Robert Redford invaded Capitol Hill on Tuesday to confront a House of Representatives subcommittee with impassioned demands for more money for the arts.  

Accompanied by singer John Legend, actress Kerry Washington and other luminaries, the Sundance Kid attempted this daring hold-up in broad daylight –insisting that funding for the National Endowment for the Arts must be restored to its 1992 peak of $176 million, from the paltry 2009 figure of $128 million proposed by the Bush administration. 

After all, Redford reasons, what’s a mere $48 million difference when it comes to the beautiful friendship between the Democrats who control Congress and their well-heeled friends in Hollyweird? 

The demands associated with national “Arts Advocacy Day” (sorry if you missed it) display enough gall to be divided into three parts.  

If Tinseltown titans want more funding for the arts, then why don’t they spend their own damn money? Considering the tens of millions of dollars raised in Hollywood for the Obama and Clinton campaigns, Redford and company easily could come up with double or triple the proposed federal expenditure to create their own “endowment for the arts.”  

In addition to privatizing an utterly useless (and totally wasteful) government boondoggle, this new venture could also display more expertise in judging artistic projects (with funding and supervision by creative people themselves) than the silly federal bureaucrats who currently control the “official” arts programs. 

Congress and the executive branch have enough time evaluating what military equipment deserves funding, or which environmental programs require more money. It’s insane to put these same federal office holders in charge of deciding what documentary films, and performance art, and poetry readings, and literary magazines, and public sculpture deserve taxpayer money. 

The whole idea of “official” federally approved art goes against the notion of free expression that most pop culture potentates claim to promote. Opposition to government sponsorship hardly amounts to imposition of government censorship. Communist dictatorships granted great power to “arts commissars” to nourish useful creativity that served the regime; decadent monarchies have also stolen money from the oppressed populace to establish lavish court theatres and orchestras and art collections to glorify the name of the ruler. 

We don’t need to operate in that style in the world’s greatest Republic. In his prepared testimony, Redford modestly cited his own Sundance Film Festival as an example of artistic endeavors promoting economic development. But wouldn’t it be absurd to suggest that this glittering, lavish, celebrity-saturated annual event requires taxpayer funding for its survival? 

Then again, when it comes to Redford’s latest film project -- the talky, tendentious anti-war snooze fest “Lions for Lambs” (also starring Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise)-- the public rejected the film so decisively (making it one of the biggest turkeys of recent years) that some retroactive government grant might constitute its beleaguered director’s only hope of ever recouping some of his losses.  

Press bias against Republicans and conservatives is so ubiquitous and so obvious that we’ve been anesthetized to all but the most glaring and outrageous examples of slanted coverage. 

The Seattle Times, however, recently provided a demonstration of partisan coverage that’s so clumsy and laughable that it deserves special recognition. 

On March 14^th, announcing the conclusion of the recent legislative session at the state capital, the front page headline declared: “IN OLYMPIA, INACTION WAS PART OF GAME PLAN.”  Under that headline is a smiling photo of the Democratic leader in the state House of Representatives (Lynn Kessler) with an inspiring quote: “If you take too many bold steps, you’ll no longer be in the majority….If we don’t have the majority, we get nothing done.” 

And then the lead in the piece (by veteran political reporter David Postman): “Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Democratic-controlled Legislature accomplished pretty much what they set out to do in the 60-day session that ended Thursday. In other words, nothing flashy.” The interior headline for the continuation of the article also hailed the Democrats for their lack of achievement. “Inaction Part of Democrats’ Game Plan: Lawmakers put daunting to-do list off until next year.” 

In other words, the Dems who run our government in the state of Washington are going to wait until after they get re-elected (they assume) before they do anything at all.  

If Republicans controlled Olympia, do you think the headlines would look the same? 

It’s easy to imagine how the Seattle Times would have covered the same inaction under a Republican legisture: “OLYMPIA GRIDLOCK SHOWS FAILURE OF G.O.P. PLANS” or “G.O.P. DODGES BIG ISSUES TILL AFTER ELECTION.” 

The amazing thing is that the Seattle Times is actually the less liberal, less biased of our major local papers (The Post-Intelligencer is vastly worse). 

Nevertheless, only in the world of liberal media would “inaction” by state legislators draw admiring press coverage.  

When a TV network offers new programming that’s entertaining, inspiring and substantive it’s enough to renew our faith in miracles. HBO’s epic eight hours on John Adams is precisely that sort of pop culture miracle: a lovingly-rendered tribute to the most misunderstood, most under-rated of our founding fathers. Aside from admirable attention to historical detail, the HBO miniseries offers perfect casting—with Paul Giamatti as an Adams who’s simultaneously brave, pompous, and selflessly patriotic. The luminous Laura Linney captures Adams’ wife Abigail, with dialogue based frequently on actual letters, providing a singularly moving portrait of a romantic, richly functional, lifelong marital partnership. The series also stresses the nobility of politics – without which, even battlefield heroism could come to naught. David Morse is appropriately noble, charismatic and dignified as George Washington while Tom Wilkinson enjoys the role of Ben Franklin nearly as much as Franklin himself enjoyed his long life. Every American over the age of ten should see this rewarding piece of work – while prepared to see brief, disturbing glimpses of war time violence. The John Adams miniseries runs on HBO every Sunday night through April.

