McCain and Talk Radio: The Brawl Goes On
By Brian Lambert
What's the old line, "If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas?" By the way it is going here in February, John McCain is going to be one sorry mass of welts by the time November arrives.
The business in Cincinnati on Monday—where Team McCain thought it'd be a good idea to wheel in the area's standard-issue, more-haircut-than-brain talk radio star, Bill Cunningham, to "warm up" the crowd—bit the candidate back pretty badly.
Here's the clip of Cunningham's shtick. As I say, it is very much standard issue red-meat-for-the-knuckleheads stuff; demonize the "enemy" (the dumb-everything-down, talk-radio-for-the-base bit runs on an endless series of enemies); create hyperbolic negative associations in agitated, uncritical minds; set one toenail up to the line of outright racism; and wrap it all in superficial patriotism. Same old, same old. It has been a profitable act for two decades.
So Cunningham's "warm up" lays something of an egg when (who knew?) it plays out in public and gets picked up and shown to audiences far outside of the Ohio torches and pitchforks Bund rally. This forces McCain to disavow Cunningham barely an hour later. All that does is create another episode of blow back when Cunningham goes on his daily radio show, and CNN, and denounces McCain—for good this time, he says. THEN, as if that wasn't bad enough for one day, McCain has to also, uh, "rethink" his statement that he had never personally met Cunningham. (It seems he did. Maybe a couple of times.) Meanwhile, all the braying Cunningham-like types all over the country, many of whom who had rallied to McCain's defense by attacking The New York Times last week, resumed kicking and chewing on him again. He isn't pure enough, remember? He's certainly no deep thinker, such as Bill Cunningham.
This cycle will go on and on unless McCain decides these characters are far more trouble than they are worth. McCain is being told that the talk radio audience is essentially synonymous with the Republican base. I wonder about that. Someone ought to run the math for McCain on how many votes the Cunningham-like crowd controls across the country. They might be shocked. In the Twin Cities, the hardcore, hair trigger combustible conservative "base" is barely 5 percent of people listening to radio. There are, no doubt, other hardcore conservatives who aren't on a talk radio IV drip who think Barack Obama is a Muslim and, therefore, a trained agent of Al Qaeda, but they seem to be getting their "red meat" from somewhere else.
Altogether, I guess, there might be 8% of adults who walk upright. Whatever it is we're talking a group of people who truly see no flaw in the logic when someone, such as Cunningham, says, with flagrant disingenuousness (as reported by The Cincinnati Enquirer):
"The purpose of using Obama’s full name—Barack Hussein Obama—“is to identify that person. I meant no offense by it,” Cunningham said. Those who oppose his use of Obama’s middle name are those who should be criticized, Cunningham added."
(In the CNN clip above, Cunningham ups the ante and says the people who "object" to him trying to associate Obama with Muslims and dictators are "the racists," which is another standard, tried-and-true talk radio rhetorical device—accuse your "enemies" of your own worst sins.
Talk about playing your customers for chumps.
Anyway, at some point, McCain, who I tend to think is embarrassed about having to associate with this collection of dimwits, hucksters, and bigots, might have to decide to stop pandering to them for what very little they can do for him. As I've said before, if you condense all this campaign blather about "change," I believe you can make a convincing argument that change away from the talk radio idiocracy—as practiced by high government officials—is what everyone is really talking about.
Problems today are too large, complex, and dangerous to be guided in any way by cynics such as Bill Cunningham.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
"Problems today are too large, complex, and dangerous to be guided in any way by cynics such as Bill Cunningham".
Yes, Brian, that is why we are steadfast against Barry Hussein Obama and his Unicorn Campaign.
Why don't you tell us why McCain is NOT the guy, instead of attacking his supporters such as Cunningham, who by the way, is clearly not the real "cynic" here.
Why do you hate talk radio and America?
LAMBERT: The more you talk the more McCain should consider cutting bait.
Posted by: bertram jr on February 29, 2008 at 10:30 AM
BTW, oh misguided one, no one complains about HRC / Hilary Rodham Clinton having her middle / maiden name used...
On another note, why are your fellow liberal scribes so upset that Saturday Night live did not use a gen-u-wine black actor to portray Barry Hussein Obama last week?
I thought Barry Hussein Obama had moved everyone "beyond race"?
LAMBERT: Have I reminded you that you have a lot of very serious issues?
Posted by: bertram jr on February 29, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The bigger question is why Cunningham offered to do the warm-up bit in the first place. With the far right remaining fairly anti-McCain, Cunningham really exposed himself. He starts the speech with the standard talk radio anti-media stuff and then goes after Obama. Problem is McCain is anything but a strong right leaning Conservative. That makes Cunningham a fraud in many ways.
To your point, I think Obama will have trouble with McCain if McCain stays away from the far right. McCain is pretty moderate, closer to a Bill Clinton. That could leave Obama too far left with Nadar yipping at his left foot.
