"A Misuse of Talk Radio"

Welcome to the blogosphere, David Postman.

The savvy new blog posted by chief Seattle Times political writer David Postman will, we predict, be a must-read for professional pols and political junkies alike.

It sure will be for us if he keeps posting items like this morning's, "A Misuse of Talk Radio?"

As the state Supreme Court gets ready to consider whether talk show hosts campaigned illegally by promoting an anti-gas tax initiative last year, one talker says it was "a misuse of talk radio." And he's no liberal, but Bryan Suits, a host who shares the airwaves at KVI with John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur, the two accused of using talk-show time to campaign for Initiative 912.
Suits told the Mainstream Republicans conference Saturday, "This is me airing an internal, private business debate."

  "My radio station crossed the line in my book in terms of going from advocacy to leadership on a political issue, which is why the 912 talk stopped at 6 p.m. when I came on the air and my name was never on the initiative."

Does the Bad Lieutenant's libertarian, contrarian views signal a philosophical split in the KVI line-up?

You bet it does. (Not that it makes any difference in terms of much of anything). Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson are partisan Republicans who acted in the I-912 issue in an ill-fated effort to stick it to a Democratic Governor and Legislature, grab some Party clout for themselves and galvanize their listeners. They failed at the first two and arguably succeeded at the last.

But in the process, they further split off libertarian conservatives like Suits; and pissed off the business Republicans so important to new sleek Republican office seekers like Rossi, and McGavick.

Social conservatives, once so strong in the state Party have been thrown under the bus by the hated Party "pragmatists." like former Chair Chris Vance and now they believe, Diane Tebelius. We haven't heard the end of them, though-  the anti-gay rights referendum making the rounds for signatures right now will distract them and if it gets on the ballot, it'll bring 'em to the polls to be used once again by the craven Republicans.

Comments

[joanie]

I like David Postman a lot! He's a reasoned intellectual and I appreciate his take on things.

Really miss the Dan Evans republicans - I could have been one of those without feeling too guilty. His words should be read and reread by every republican in the party! I especially liked his take on the Constitution: it should NEVER be used to restrict rights!

Finally, have never liked McGavick. He's the typical current repub conservative. He thinks he's the level-headed businessman that knows best for everybody. He views himself as "Father Knows Best" and I view him as Lakoff's "strict father." I don't find him charming or charismatic.

When are the moderate republicans (if there are any anymore!) going to get smart and realize they are really democrats who haven't changed labels yet?

I'm going to turn Green!

[joanie]

Sorry I got caught up in the McGavick thing cause I don't like him and it seems like the so successful Dan Evans era has been lost completely in the memories of citizens.

Three cheers for Bryan Suits!

(This doesn't mean, of course, that I'll listen to him!)

[sparky]

Interesting thread, Michael, on the heels of the news that Gonzales yesterday said that reporters could be prosecuted for their "speech."

Chilling

[joanie]

Wasn't that for reporting so-called "classified" information? I wonder how this would interface with the Robert Novak-Valerie Plame outing?

Sparky, everything this administration does is chilling!

[sparky]

Well, the official argument is prosecution for "leaking" information. But without such leaks, we would have never found out about
Watergate.
While the official excuse is for leaks, this administration has had a hate-hate relationship with the press, and they dont want any stories critical of the President to be printed...so this very slippery slope could soon become censorship or sedition.

And Congress says nothing.....

[joanie]

Sparky, I agree. Yours was an astute connection.

While this guy has only two years or so left and is considered a lame duck, he seems to be in the business of deconstructing our democracy amendment by amendment, signing statement by signing statement, and antiquated law by antiquated law. I think it is going to be a long two years!

[JC]

What we need on both a local and national level is to find liberal "wedge issues" to exploit. Though even with global warming and/or stem cell research on the ballots, there's no liberal institution that has the pull the conservative churches have to pressure people to vote.

[RedRachel]

I think an anti-gay law is just what this communist state needs! I say LOCK THEM ALL UP! As someone who is right in line with the thoughts of most of mainstream america I know that nobody wants the gay on our streets! I say if are law enforcement officials see people involved in a homosexual act they should lock them up! If the homos want to continue with all of there heavy petting and whatnot there, let them go for it. I say that as long as I can't see it IT DOESNT EXIST! Americans are sick and tired of all the democrats coming over with there attractive same-sex peices of eyecandy trying to taunt us and make us think of doing things that we know we shouldnt do. ITS NOT RIGHT! Is it fair for the liberals to send some pretty little 20 year old girl over to walk back and forth in front of my house dressed in some little skimpy outfit and make me think of terrible thoughts? I DONT THINK SO!!! We need to put a stop to it and put a stop to it RIGHT NOW!!! Im not going to throw my life away in order to give into some sick and discusting urge that has been created by the left in an effort to corupt all of my morals and Im not going to let it happen to anybody else! NICE TRY BUT IM NOT FALLING FOR IT!!!

