Unfettered Letters

A Rush to repeat history

For all of our mega bookstores, we Americans do not study or learn from history. Time after time we let ourselves be yanked about by hateful and ignorant demagogues.

Since so many of us in the home of the brave are driven by ignorance, hatred and blind fear instead of intelligence, magnanimity and courage, gutter snipes like Joseph McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, and Father Charles Coughlin can jerk us about by the rings inserted in our nostrils.

Coughlin, an errant Roman Catholic priest, was the progenitor of the radio demagogues, spewing forth vitriol and hatred to his adoring millions in the 1920s to the 1940s in America.

In tough economic times — or not — unscrupulous media executives and advertisers can literally bank on “incendiary” and “ugly” pundits shoveling in profits — the wrong kind of prophets — while little regarding the legacy it sows in American soils.

We call mammon “capitalism” and put it on high. We get the blissful ignorance we deserve.

Michael Steele saw the truth and spoke it by calling Rush Limbaugh’s message “incendiary” and “ugly.” He then changed his tack and said the emperor was fully clothed.
When will we ever learn?

Roger Goldblatt
Kansas City

Understanding Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh might not even be a conservative, but he is contentious. He’s a true American dream story — a boy from lower Missouri makes the big time with “talent on loan from God.” This talent has earned him big bucks as a radio commentator and talk show host.
He speaks from his point of view of what the GOP needs, and that means the U.S. needs it as well. He is loud, obnoxious and boisterous, but he is not dumb. His show didn’t need a bailout, although the Big Bailout gave him lots of fodder for his cannon.
If the donkey party has half a brain they will not play his game. They will only lose. Rush has nothing to lose. The Democrats need to understand this.
Bruce D. Pasley
Laddonia, Mo.

Limbaugh and the GOP

I am disappointed to see columnist Jonah Goldberg come to Rush Limbaugh’s defense (3/5, Opinion, “Rush to judge Rush doesn’t advance debate”).

Limbaugh is popular because he can make outrageous remarks and get by with it. Some agree with what he says but are not comfortable expressing the same opinion out loud, so Limbaugh has become their voice.

Mr. Goldberg’s reasoning that he also wants President Obama’s programs to fail, but of course he wants to see the stock market come back, doesn’t make a lot of sense. President Obama inherited this economy and debt, which took the former president eight years to produce. But the Republicans have jumped in with criticism after only a few weeks of Obama’s inauguration. When recovery comes, it will mean that Obama was on the right track, but the Republicans aren’t being shy about letting everyone know they don’t want him to succeed.

Limbaugh’s rhetoric is what freedom of speech is about, and we are so lucky to be Americans, but he is a negative force at this most difficult time for our country and the economy.

Barbara Pfaff
Gladstone

Jonah Goldberg was right. Conservatives need another William F. Buckley Jr. Rather than the incendiary bombs of a Rush Limbaugh, conservatism needs an intellectual undergirding. Bill Buckley was respected because even if you disagreed, he made you think and improve your ideas.

I believe, however, as much as conservatives need a Buckley, they really need a Margaret Chase Smith. In 1950, she was the first Republican to stand up to Joseph McCarthy. She stressed she wanted Republican victory, but “I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to potential victory on the four horsemen of calumny — fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.”

We need a strong two-party system in this country. Hopefully, there is a present-day Margaret Chase Smith with the courage to speak for principles and ideas, unafraid of the emperor of dittoheads.

“No” is not a solution to the nation’s problems.

Bond Faulwell
Overland Park

Let me get this straight. The Republican Party, the party that has sold itself for years as the only one that can keep us safe from foreign interests, terrorists and economic meltdown, is now the party that doesn’t have the guts to stand up to a radio personality?

That’s just pathetic.

Bud Simpson
Kansas City

Driven to switch to satellite radio

Some brilliant radio executive saw fit to pull the plug on 99.7 the Boulevard. So their button was immediately pulled from my dial.

You’ve got to admit that KY had grown stale. But we were blessed to have it replaced last year by the Boulevard, with the best mix of adult rock one could ask for. And without yammering DJs. I was so pleased, I never felt the need to install my satellite radio in my new car.