Regardless, not a good year for your token Republican reader.
LAMBERT: I don't find it hard to explain why Cunningham did the opener. These guys are all ego acts. Open for the national nominee. It inflates their sense of self-importance. (Likewise, I'm sure Cunningham is pleased with the both the slapdown from McCain and the chance to repudiate him. Win win if you're a right wing talker.) To underline my point, guys like him, and locally Jason Lewis, etc. are likely more trouble than they are worth. Voices of "the base" that have practiced the "politics of personal destruction" and governed with such appalling incompetence are what an adroit politician would be moving away from, not toward. McCain's only chance is with independents. The nut fringe only alienates independents.
Posted by: Dave on February 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Understanding the context of your article is on the Obama/McCain controversies, you do write as though the nominations are set. Are you convinced that Hillary will not pull up an upset in Ohio and Texas and still win the nomination?
LAMBERT: That race is over. The dilemma now is when and how to bow out gracefully. She will be under intense pressure to do so by St. Patty's Day.
Posted by: Tom O on February 29, 2008 at 11:25 AM
"Have I reminded you that you have a lot of very serious issues?"
Uh, "Doc" Lambert, why don't you just answer the question(s) or better yet, argue the facts?
Here's a good one for you to start with:
Is national security the first job of the American President, and if so, who is the best qualified candidate?
Here's another one:
Do you believe that you, Brian Lambert, should pay more, the same, or less taxes than you currently are paying, and why.
C'mon Bri, you can do it!
LAMBERT: Obama. Yes.
Posted by: bertram jr. on February 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Dear Bertram Jr.,
What is National Security in your mind? What does it mean to you?
I get the sense that you think it's all about the military and protecting us from terrorists. I'll grant you that it is a part of it, a very important part of it. But it's not the whole picture.
You see, I'm pretty convinced that's why John McCain is going to lose. His 71-year old mind is filled with the same 20th century mentality that your litte brain is cursed with and both of you are overlooking the fact that there's more to "national security" these days than picking up a gun and manning the post as my good friend Col. Jessup liked to say.
Let's ask the people of New Orleans how they feel about National Security. Think they feel safer now than they did in 2000?
How about people who have watched their mortgage payments double and triple and had their homes forclosed upon? Think they feel secure right about now?
-Want to measure the security thoughts of people who can't get health care? How about people who can't find work because they've been trained in a skill that's become obsolete or outsourced?
Those are just a few of examples of something that in the future needs to also be considered as "national security." The days of equating "national secruity" with military strength are over and until you and the rest of your right-wing zealots wake up to that fact, you're going to continue to lose market share in voters and the independents' minds.
So let me answer you with who is better qualified to keep us safe? The guy who is promising more of the same OLD thinking and same OLD ways of doing things in John McCain. You can think that and it's obvious from your TIRED posts that you do, but it is really the blueprint of why your ideology is going to lose and lose big this time around.
Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party, have actually shown an understanding that national security is more than killing the bad guys. That security also means having health care, being able to pay your bills, having a decent paying job, AND a reasonable, but firm foreign policy.
I believe George Bush used a quote that I'll steal here to describe this change in thinking, "You had your chance. You failed and you didn't. We will."
The simple truth of it is this Bertram, your definition of national security and the arguments that you've put forth on this blog are very much the politics of yesterday. What I'm writing about here and the arguments I'm framing are very much the politics of today and tomorrow. People like myself are looking very much forward to securing our nation's future this November.
LAMBERT: As you might have gathered by now, bertram jr. embodies the kind of paralyzing multiplicity of fears that makes them easily susceptible to anyone promising aggressive action, no matter how ill-considered, counter-effective and ruinous. They may add up to only 8% or so, but their howls of terror make them sound more numerous.
Posted by: Danny B on February 29, 2008 at 4:30 PM
The so-called great military protectors of American security are not doing such a great job.
Being a saber-rattler and proponent of "We'll fight with an occupation force for the next 100 years if necessary!" McCain is not going to bring America defense and security, economy stability nor prosperity in the Middle East or at home. An unending war in Iraq and Afghanistan would drive us into a financial burden so astronomical that the current $9 trillion national debt will feel like pocket change.
Bertram Jr. whose pockets do you think $1 billion dollars a day in war expense will come out of? Hold onto your wallet because you in for one hell of a ride because of this saber-rattling Republican hysterics.
If McCain continues to make this an all or nothing proposition as Bush as done, the American Empire just like those before us will be OVER. The continual burden, financial cost and human waste or war without end will bring our civilization down just as it did the Greeks.
LAMBERT: In a bertram jr.-like mind, the only necessary costs (never to be challenged by oversight or audit) are those we bear to support the Pentagon.
