David Dreier Wins Big!
And John and Ken of LA afternoon drivetime radio must be a bit, uh, disappointed.
They had targeted Dreier (Rep.) as a "political human sacrifice" because of his supposedly poor record on fighting illegal immigration, a big issue in California. John and Ken pride themselves on their "political independence", having also fought in the battle to unseat former Governor Gray Davis.
The story was like this: since Republicans don't do any better at stopping illegal immigration than Dems, why should we vote for them just because we hope they will? So John and Ken tried to get Republicans to vote against Dreier, just to "send a message" that poor performance on the issue would no longer be tolerated.
What John and Ken don't get: the major media is a MUCH larger problem than the politicians in this arena. The vast majority of news coverage is sympathetic to illegals, not to those who are hurt by the illegals being here.
J&K made much of the fact that Dreier stopped coming on their show to be assaulted by them.
I'll be really impressed when they get the editors of the LA Times and network news shows to come on for hour long to segments to be grilled on their news coverage re: illegals.
In the meantime, Dreier proved that such stunts don't work, by winning handily with an 11% margin over his nearest opponent., 54% to 43%. Hopefully, J&K will eat some humble pie on air, and then invite the major news bottleneck guardians to come on and talk about the issue. I doubt they'll get a lot of response from them, though....
John and Ken are right that the Republicans talk a lot more than they act on the issue. They need to use their clout (of which they do have a little, in spite of failing here) to attach the real problem.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Radio's John and Ken miss the point
John and Ken have a radio show in LA.
A couple of days ago they blasted Hugh Hewitt for supporting David Dreier in his re-election bid to the House of Representatives. Dreier is the target of John and Ken's "political human sacrifice" in their anti-illegal alien campaign. Their point, true as far as it goes, is that Republicans don't have a greatly better record on handling the illegals problem than Democrats, though they talk about it more.
The segment I heard blasting Hugh was followed by a segment on the initiative to weaken California's "three strikes" law in various ways. They had an academic from a local university on the show, who pointed out the reduction in the crime rate that seems associated with the current three strikes law. One of their questions to the academic was, "Why does the public seem to support this weakening of the current sentencing laws, when they have clearly worked to reduce crime?"
The answer from the academic, and a telling one it is, was this: 90% of the media coverage of the current three strikes law is negative towards the law, full of unusual cases of people getting long sentences for stealing pizza, etc., even though there are few problems of this sort in the application of the law (what if the pizza thief had multiple prior major crimes?).
The radio boys failed to make the connection to the issue of Republican action regarding the problem of illegal aliens, namely that whenever a strong action is taken by any Republican, the media is full of mostly negative coverage. When elections hang by relatively slim margins, this makes it hard to convince Republicans to do what they'd like to do in their hearts, namely take strong action to police the borders and round up illegals for deportation, and punish employers who knowingly hire them.
So, hey, John and Ken: If you REALLY feel as strongly about the issue of illegal aliens as you say, then lay off the relatively easy target of politicians who don't always walk their talk, just for awhile, and concentrate on who intimidates those politicians, namely the major media. Feeling your populist oats, boys? Impressed with the fervor you can whip up? Why not take on someone who has as much access to the public ear as you do (which almost no politician does, which is what makes them relatively easy targets for you), and go after every single article or news broadcast that unfairly slants the coverage in favor of illegals?
You've discovered by now that politicans you help elect, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, don't always (or often?) do what you hoped. They same will be true of Dreier's replacement, if you're successful.
Political behavior of this sort is the symptom, not the root of the problem, as long as the main stream media get away with murdering the facts.
I'll take you seriously when you spend as many on-air hours on poor news coverage of the illegals problem as you spend on your little political stunt... In the meantime, Hugh's show comes on at the same time as yours...
A couple of days ago they blasted Hugh Hewitt for supporting David Dreier in his re-election bid to the House of Representatives. Dreier is the target of John and Ken's "political human sacrifice" in their anti-illegal alien campaign. Their point, true as far as it goes, is that Republicans don't have a greatly better record on handling the illegals problem than Democrats, though they talk about it more.