Now we’re expected to listen to yammering DJs, the likes of whom grew old with a teeny-bopper audience.

Record temperature highs next week will provide the perfect opportunity to install my satellite docking station in my wheels.

Will they ever learn?

Kevin Bukaty
Olathe

Talk radio hosts should tone it down

I agree with William H. Corken (12/23, Letters) that the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea. The Obama administration will have far too much to occupy them, though, thanks to Mr. Bush and friends.

However, the more rigid talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh (who is already hoping Obama will fail) could be a little more diplomatic. These are, after all, the same people who thought the liberal commentators were too critical of Bush.

If it is the office that deserves respect, Obama deserves it until he screws up.

Gerry Wilson
Excelsior Springs

Fairness Doctrine unfair

The “Fairness Doctrine,” as proposed to our Congress, is nothing but an attempt to silence any criticism made by talk radio. Some of the conservative talk show hosts would be forced off the air.

Is it possible that such a law could pass in America?

William H. Corken
Lee’s Summit

AM radio doesn’t preach hate

John Meyer (11/24, Letters, “Fairness Doctrine for airwaves”) accuses AM radio talk-show hosts of preaching division and hate. Could it be that said hosts express a conservative worldview diametrically opposed to the liberal views voiced in most other media outlets? The division exists due to two opposing ideologies; the hosts don’t create the division.

Disagreeing, criticizing, exposing otherwise unreported information and questioning political correctness are not hate. As to fair and balanced airwaves, there are no laws prohibiting liberals from airing their views.

As a consistent listener to talk radio, I don’t hear hosts or callers “filled with hate” toward Barack Obama. Do they disagree with his positions and voting record? Yes! They want smaller government, not more bureaucracy; strong military, not appeasement; free market enterprise, not socialism; adhering to our longstanding Constitution, not rewriting it; lower taxes, individual freedom and responsibility.

If Mr. Meyer would listen carefully to sound conservative principles, he might realize the ignorance of which he speaks of lies in the minds of many liberals.

Antoinette Sluga

Paola, Kan.

Fairness Doctrine unnecessary

I would like to respond to those who would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated so that there can be regulation of certain programs or talk-show hosts who happen to have a differing opinion other than their own.

Whenever people complained about a new TV show that might contain offensive content, they were told to deal with it and change the channel or turn the TV off if they didn’t like it. So I say to you the same thing. Deal with it.

Why is it so hard to change the radio station or turn it off completely? Have you ever heard of putting in a CD or a cassette? Why not invest in a satellite radio? You can find plenty of news and talk radio to your liking there.

Talk radio, just like TV shows, news channels and the newspaper, is driven by ratings. If you turn it off, change the channel or quit subscribing to it, it will go away on its own without the unnecessary regulation of the Fairness Doctrine.

Kellis Miller

Blue Springs

Limbaugh is ‘oasis of sanity’

William R. Lenz (7/9, Letters) is appalled at Rush Limbaugh’s big new contract (7/3, A-6, “Limbaugh signs $400 million deal.”)

Typical of the left, he demagogically demonizes responsible opposing points of view as continuing to “poison the political discourse with hate speech.” How dare such a person achieve wealth in the free marketplace!

Rush Limbaugh is successful because he provides an oasis of sanity — an appealing alternative to the almost monolithic liberal bias of the mass media and its leftist allies from the two worlds of make-believe, academia and Hollywood.

Face it. When conservatives hit it big, Trotskyites gnash their teeth.

Michael T. Murphy
Prairie Village

Rush Limbaugh, elitist

I am appalled that Premiere Radio Networks will give Rush Limbaugh $400 million (7/3, A-6) so that he can continue to poison this country’s political discourse with his hate speech and gross misrepresentations of the truth.

It is easy to see why Limbaugh is a strong advocate of President Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy. Any of his listeners who believe he speaks for the common man are deceiving themselves, for Rush Limbaugh is a true elitist. Besides his enormous wealth, he lives in a $25 million oceanfront mansion in Florida, associates primarily with the rich and powerful, and believes that all that he says and advocates is indisputable.

Those who complain about the animosity between political parties in this country need look no further than Rush Limbaugh to see where such animosities are nurtured.

William R. Lenz
Kansas City