(originally published in USA Today on March 12, 2008) 

On Monday, tens of millions of Americans of every race and background will join together to celebrate a uniquely cherished ethnic holiday — a tribute to despised, destitute Hibernian hordes whose descendants eventually claimed pride of place as the most popular of all immigrant groups. With mass immigration once again a contentious issue in our politics and culture, the St. Patrick's Day formula — combining Irish pride with unabashed, flag-waving Americanism — offers hope that current controversies might someday achieve similarly satisfactory resolution. 

There's little doubt that our annual "Great Day for the Irish" draws more attention than festive commemorations of other national origins (Columbus Day, Pulaski Day, Cinco de Mayo, Israeli Independence Day, you name it), complete with shamrock decorations turning up nearly everywhere, big city rivers sparkling with emerald dye, and school kids featuring green in their wardrobes under serious risk of pinching. The mostly positive images and emotions toward the Irish say as much about the character of the USA as they do about the sons and the daughters of the Auld Sod.  

Initial hostility  

In part, we love the Irish because we instinctively embrace underdogs. The Emerald Isle suffered hellish torments during 800 years of oppression by the English — the same arrogant colonialists we defied in our own Revolution. When the starving Irish began to arrive en masse during "The Great Hunger" of the 1840s, they initially faced fiery hostility from nativist Americans and encountered occasional posted notices declaring, "No Irish Need Apply." Agitation culminated with bloody riots against churches and convents, with the virulently anti-immigrant "Know Nothing" Party electing numerous governors and mayors and even running a former president (Millard Fillmore) as a credible contender for the White House. Despite such obstacles, Irish arrivals persevered, establishing a vibrant Catholic community, dominating police and fire departments within a generation, and playing the lead role in organizing labor unions and big-city political machines.  

When Harvard-educated millionaire John Fitzgerald Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, barely 110 years had passed since the American arrival of his famine-fleeing great-grandfather, Patrick Kennedy. That's the sort of poverty-to-power, rags-to-riches tale that has always inspired Americans in this nation of fresh starts and second chances.  

The other key element in the appeal of the Irish involves their instantaneous affirmation of American patriotism. Many other immigrant groups experienced a sense of divided loyalties, torn by nostalgic connections to old country nationalisms. In Ireland, however, English overlords ruthlessly suppressed expressions of national pride or distinctive culture (including Gaelic language) so that immigrants embraced Yankee symbols and customs with scant hesitation. That redoubtable patriotic ditty It's a Grand Old Flag came from Broadway composer George M. Cohan, simultaneously proud of his Irish heritage and his status as the original Yankee Doodle Dandy.  

German-Americans count as even more numerous than Irish-Americans (with 49 million claiming German ancestry, compared with 35 million saying they're Irish). But Ireland never became a rival world power or fought the United States in two brutal wars — preventing any contradiction between loyalty to origins and unquestioned love of the new homeland. John Ford, the legendary filmmaker whose classic westerns forever defined our cowboy heritage, proudly claimed that he began life as Sean Aloysius O'Feeny, the son of immigrants from County Galway. In addition to all the soul-stirring John Wayne horse-operas, Ford also made magnificent films (The Quiet Man, The Last Hurrah) celebrating Ireland and Irish-Americans. 

That same blend of heartfelt Americana and Emerald Isle nostalgia characterizes the annual revelry on St. Paddy's Day. Unlike other ethnic holidays, the festivities seem more familiar than exotic, more mainstream than multicultural. Irish names, accents and melodies have become inescapably American — not some demonstration of diversity or distinctive difference. Irish-ness feels comfortable, even cozy, in part because the sons of the Shamrock have been here so long (the first St. Patrick's Day Parade took place in New York in 1762) and most of them had arrived speaking English.  

For other immigrants  

It's impossible to imagine a sentimental hit song called When German Eyes Are Smiling, despite the countless contributions of German-Americans to our culture.  

Sports teams choose their names to convey a sense of classic American pluck, so it's unthinkable that the legendary Notre Dame football squad would call itself "The Fighting French" — even though it was French priests (honestly!) who founded that Indiana university in 1842. By the same token, in modern Boston immigrants from Italy have played almost as large a role as Celtic immigrants from Ireland, but the great basketball dynasty isn't known as the "Boston Italians."  