[sparky]

Nice try...but I'm not falling for it.

[Brian]

It certainly seems a risky venture to immediately assign motives to actions, such as, "...to stick it to a Democratic Governor and Legislature, grab some Party clout for themselves and galvanize their listeners."

This is all the more so when the person(s) in question assert different motives which also are in line with their actions. Seems Occam's razor would incline one toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the concept that they are stating their true purposes.

I was really angry that the legislature assigned "emergency" status to their actions, when the issues were clearly not of an emergency nature.

It seems quite clear that the political use for doing this was to exclude the citizenry from the process--something which enfuriates me.

The legislature works for me, not the other way around.

And if foresight were not enough to figure out the way the wind blows on this issue, in hindsight the first action that the legislature took with the emergency money was bike-trail work!

We were lied to about the results of the bill to get us to like it, and we were excluded from the process (as best they could).

This is in nowise associated with "sticking it to the governor."
This is in nowise associated with increasing political clout.
And I would assert that all it took to galvanize was to let people know what was going on. They got galvnized because the legislature's actions were such an affront to the citizenry.

[Dana]

Brian, I hope what you posted wasn't addressed to RR because if you think RR pays any attention to a reasoned, thoughtful, rational, logical and calm argument, think again.

However, intelligent people like ME appreciate it! :-)

[TJ]

(sry, Sparky, and everyone else - I'm falling for it :))...

ReRa, plz continue you're getting me hot...

however, you better check the "20 year old girl"'s I.D. first - wouldn't wanna go to jail for cradle-robbing, wouldja?

[joanie]

Brian, the legislature doesn't really 'work" for you. It supposedly "represents" you. The legislators are there because they represent the greatest number of citizens (by virtue of the fact those citizens voted for them) and one would assume that their actions reflect decision-making that would concur with the voters who voted for them if those voters were privy to the same influences and facts.

Just because some people don't like the decisions doesn't mean the majority doesn't.

Unfortunately, it works the same way at the national level. I can tell you that I don't like what's going on up there at all. But, my only alternative is to vote them out. Why can't you accept that same reality?

Also, you'll never convince me that Carlson isn't first and foremost a political animal who would run again in a heartbeat if given the slightest encouragement.

That the right has to resort to the cheap shot of enticing voters to the polls by putting up emotional so-called moral issues should not only sicken all of us but is evidence of the dearth of quality and substance on the right.

[joanie]

Just finished reading "Eli Sanders "War on Jim McDermott" and am wondering if anyone else see's a connection between Gonzales' attempt to limit speech of print media and the fact that McDermott's case may be headed for the Supreme Court with a bevy of briefs from print media including the NY Times.

The story points out that if the nine justices go McDermott's way, it will remind the public of a previous repub scandal involving Gingrich. These guys are street savvy and I think they're way ahead of the situation and are doing what they can to set the stage for a Boehner win. It is a Machiavellian move and right up their alley.

[Brian]

Joanie,

What you said certainly contains truth, though not all of it. (That's not a slam; who could put all of the truth into a post?!?)

But what got me to respond was, "...my only alternative is to vote them out. Why can't you accept that same reality?"

This seems to obviate the existence of the referendum process and the initiative process. Built into the Washingtonian system are at the very least these 2 mechanisms for direct citizen action--it's not just 'all legislature.'

But as long as I'm here, let me add this:
If I hire a lawyer to represent me, I expect to have some influence on his actions. He should not follow my influence to the point of stepping outside legal behavior, but neither should he ignore me.

In ways it is the same with the legislature. They are--exactly as you say--representative. But they sought to nullify the referendic (I made up that adjective) capacity of the citizenry by asserting an emergency status to something outside the intent of the emergency mechanism they have. (It is supposed to apply to things like emergency funds to run the government if there is a legislative impasse on a budget, and so on.) Asserting an emergency staus moved them from the realm of the representative to the realm of tyranny.

It would be nice to believe that the members of government are there because they indeed did get the greatest number of votes--but that's a different topic...

[joanie]

I knew you would reference referendums and initiatives but, as you say, tried to keep the post concise and focused. I pretty much still stand by what I said. I think we have so much chaos because a few people keep trying to have it their way even though we have a legislature that was duly elected to represent us.

Again, I have to trust them to do the right thing . . . hard to say when I see what is happening at the national level. But, still, I have no reason to think any of these elected representatives at the State level has anything but the best intentions regarding the State of Washington and its citizenry.

Second-guessing by a group of people doesn't change that. Also, a lot of people sign petitions because they don't really care, know the facts or figure why not put it on the ballot and then I'll decide. Is that any way to govern?