Posted by: Robb on February 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM
BertramJr enjoys the minstrel shows on the YouTube, Brian. Don't bother explaining.
LAMBERT: But it amuses me so.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on March 1, 2008 at 6:29 PM
bertram jr. must be a real coward - thinking the president's main job is to keep us safe -poor vulnerable man! The president's job, as he swears when he enters office, is to protect and defend the constitution.
LAMBERT: In bertram's mind the Constitution begins and ends at the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Rob Levine on March 2, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Is there really a Bertram Jr. or is he just your imaginary friend?
LAMBERT: I wish I could say he's a "Mr. Hyde"-like alter ego. But he actually exists.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 3, 2008 at 8:46 AM
What part of "Commander in Chief" don't you daisy pickin' fellas understand?
"The politics of yesterday"?
Tell that to the Greatest Generation, who fought and died for you to be able to sit there dribbling your smug little "progressive" United Nations drivel, while our all volunteer armed forces remain dedicated to eradicating the terrorists.
Really, is this the Burkka Admirers Society here or what?
I'd rather Lambert tried his hand at some trenchant media commentary, rather than run a site for expressing his rather transparent support of, and hosting of, sycophantic Muslim extremist terrorist apologists.
That's getting rather far afield from the rest of MSP's breathless consumerism.
LAMBERT: "Sycophantic Muslim extremist terrorist apologists." I'm impressed. But haven't you omitted "femi-Nazi, chicken little climate hysteric, multi-cultural panderers"?
Posted by: bertram jr on March 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I find it interesting that Bertram Jr. has the nerve to ask you what you have against talk radio and America. Apparently he was not a frequent listener during the early days of KTLK.
If the "suits" had let you loose on Sarah and the callers, you might have tilted the balance on conservative talk radio in the Twin Towns.
As often as you bit your tongue I am surprised that you have any taste buds remaining.
LAMBERT: Unfortunately, "balance" has no role in talk radio. To the great programming minds of our day that's like mixing hip-hop and country.
Posted by: Mr. Monster on March 3, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Why don't you chew on this for awhile (seems quite apropo given the droolings above):
“I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and Liberals at bay. And the nation free.” —William F. Buckley Jr.
LAMBERT:“Liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition” in America, wrote the distinguished literary critic Lionel Trilling in 1950. “The conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not, with some isolated and ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.”
Posted by: bertram jr on March 3, 2008 at 11:29 AM
"Sycophantic Muslim extremist terrorist apologists." That's a real good one, but I'm I'm bummed out...I figured BJ would have trotted out Islamo-fascists by now. AIQ anyone?
Seriously, John McCain is actually the very best example why con-radio does not have the influence they think they have because he's rolled over EVERY single GOP candidate DESPITE their protestations on McCain, despite them tripping over themselves to annoint Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, etc., the heir apparent to their distored view of the standard bearer Reagan (does anyone remember that Pat Robertson actually endorsed Giuliani? I mean, that kind of sheer desperation is hysterically funny). He kicked the other folks' rears despite his campaign running into the ground momentum and finacially in the summer and the fall. DESPITE all the shouting from Faux News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc., etc., etc.
You can't get more sycophantic than those guys' fans and McCain swept everyone.
In 2000 I was a McCain fan, and a bit of a supporter, and I am a registered Democrat. I thought he was a sensible, straight-shooting alternative in the GOP to someone who was not only a phony but also simply a propped up dummy
with zero record as a business man and as a governor. Had he got the GOP nomination, had he not got the Rove treatment in the primaries, I would have had a tough choice to make vs. Gore.
Yes, I drank a bit of the straight talk kool-aid at the time. But I still think McCain has some good things to offer - when he is independent and not getting pulled into an ass-kissing contest with the con radio fools.
That said, we've had 8 years of conservative policies. Longer if you count the Gingrich "revolution." By any stretch, those policies and way of governing is an abject failure.
Keep up the good works - con radio is part of the media after all!
LAMBERT: While I wouldn't have voted for McCain in 2000 and won't this year, "straight talk" sycophancy withstanding I find a lot to like about the guy. Had he been elected in 2000 I can't imagine he would have charged off into Iraq, certainly without first dealing fully and completely with Afghanistan, and many of his positions on vital social issues are remarkably free of the stock, robotic, team sports-style bullshit of talk radio ... which explains their lack of enthusiasm for him. I stand by my advice that he ought to think hard on the downside to repudiating that crowd, and the much bigger upside to looking like a "true independent".
Posted by: essar1 on March 3, 2008 at 11:55 AM
McCain - a lot to like about the guy
Obama - a lot to like about the guy
Hillary - not much to like about the guy, and yet she persists. More unbelievably, she has supporters.
I'm glad to see the folks here favor the registration of Democrats. The proliferation of unregistered Democrats has caused a lot of harm to society. Everyone should be in support of reasonable restrictions on Democrats, and the ability of the authorities to track their movements.