When St. Patrick's Day parades energize cities across the country, those processions feature marching bands, drill teams, floats and service clubs at least as likely to wave Cohan's Grand Old Flag as to carry the green-white-and-orange of the republic of Ireland. In fact, the festive frenzy of this now international holiday mostly began in the USA, and then spread back across the ocean to Dublin and communities of Irish migrs around the world.  

More recent immigrant groups can surely benefit from the Irish-American example, understanding that the enthusiastic, unequivocal embrace of American identity need not undermine pride in heritage and kinship durable enough to flourish for centuries. Amid all the happy sailing on waves of foamy green beer, Irish-Americans (and fellow celebrants) acknowledge no inconsistency between remembering a distinctive history and cherishing American patriotism, and no clash of colors between shamrock green and the red, white and blue.

Those parents who choose to place television sets in their children’s bedrooms sharply increase the risks for negative outcomes on a wide range of physiological, emotional, and academic measures. Collating stunning research from the world’s leading journals of pediatric and adolescent medicine, the Science Section of the New York Times (3-4-2008) concluded: “Children with bedroom TV’s score lower on school tests and are more likely to have sleep problems. Having a television in the bedroom is strongly associated with being overweight and a higher risk for smoking.” One alarming study of kids between the ages of 4 and 7, showed that placing a TV in the bedroom increased weekly viewing by nearly nine hours – from 21 hours, to 30. In these circumstances, children read less, and make less progress in school. What’s more, parents don’t keep track of what kids watch in their own rooms, or how much time they spend on the tube.  Dr. Leonard Epstein, professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine and Biomedical Science at the State University of New York at Buffalo, unequivocally declares: "I think it matters quite a lot. There are all kinds of problems that occur when kids have TV's in their bedroom." For instance, a 2002 study in the journal "Pediatrics" showed that the presence of bedroom TV's showed a greatly increased risk of problems with overweight and obesity -- especially for boys. Another study, this one in 2007 and also published in "Pediatrics," showed that middle school students 12-to-14 with bedroom televisions were more than twice as likely to start smoking as those without TV's -- even after controlling for such risk factors as having a parent or friend who smoked. It’s therefore deeply worrisome that a survey of third-graders at all income levels showed 70% of them with TV’s in the bedroom. For twenty years in books, articles and lectures I've been pleading for all parents who care about their kids to keep TV's out of their bedrooms, and if they're already there, then to fight the difficult fight that's necessary to remove them. Few changes at home  will benefit your family more immediately or more reliably than getting rid of television sets from every bedroom in the house.

For many people, it may seem inappropriate to use the terms “exciting” and “classical music” in the same sentence, but they might reconsider if they listened to an altogether stunning new version of Beethoven’s friendliest, most joyous symphony.

If you’re already familiar with the “Pastorale” (officially, the Symphony Number 6 in F Major) then you’ll discover new thrills and revelations in this glorious CD, and if you don’t know this music yet there’s never been a better way to savor it. This brand new release (on the excellent Swedish BIS label) also provides further evidence that in Minneapolis, of all places, a great and world class orchestra has emerged that’s worthy in every way to challenge the legendary bands in Berlin, Vienna, London, New York and Chicago.

For those who’ve seen the 1940 Walt Disney classic “Fantasia,” the Pastorale (in edited form) provides the musical basis for the segment featuring Greek gods and goddesses, centaurs and nymphs and other mythical creatures disporting themselves (sometimes comically) in an Olympian landscape.

Actually, the images Beethoven himself intended to transmit (this is his only symphony in which he wrote explicitly about the feelings and scenes he intended to convey) are far more compelling than Disney’s diversions. The titles for each of the five movements describe an experience that’s simultaneously physical and spiritual. The journey begins with “Pleasant, cheerful feelings awakened by arrival in the country,” as the music suggests the gentle rocking of a coach. The experience continues with “A scene by a brook” (complete with birdcalls and flowing water); a frantic, joyous, celebratory dance by country people, who are interrupted by a sudden (and suddenly ferocious) thunder storm. The final movement, one of the most heart-felt and glorious expressions of religious gratitude ever written by human hands, bears the title: “Shepherd’s Song: Sense of well-being, combined with thanks to the Lord after the storm.”

Beethoven’s music (premiered in 1808 when the composer was 38 and already losing his hearing) is so magnificently tuneful that it sounds beautiful and moving even in amateurish and sloppy performances, but the new edition with the Minnesota Orchestra and their brilliant conductor Osmo Vanska makes the familiar symphony sizzle and explode with fresh energy and inspiration. Recorded in Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis in June of last year, the performance conveys a sense of immediacy and youthful discovery that animates every episode, every phrase. The “arrival in the country” sequence isn’t just a soothing, warm bath of tranquil emotion this time: Vanska and his Minnesotans sound like they’re ready to throw open the door to that horse-drawn carriage, so they can run and leap through the green meadows and fields. The storm, when it arrives, is no mere meteorological episode; in this performance it’s genuinely terrifying, almost apocalyptic. Here, it’s more clear than ever before that Beethoven meant the thunder-claps and the howling winds to represent more than discomfort or inconvenience, and to stand in for all the darkness and menace and malevolence that intrudes so regularly into our lives.