The segment I heard blasting Hugh was followed by a segment on the initiative to weaken California's "three strikes" law in various ways. They had an academic from a local university on the show, who pointed out the reduction in the crime rate that seems associated with the current three strikes law. One of their questions to the academic was, "Why does the public seem to support this weakening of the current sentencing laws, when they have clearly worked to reduce crime?"
The answer from the academic, and a telling one it is, was this: 90% of the media coverage of the current three strikes law is negative towards the law, full of unusual cases of people getting long sentences for stealing pizza, etc., even though there are few problems of this sort in the application of the law (what if the pizza thief had multiple prior major crimes?).
The radio boys failed to make the connection to the issue of Republican action regarding the problem of illegal aliens, namely that whenever a strong action is taken by any Republican, the media is full of mostly negative coverage. When elections hang by relatively slim margins, this makes it hard to convince Republicans to do what they'd like to do in their hearts, namely take strong action to police the borders and round up illegals for deportation, and punish employers who knowingly hire them.
So, hey, John and Ken: If you REALLY feel as strongly about the issue of illegal aliens as you say, then lay off the relatively easy target of politicians who don't always walk their talk, just for awhile, and concentrate on who intimidates those politicians, namely the major media. Feeling your populist oats, boys? Impressed with the fervor you can whip up? Why not take on someone who has as much access to the public ear as you do (which almost no politician does, which is what makes them relatively easy targets for you), and go after every single article or news broadcast that unfairly slants the coverage in favor of illegals?
You've discovered by now that politicans you help elect, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, don't always (or often?) do what you hoped. They same will be true of Dreier's replacement, if you're successful.
Political behavior of this sort is the symptom, not the root of the problem, as long as the main stream media get away with murdering the facts.
I'll take you seriously when you spend as many on-air hours on poor news coverage of the illegals problem as you spend on your little political stunt... In the meantime, Hugh's show comes on at the same time as yours...
Monday, October 18, 2004
Not even close
Hugh's symposium question this week:
"Vox Blogoli IV: Why vote for Bush, and what's wrong with Kerry?"
I'm pro-Bush because:
1) He'll do a better job of making terror attacks on the USA less likely in the short term, because he gets it, because he puts it before his poll numbers, and because he sincerely seeks God's help.
2) He'll do a better job of continuing processes he's already begun (that Kerry doesn't even understand) to reduce long term risks of Islamic extremism, by attacking the very roots of it with "liberty-imperialism."
3) On the domestic front, reducing taxes, judicial activism and the school dropout rate are all good things.
I'm anti-Kerry because:
1) He doesn't get it in the war with Islamic extremism.
2) He apparently does very little without calculating personal benefit in the polls. He'll say anything to get elected. He seems to have no long-term plan to reduce the danger.... except to recycle old plans that have already failed.
3) He is for more taxes, more judical activism, and maintenance of the status quo in education.... all recipes for disaster, short and long term.
Some of it boils down to this: I trust George Bush to do his very best, even when he is at political risk, and to learn on the job. John Kerry has already proved that he doesn't learn on the job, and will do exactly what he thinks is indicated for his short-term political benefit.
"Vox Blogoli IV: Why vote for Bush, and what's wrong with Kerry?"
I'm pro-Bush because:
1) He'll do a better job of making terror attacks on the USA less likely in the short term, because he gets it, because he puts it before his poll numbers, and because he sincerely seeks God's help.
2) He'll do a better job of continuing processes he's already begun (that Kerry doesn't even understand) to reduce long term risks of Islamic extremism, by attacking the very roots of it with "liberty-imperialism."
3) On the domestic front, reducing taxes, judicial activism and the school dropout rate are all good things.
I'm anti-Kerry because:
1) He doesn't get it in the war with Islamic extremism.
2) He apparently does very little without calculating personal benefit in the polls. He'll say anything to get elected. He seems to have no long-term plan to reduce the danger.... except to recycle old plans that have already failed.
3) He is for more taxes, more judical activism, and maintenance of the status quo in education.... all recipes for disaster, short and long term.
Some of it boils down to this: I trust George Bush to do his very best, even when he is at political risk, and to learn on the job. John Kerry has already proved that he doesn't learn on the job, and will do exactly what he thinks is indicated for his short-term political benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