But seriously....
"Straight talk" sycophancy, Brian? So you think thats a bit contrived, a bit of packaging and mythmaking by the candidate himself?
See the thing is, talk radio was on to that from the onset. Day 1, as it were. McCain crafted a bill to save his reputation after Keating 5 - campaign finance reform - that among other things limited the ability of organizations to air ads and engage in political speech. Its a complete affront to sensible people who believe in the 1st amendment. Like people on talk radio. Hence the animous.
You'd have to listen to talk radio to know this though. You have to get past your visceral reaction. Beyond the bluster, I think Rush engages in a lot of useful dialoge about the nature of conservatism and libertarianism - freedom, stuff like that. Its an extension of the Buckley tradition, which is timely this week. Unfortunately, theres quite a few people out there not as talented. I have never heard of this Cunningham. I'm sure hes an idiot.
Anyway, along with local radio, local TV, etc, you should have a tag for misplaced schadenfreude. I think the schism on the D side will be something to behold once Hillary steals the nomination.
LAMBERT: You might want to rethink mentioning Limbaugh and Buckley in the same breath.
Posted by: 108 on March 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM
I think problems today are too large, complex, and dangerous to be guided in any way by cynics such as Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Rosie Odonell.
I suspect the World Trade Center 7 crowd comprises more than 8% of the Democratic base.
LAMBERT: 108, I'm disappointed. You usually bring a bit more nuance than that. Bill Cunningham = Jon Stewart?
Posted by: 108 on March 3, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Why? They are both giants of conservative thought and conservative media.
Each has their own unique style.
Each shine(s) the light on the cockroach of liberalism.
Is that why you hate them?
Why do you hate them, and by extension, the values of the majority of America?
Posted by: bertram jr on March 4, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Brian, even Sandy Koufax couldn't bring his A game to every start.
I say this with seriousness...I like Obama...Even though he's a socialist and I'm not. I would have voted for him for his earnestness and rightousness, which appear genuine. I think he'd be reasonably good for the country. You and your fellow travelers in the party need to derail this impending Hillary train wreck. You people have some responsibility here.
LAMBERT: I hate being wrong, even though I am most of the time. So even though I would prefer Obama, (hell, I preferred Edwards), Clinton hardly strikes me as a "train wreck" . Obviously she has competitive disadvantages vis a vis McCain that Obama does not. (Obama's appeal to novices and enlightened reactionaries such as yourself -- you don't mind that, do you? -- will not transfer to Hillary.)
The widely accepted view of Hillary Clinton as some kind of shrieking harridan just doesn't hold up anywhere other than in the right-wing echo chamber.
Posted by: 108 on March 4, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Enlightened reactionary...actually, I like that.
I do disagree, I think the fact she's a first class bitch holds up everywhere, but thats a small thing and I have equal disdain for her husband. I grant Harken, Arbusto, and Halliburton, am skeptical of Whitewater, and still believe the Clinton's are the most corrupt politicians we've ever known to occupy the White House. Its all about them, its all about their self aggrandizement. I mean really, how many times did Bill Clinton sell liberalism down the river in the 90's when it was convenient? I'm not apocryphal about a Hillary presidency. It will just be another 4 years the Democrats waste on a nothing presidency.
LAMBERT: "The most corrupt ... ever ... ". I don't know. What are we talking about exactly? Monica? Whitewater? (You tell me what that was all about and how significant it was compared to the Savings & Loan scandal or any of a hundred others.) Hillary's $100k cattle futures? "Travelgate". "Haircutgate". The problem I have is that way too many otherwise mature people go completely unhinged and hyperbolically disproportionate when the Clintons come up? Nothing they were ever accused of, much less convicted of -- even the "murder" of Vince Foster -- even begins to compare with corruption like manipulating intelligence to send the country to war, suspewnding habeus corpus, illegal wiretapping on a vast scale, billions lost to no-bid corruption in Iraq, Bush's signing documents. The Clintons aren't even in the same game. Can they be tough-to-the-point-of-ruthless campaigners. Oh sure. But again, what are we comparing? Suggesting Obama can't be trusted with 3 AM phone calls to the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove tactics we saw with the Willie Horton ads, or the attacks on McCain in South Carolina in 2000? Again, no comparison. Not even close. What's more I don't think a political couple that was "all about themselves" would have dove into universal health care like they did in '93, if they were all about calculating the cheap and easy upside to them.
Posted by: 108 on March 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Well, there you have it.
Suitable for framing.
Left wing judgement / Clinton worshipping at it's frothing finest.
There's no bias here!
It's "journalism"!
LAMBERT: And the alternative to "bias" you're offering is ... Hugh Hewitt?
Posted by: bertram jr. on March 10, 2008 at 2:41 PM