This makes the song of thanksgiving all the more moving, of course, and in this movement the new Minnesota version soars well above all the literally hundreds of previously recorded performances. This hymn goes beyond gratitude, with its aura of rapture, even ecstasy, transporting listeners to a plane of Godly euphoria that Beethoven only reached again toward the end of his life (with the Ninth Symphony, the Missa Solemnis and above all the Late Quartets). Hearing this new CD should convince even the most stubborn skeptic that a classical orchestra, with all members playing their hearts out, can come closer than any other form of communication to approximating the ancient idea of “music of the spheres” – the divine sounds produced by heavenly bodies in their transit through the ether.

Obviously, I’ve always loved this music and I’ve listened closely to dozens of different versions. In fact, on vinyl, tape and CD, I own 14 other performances of the Pastorale. Until now, my favorite was a priceless gem from the early days of stereo, with Bruno Walter conducting the “Columbia Symphony Orchestra” (actually, a pick-up band made up largely of members of the LA Philharmonic) and recorded in the richly resonant acoustic of the Hollywood American Legion Hall in January, 1958. This fifty-year-old product still sounds great (especially in its re-release on Super Audio CD), with its old-school romantic caress of the long, flowing melodic lines and its unique attitude of awe-struck spirituality. Walter, who was 82 when he made this famous recording some four years before he died, certainly counts as one of the greatest conductors in history, and an incomparable representative of the German Romantic tradition that Beethoven himself helped to launch.

Osmo Vanska, on the other hand, is only 55 (still relatively young for a titan of conducting) and he’s been leading the Minnesota Orchestra for just five years. In that time, the fiercely focused Finn has taken a respected regional ensemble and sharpened and deepened and polished its playing to produce a series of Beethoven recordings that have drawn universal acclaim. Their prior performance of the Ninth Symphony, for instance, features the same rapturous mood as this Sixth, with a chorus that sounds absolutely otherworldly and angelic. For those who use CD players with Super Audio capability, the Minnesota series features Direct Stream Digital/SACD sound that’s detailed, deep and dynamically thrilling, but in its Hybrid release format (fully compatible with any and all CD players) it still sparkles.

The bonus on the new Pastorale release is a fleet, frisky reading of the genial First Symphony. If not as thrilling and revelatory as the featured work, this still formidable First once again highlights the crisp, responsive, unfailingly energetic playing of the Minnesotans and their new leader.

And where did this genius come from, with his wire-rimmed glasses, rubbery features, and wild curly hair as weird as his name? He spent most of the last twenty years specializing in Scandinavian music in his native Finland, and I’ve been listening to some electrifying Vanska recordings of Sibelius (with his impressive Lahti Symphony Orchestra) with considerable satisfaction. Since he arrived in the Midwest to revive his reportedly dispirited and floundering Minnesota band, some of the glowing Minneapolis press accounts have labeled Maestro Vanska “the Wizard of Osmo” and there is something unquestionably magical about music-making of this order.

The new CD isn’t particularly cheap (typically, about 17 bucks on the internet or at a store) but most happy customers will listen with pleasure and joy so many times that they’ll make the purchase a bargain.

Official information: BEETHOVEN SYMPHONIES NUMBERS 1 & 6 (“Pastorale”), with the Minnesota Orchestra conducted by Osmo Vanska. BIS SACD-1716.

The Philadelphia City Council has voted to evict the Boy Scouts of America from the headquarters building they’ve occupied for 80 years, punishing them for not allowing openly gay scouts or scout masters. Even though Scouting’s Cradle of Liberty Council has invested millions in constructing, restoring and maintaining their historic building, it’s located on city land and politicians want to enforce their “non-discrimination” policy by terminating a time-honored relationship.  

Scouting currently serves 56,000 Philadelphia youngsters—many of them inner city kids with no fathers. Rather than destroying a cherished program because it doesn’t meet their standards, why don’t gay rights activists start a new program that does?  

If they launched their own scouting program—call it “Rainbow Scouts”—they could serve even more kids, including some who feel excluded by the Boy Scouts. By choosing to wreck an existing organization, rather than building a constructive alternative, the left exposes its underlying intolerance and negativity.

In 82 years of supremely active living, William F. Buckley transformed American conservatism profoundly and permanently. He established once and for all that the phrase “conservative intellectual” wasn’t a contradiction in terms. In the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, when the word “conservative” conjured  images of grumpy old men, the dashing Buckley showed that right wing activism could be fun, frisky, elegant and invigorating. He relished playing Bach on the harpsichord, sailing, writing spy novels, and hosting a long-running TV show on PBS—normally a bastion of establishment liberalism.

