think that this is a life and death issue for women.

You can call me overly emotional, you can even say that I have become a single issue voter (which is patently not true.) What I will not allow you to say, however, is that I sat silent while the DNC passed a death sentence on poor women who did not choose to give birth to unplanned babies.

I see this a fundamental human rights issue with no less importance than the issue of freeing the slaves or allowing the female vote. I can't look at my 8 year old daughter and all the other little girls out there and let them be forced into survival in a world of biological slavery.

---

Guy,jzodda and Walt (and all you others!) you and I disagree on this tactic. Don't feel bad--I have openly disagreed with others on here on this same strategy. I love them no less because of it.

Peace to you, brothers. I do hope we can some to common ground soon.


Laura

[B Calm]

29. Do you feel as strongly about protecting worker rights? or are

you just a one issue voter?

[davsand]

30. Roberts is just as bad on workers' rights.

He's a corporatist and we all know it. He's bad on the environment too, along with most other civil rights issues. He's a CONSERVATIVE.

He's a toad and no amount of political rhetoric from the GOP will change that.


Laura

[BeachBuckeye]

32. Agreed, he is a conservative.

We will not, however, get him to appoint a Liberal. I doubt we could get anyone less conservative than Roberts. No, I don't like it one bit but we have a "Conservative" President and he is going to appoint a conservative judge.

[B Calm]

25. Simply amazing how some people can no longer support a man with

common sense.. I don't always agree with everything I hear from my favorite liberal talk show hosts, but I'll be damn if I'll withdraw my support.

The cons have been using this wedge issue (Roe vs Wade) for years, wake the hell up people! I agree with Guy, the cons have been using this to get working class people to vote against their own interests. Time to call them on their bluff.

[linazelle]

34. I agree with you and am frustrated by those who want to fight

this along with all the other issues that are on the table. Your odds pretty much sum up why fighting is futile. Should people voice their opinions? Yes. But should this become the dominant topic that the regressives want it to be when they have the upper hand in both dominating the conversation and ultimately making the decision? No. We have better things to do and dancing to their music should not be one of those things.

[BeachBuckeye]

38. And their tune is getting old indeed.

[sleipnir]

35. Every Dem has a single, hot button issue.

Mine is the War on Terra and Iraq. I was very vitriolic in the Primaries about Pro-War candidates. Saying "I won't ever vote for Kerry, he's a Warmonger!" Well, turns out, I did vote for Kerry, and proudly. After a while of thinking and wondering about the state of our Nation and our Party, I realized that you can't win every battle at once. I'm still unhappy with many in our Party who authorize War for no reason other than capitalist greed and fear of not being re-elected. Though, we can't change anything if we don't agree to some concessions. That's reality.

I wonder if Republicans each have a hot button issue. I'm not sure. The few moderate Republican friends I have, don't really seem to care about much. Or sure, they'll get worked up about immigration, fuel costs, global trade, but only when the MSM provokes them into thinking about said issues.

Perhaps that's the real difference, we as Dems each have our "pet" issue and it can bring out the best and the worst in us.

Roe V Wade is not going to be overturned no matter what any of the fatalists will say. But this is a great opportunity for those who's hot button issue is choice rights to be quite vocal and try to scare up some support. Same was true during the Primaries with the War on Terra and Iraq. I did the same thing, threatening to not support people based on a single issue, encouraging others to do the same. But, I came to my senses and realized that we must fight a multi-front battle, not just on one angle.

The real fear of Roberts isn't abortion rights, no, as much as many of the coat-hanger fear-mongers on this site want you to believe. The real horror lies in his corporate roots and the shift in other key issues, like Interstate Commerce Clause, that's now actually in jeopardy. The vote is now 5-4 opposes should Roberts be confirmed. And confirmed he will be. Unless he's got a past to make MacBeth look tame, he's in.

I strongly believe Roberts IS THE COMPROMISE CANDIDATE. Behind all those closed doors, this is the man the few from each side agreed upon. He is meant to be confirmed and he will be, thanks to the Gang of 14.

[liberaliraqvet26]

37. if there is hope of another Souter...

it is roberts. He's young and we really don't know that much about him. He doesn't appear to be a Bork or Thomas. He sure as hell wouldn't be my choice but it is true that wecannot fight everything. Leave the battle royale card open for the future. John Paul Stevens is the deciding vote in Roe v Wade and he is 85 years old. Comon show some reason, did anyone really think he would appoint Barbara Boxer to the court?