Like his friend Ronald Reagan, Buckley brought sunny, sparkling energy to the conservative moment, and shunned its bigoted, mean-spirited extremes. Ironically, his passing coincides with embarrassing controversy over an angry talk show host using Barack Obama’s middle name as a form of insult and attack. That’s the kind of cheap shot that happy warrior Bill Buckley would have characterized as beneath the dignity of his great cause.

 The audience for this year’s Oscar telecast set an all-time record for low ratings—with the lowest raw number of viewers in thirty years, and the smallest audience share since the broadcast began (at the very dawn of the TV era) in 1953. Conventional wisdom suggests that this shattering public rejection resulted from the dark, depressing and edgy nature of most of the nominated films, but the disillusionment with Hollywood goes deeper than that. It’s not just that the entertainment elite lives in its own world, far removed from every-day American realities; after all, even in its popular heyday 60 years ago, “Tinseltown” seemed like an artificial land of make-believe with larger-than-life stars completely detached from the ordinary. But in Hollywood’s Golden Age, we looked on celebrities with admiration and envy; today, we often see them with contempt and pity. The scandal-obsessed, non-stop, cable-and-internet Britney-Lindsay-Paris culture focuses on broken lives and self-destructive decadence. Like passing a car wreck, it’s sometimes hard to look away, but if we have other choices for entertainment and escape than dwelling in this dysfunctional world, we generally take them. No wonder that most Americans declined the chance to give more than three hours of their lives to visit a twisted, indulgent and increasingly weird sub-culture, inhabited by more and more deeply depressing people. .  

1. Many observers have noted that the New York Times charges that McCain had an “inappropriate relationship” with lobbyist Vicki Iseman are based entirely on anonymous sources. The more important point is that even these anonymous sources never actually allege a scandalous relationship; they supposedly warned McCain about the appearance of such a relationship. In the article's most telling single sentence, the new York Times writes: “It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.” (Referring to the campaign of 2000, eight years ago). The obvious point is if those concerns were substantive and serious they would have intensified “in the heat of the campaign” rather than receding. This odd sentence is an indication that even the unidentified “associates” who said they were worried about McCain’s relationship dropped those concerns as the campaign advanced—a strong indication that the “concerns” were less dire than they once assumed. In any event, the nature of these charges is so vacuous, insubstantial, vague and unspecific that it’s hard to imagine any such media attack on a prominent Democrat. Please note the far more gingerly media treatment on the much-beter-sourced rumors of a John Edwards affair – not eight years ago, but this year.

2. McCain is hardly the first Republican politician smeared by media reports of creating the appearance  of an inappropriate relationship. Dan Quayle was also attacked for appearing at a charitable golf tournament with “an attractive blonde lobbyist”; the story went nowhere after emphatic denials. Gary Bauer (of all people) suffered similar attacks during his presidential campaign in 2000. President George Herbert Walker Bush faced absurd charges of an affair with a pretty female aide; he and Barbara were forced to indignantly deny it, just as McCain and Cindy did today.

3. The New York Times piece features a photo of media mogul Lowell W. Paxson, identifying him by saying that Ms. Iseman “lobbied Mr. McCain on his behalf.” The paper never identifies Paxson, however, as one of the nation’s most prominent Christian conservatives: an outspoken Evangelical whose PAX TV network attempted to offer a family-and-faith-friendly alternative to mainstream TV. McCain should be proud of any association with Bud Paxson, not ashamed of it. He should also be proud of a detail the article notes in passing, that Mr. McCain “sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed.” This is an important issue for social conservatives: allowing consumers to get packages that exclude the Playboy Channel, MTV and other racy fare.

All in all, this pathetic smear should remind people about McCain’s conservative commitment, over a quarter century in Congress. He’s specifically smeared for his association with a stalwart and outspoken Christian businessman—an association with should reflect credit, not disgrace, on the Arizona Senator.

David Tyree of the New York Giants became an NFL hero with an amazingly improbable catch (against his own helmet) that clinched his team’s upset victory in the Superbowl. But Tyree doesn’t see Superbowl Sunday as the greatest day of his life—he gives that distinction to the time of a drug arrest in 2004. Busted with a half-pound of marijuana and locked in a rough stone cell, Tyree says he hit bottom after more than a decade of drug and alcohol abuse. Making a decisive commitment to Christian faith, he married the mother of his two illegitimate boys and they’re now regular churchgoers who are expecting twin girls. They also created a charitable foundation to help youngsters make better choices than Tyree as an adolescent. David Tyree’s inspiring story also offers important perspective on drug laws. Legalization of drugs wouldn’t be a way to help people like him, but rather would be a way to give up on them. 

My previous blog about John McCain's outspoken OPPOSITION to the Fairness Doctrine (he introduced last year's "Broadcaster Freedom Act" to prevent a future Democratic Congress from killing talk radio with this bureaucratic nightmare) has drawn considerable comment within the talk radio world. The following item appeared today on a blog called TAYLOR ON RADIO-INFO:

Salem talker Michael Medved keeps calling out other conservative talkers – about McCain.

Medved says the “bitter, highly personal, spiteful and relentless” attacks by the conservative talk establishment on John McCain should cease – at least long enough to acknowledge that McCain’s been leading the fight to keep some Democrats from trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Medved’s Townhall column says “the Fairness Doctrine would be a devastating assault on free speech. McCain-Feingold, for all its faults” – one of the reasons McCain’s been “ripped, reamed and smeared” – “was not.” This year’s turning out to be a wake-up call for talk radio, don’t you think? With Rush Limbaugh and others complaining about the choices made by the voters in many of the primaries and caucuses. I heard from talk consultant John Mainelli – the g uy who brought Rush to WABC, New York – and John says “The funny thing is that I now think that returning the Fairness Doctrine would be a very good thing. The Fairness Doctrine would sure as hell put an end to all these one-note, crusading, agenda-driven talkshows. Or at least the hosts would have to be a tiny bit clever to sneak around the rules, like everybody used to. Maybe they would actually have to become thoughtful, insightful, open-minded, and possibly even humorous.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, the illuminating part of this item involves the comments from the top industry professional John Mainelli. I think it's chilling that even someone within our medium would want the government and the FCC to regulate the content of talk shows and the programming of talk stations. Like Senator McCain, I'm COMPLETELY opposed to any such crackdown.

However, when even a prominent radio insider things the Fairness Doctrine "would be a very good thing" it tells you something about the depth of the disaster for our industry in its one-sided, monochromatic, hysterical and grotesquely unfair focus.

Wouldn't it help our industry if we achieved more fairness, and promoted more open debate, without bringing government censorship down on us? Sure, it's fine to uphold conservative principles -- that's what I try to do, without compromise, every day. I don't want to change conservatism -- I want to promote it and advance it, and I believe that McCain's candidacy provides the best vehicle for implementing conservative values and ideas.  I know many of my colleagues sincerely disagree. And sure, it's fine and fair if your concept of those principles leads you to support Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or in the (apparently serious) case of Ann Coulter, Hillary Clinton.

But demonizing a Republican candidate you oppose (McCain), with relentless and unaswered and endlessly repeated distortions and outright lies, makes our industry look bad, far more than it makes McCain look bad. Indulging in daily hsteria isn't a way to help the country, the GOP, or talk radio.

The Arizona Senator (and, yes potential president) will continue to fight with us to block liberal attempts to "balance" talk radio with government fiat. But when a widely-respected radio pro takes the other side of this truly threatening issue, shouldn't it persuade us to reconsider a self-destructive course?  

 

Let’s say you’re attacking someone every day, criticizing some perceived enemy in a tone that is bitter, highly personal, spiteful and relentless. Now imagine, for the sake of argument, that at the very climax of your over-the-top abuse, the object of your assaults makes a point to defend your right to continue to slime him.

 

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to interrupt your derision for a few moments at least, to acknowledge the other guy’s courage and integrity—and to salute his support for the First Amendment?

 

Why, then, no acknowledgement by the most prominent conservative talkers on the radio of John McCain’s principled – and appropriate – efforts to block Democrats who seek to reinstitute the awful Fairness Doctrine?

 

Please check out this brief, but hugely important piece by Mike Sunnocks for the Phoenix Business Journal from June 29, 2007:

 

McCAIN INTRODUCES TALK RADIO LEGISLATION

 

Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced federal legislation to protect talk radio shows from the reinstatement of past rules that required dissenting voices be given equal time on their shows.

 

McCain and fellow GOP Senators John Thune of South Dakot and Norm Coleman of Minnesota have put forward legislation preventing the reinstatement of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

 

The Fairness Doctrine was done away with in 1987 but previously required political radio shows to offer equal time to opposing viewpoints as part of their Federal Communications Commission licenses.

 

A number of Democrats and liberal advocates want the Fairness Doctrine put back in place. They do not like the fact talk radio is dominated by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.

 

McCain said imposing such rules would stifle free speech and there are plenty of political viewpoints in the marketplace.

 

Conservative radio talkers have criticized McCain for his stance in favor of immigration reform.

 

Reasonable people will agree, I think, that this last line is an almost comical understatement. Conservative talkers didn’t just “criticize” McCain on immigration – they ripped him, reamed him, smeared him every hour of every day, particularly in the middle of last summer (with immigration hysteria at its height).

 

In other words, at the very moment that talk show hosts concentrated their angry fire on McCain himself (more than any Democrat), the Arizona Senator introduced legislation to defend them from big-government/liberal interference. (A similar bill to block the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana—himself a former radio host—and passed easily).

 

I became aware of McCain’s role in this issue as part of my efforts to defend the Senator from the ridiculous charges that he has no respect for free speech or the Constitution. It occurred to me that he could counter such current attacks by standing up strongly against the Fairness Doctrine. I planned to communicate with the Senator to convey my bright idea, but after researching the issue I discovered he was way ahead of me: he’d already introduced his Free Speech Protection legislation some six months ago.

 

There are two important points that need to be made about this issue:

 

1. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD BE A DEVASTATING ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH; McCAIN-FEINGOLD, FOR ALL ITS FAULTS, WAS NOT. Everyone in talk radio knows that imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would destroy our industry overnight. You can’t operate a radio station if you have to “balance” a successful show with another show of the opposite point of view that may or may not be successful. The whole idea makes as much sense as requiring country music stations to “balance” Toby Keith with Mozart and Kanye West. It’s no accident that the whole conservative talk industry, led by El Rushbo, only emerged after the Fairness Doctrine disappeared (under Reagan). McCain-Feingold, on the other hand, has hardly destroyed or stifled free-wheeling political expression in the United States. The six years since the bill’s passage have have produced a shortage of political advertising, or imposed formidable difficulties in spending money to debate issues. The impact of the bill has been so insignificant that none of its critics actually advocate its repeal. It matters far more, in other words, that McCain continues to battle the Fairness Doctrine (that would seriously damage political debate in the media) than that he cosponsored a silly and ineffective piece of legislation (that left vigorous debate vigorously intact).

 

2. THOSE RADIO HOSTS WHO CLAIM THAT McCAIN AND HIS DEMOCRATIC RIVALS ARE “INTERCHANGABLE” SHOULD NOT IGNORE THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE. Leading Democrats (including John Kerry and Senate Whip Dick Durbin) have publicly supported the idea that a new Democratic president should seriously consider “reigning in” talk radio and gagging leading talkers with the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have said nothing to contradict them – indicating that they are, at the very least, open to the idea. Top talk show hosts have warned repeatedly that Hillary Clinton as president would attempt to wreck our industry. Why no corresponding acknowledgment that McCain has placed himself firmly, courageously on the other side—our side? If our industry counts (and it surely does), then it also matters that Mac means to defend talk radio, while prominent liberals pledge to destroy it. Contrary to all those who insist that McCain, Clinton and Obama are virtually identical in their “liberalism,” this issue (along with at lest two-dozen others) shows a world of difference between Mac’s conservative values and record, and the fatuous “progressive” leanings of the leading Democrats.

 

It’s important to me as a talk show host and as an American that John McCain has already stood up to defend conservative talk radio even while its most prominent practitioners used their microphones to defame the man every day. A lesser politician might easily succumb to the temptation to deploy government power – or even the threat of government power – to silence the chorus of hysterically strident voices raised against him. McCain’s refusal to do so says something powerful about his character.

 

And the fact that leading talkers have never acknowledged the Senator’s integrity and leadership on this issue also reveals something significant about the character of his critics.

 

 

 

SOUTH CAROLINA’S BIG LOSER: TALK RADIO

It’s obvious that the big winner in South Carolina was John McCain (grabbing 33% of the vote in a hard-fought win and 19 of the 22 awarded delegates), but it’s also worth pausing for a moment to identify the primary’s biggest loser.

That loser wasn’t Mike Huckabee (who ran a strong second with 30% of the vote and will certainly continue his underdog campaign), nor was it Fred Thompson (who placed third with 16%, despite talk of his last minute surge) or even Mitt Romney (with a feeble fourth place finish, despite investing more money in the state than any of his rivals).

The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight.

For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If you’ve tuned in at all to Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck. As always, led by Rush Limbaugh (who because of talent and seniority continues to dominate the medium) the talk radio herd has ridden in precisely the same direction, insisting that McCain and Huckabee deserve no support because they’re not “real conservatives.”  A month ago, the angry right launched the slogan that Mike Huckabee is a “pro-life liberal.” More recently, after McCain’s energizing victory in New Hampshire, they trotted out the mantra that the Arizona Senator (with a life-time rating for his Congressional voting record of 83% from the American Conservative Union) is a “pro-war liberal.”

Well, the two alleged “liberals,” McCain and Huckabee just swept a total of 63% of the Republican vote in deeply conservative South Carolina. Meanwhile, the two darlings of talk radio -- Mitt Romney and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson—combined for an anemic 31% of the vote. 

How conservative was the electorate that cast ballots on Saturday (in a big, enthusiastic turnout despite inclement weather)? Exit polls showed 69% of GOP voters described themselves as “conservative” (as opposed to “liberal” or “moderate.”) Among those self-styled conservatives, an overwhelming 61% went for Mac and Huck; only 35% for Mitt and Fred). 

The exit polls even sorted out voters who described themselves as “VERY conservative” –a group that represented a full 34% of the primary day electorate. If any segment of the public should have been influenced by all the apocalyptic shouting about “the end of conservatism” if Huckabee or McCain led a national ticket and defined a new direction for the GOP, it would have been these folks. Among “Very Conservative” voters, however, Huckabee won handily (with 41%).  Again, the Huck-and-Mac duo, representing talk radio’s two designated villains, swept 60% of the “Very Conservative” voters in very conservative South Carolina while Mitt and Fred combined for only 38% (22% for Thompson, 16% for Romney).

In other words, even among the most right wing segment of the South Carolina electorate, talk radio failed – and failed miserably – in efforts to destroy and discredit Huckabee and McCain.

As the campaign moves forward, my colleagues in talk radio (along with program directors, general managers, advertisers and the other segments of our industry) ought to reconsider the one-sided, embittered negativity toward two of our four surviving candidates for President (Fred Thompson’s departure from the race is reportedly imminent, after he “consults” with his hospital bound mother).

McCain and Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives --and so, for that matter, are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter (who’s due to leave the race within twenty-four hours).  Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates each of whom, in his own way, represents different aspects of the Reagan legacy?

There’s no need to pretend that the candidates are identically conservative (they’re certainly not), or equally qualified, or similarly appealing. But they’re all solid Republicans, dedicated public servants, and worthy contenders for the party’s nomination. Most important, each of them is vastly preferable to Clinton or Obama.

Heading into Florida (on January 29^th) we need to acknowledge that one of four remaining contenders will almost certainly head the Republican ticket. He (whoever he turns out to be) will need a united party and a revived, renewed conservative coalition.

South Carolina demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of concerted efforts by the conservative media elite to derail the campaigns of two popular candidates. Continued efforts in that direction will prove no more effective, and will hurt both our industry and the Republican Party.

In other words, the talk radio jihad against Mac and Huck hasn’t destroyed or even visibly damaged those candidates. But it has damaged, and may help destroy, talk radio
 

BEST OF YEAR:
1. ATONEMENT - Keira Knightly, James McAvoy
2. AMAZING GRACE - Ioan Gruffudd, Albert Finney (The story of William Wilberforce)
3. THE KITE RUNNER - Based on the best-selling novel, and from the director of "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland"
4. RATATOUILLE - Animated film with voices of Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, and Patton Oswalt
5. THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD - Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck
6. GONE BABY GONE - Casey Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris (Directed by Ben Affleck)
7. 3.10 TO YUMA - Russell Crowe, Christian Bale
8. BREACH - Chris Cooper, Ryan Philippe, Laura Linney (True story of FBI turncoat Robert Hansen)
9. AMERICAN GANGSTER - Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe
10. HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX - Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint (Installment five of the series)

HONORABLE MENTION:
SPIDERMAN 3 - Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst
THERE WILL BE BLOOD - Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano (There Will Be Oscars)
BEOWULF - Animated with voices of Ray Winstone, Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB - Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman, Maggie Grace
ENCHANTED - Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, Susan Sarandon

WORST OF THE YEAR:
BUG (Ashley Judd becomes Ashley Bug) - Ashley Judd, Harry Connick, Jr<

RUNNERS UP (no particular odor):
GEORGIA RULE (Jane Fonda attacks Mormons) - Jane Fonda, Lindsay Lohan, Felicity Huffman
THE NUMBER 23 (Jim Carrey deep in The Number 2) - Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen
HANNIBAL RISING (sinking-without Anthony Hopkins) - Gaspard Ulliel
EPIC MOVIE (Epic Bomb) - Jennifer Coolidge, Fred Willard
EL CANTANTE (New Low for J-Lo) - Jennifer Lopez with hubbie Marc Anthony
REDACTED (Brian Does Baghdad) - Anti-military extravaganza from director Brian De Palma
HOT ROD (Andy Samberg's Less Lively than Evil Knievel) - Andy Samberg, Isla Fisher
LICENSE TO WED (another Robin Williams triumph) -Mandy Moore, Robin Williams, John Krasinski
THE HEARTBREAK KID (Ben Stiller's Honeymoon From Hell) - Ben Stiller, Malin Akerman, Michelle Monaghan

DISHONORABLE MENTION:
RENDITION - Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal
LIONS FOR LAMBS (Lambs for the Slaughter) - Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep
IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH ("Elah" is an anagram for "Heal"?) - Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, James Franco
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WIT'S END - Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly, Geoffrey Rush
SHOOT 'EM UP (And Flush 'Em Down) - Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti
CATCH AND RELEASE (throw it back-- despite Jennifer Garner) - Jennifer Garner, Timothy Olyphant