Comments on: Radio LIVE ONLINE Wed. (11/15) 10:30 am Charles Goyette Show

By: Adam S.

Adam S. — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:02:52 +0000

When I saw the picture of Charles Goyette, I did recognize him. He did an interview with Frontline after he was sacked explaining the politics of dissent. That was a decent piece of writing that matches the caliber of his show, that I finally heard. I will now try to listen to him when I get the chance.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:15:38 +0000

Ryan - thanks for the feedback. That question on why folks don’t get more riled was excellent - my answer could have been more on point, but the initial caffeine injection was wearing off at that point.

The arrest of the guy who spoke to Cheney recently should have gotten far more news coverage than it did.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:02:25 +0000

Jim,

As always, you did a fine and entertaining interview with Charles. In regard to that one questioner who ask why folks didn’t get more outraged over this stuff I have my own idea. Clinton used to be damned on the radio by the Bush lovers of today for using the SS to arrest protestors for wearing shirts or holding signs showing their disagreement with him. Say one thing for Bush, he’s learned well from Clinton when it comes to this sort of harassment. He does the same thing and even though they’ll probably be released without charges, most folks simply don’t relish being locked up in jail for a day for making a political statement.
=========
Charles,

I know you read this blog. Thanks for getting the management to change the traffic report music from that gawdawful “Jetsons” theme music they used to use. Something like that could run off listeners.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:52:55 +0000

Adam,

Here’s something written by Goyette about his trials and tribulations as a talk radio host in a neocon environment you’ll enjoy.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_02_02/article3.html

By: Adam S.

Adam S. — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:44 +0000

I am going to really have to go out of my way to listen to Mr.Goyette, if he is as free-flowing as people say. I have learned that Liberals and Conservatives, whatever those terms mean, never seem to get anywhere because they fundamentally embody bad ideas. And nothing is as irrefutable as a bad idea. One is forced into a tawdry either/or scenario, when the real answer is neither.
Both of the major factions have nothing to offer us. Liberals are anymore full of “tone-deaf ,champagne populism” and anti-capitalist hysteria. Conservatives have only unending pessimism that relies on political action to solve the world’s problems. In fact, I recommend one read John Kekes to see why conservatism is a flaming wreck. His book “Against Liberalism” confuses liberals with libertarianism and treats Hayek like a conservative. Just the same, he faults liberalism for not being pessimistic about human nature. (Martin Luther King said “I have a dream”; George W. Bush says only “I have a nightmare” )

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:30:02 +0000

George - thanks for listening to the interview.

Goyette is lots of fun to be on with - he gives a guest plenty of room to roam, humor-wise. And the callers were excellent as well.

By: George

George — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:27:22 +0000

Isn’t that funny, Adam S.?

Republican “conservatives” often complain about liberals playing the PC (politically correct) card, but they themselves play the PC card too!

Here is an example:

When conservatives argue against affirmative action… When they do this, they complain about how liberals use the PC card against them to try to shut them up. (Liberals use the PC card and call the conservatives against affirmative action “racists.”) They talk about how this shows that liberals can’t argue against conservatives on this issue and thus liberals resort to name-calling.

But isn’t it interesting when it comes to foreign policies? The conservatives will use the PC card of “Anti-Semitism” (and things of this nature).

Recently I was listening to a neocon talk radio program and Pat Buchanan’s name came up. The host insinuated that Buchanan is “anti-Semitic.” Therefore, according to this host, we can’t put any stock into anything Buchanan says or thinks. Talk about using a PC card to shut up people! They are just as bad as liberals.

PS — Good interview, Mr. Bovard!

By: Adam S.

Adam S. — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:49:49 +0000

A classic moment for me was when Ron Paul was on Cavuto’s World (that sounds so much like Wayne’s World)to explain why we shouldn’t get involved in Iran. He was paired opposite a Democrat from New York who argued from a lack of evidence relating to 9/11. Paul argued from an isolationist perspective: it’s not our business, what did they do to us. Naturally, Cavuto waved off Paul’s commentary and retreated to Iran’s bullying people in the Gulf (irrelevant). I have learned that modern
conservatives have code words like “isolationist” or “anti-Semitic” “Isolationist” (e.g. Pat Buchanan) means you don’t believe in imposing your nation’s will on other people unless explicitly attacked in war. “Anti-Semitic” means that you are critical of Israel (see Norman Finkelstein’s book “Beyond Chutzpah” for an extrapolation of this) So one can also see the same with the use of the term “liberal”, by which they should use “socialist”, but they bastardize to mean “anything not Left-Center” Conservatives throw these terms around and apply them to people who speak the ugly truth about the right, like Buchanan, Paul, and the few remaining conservative Democrats. This is why it will always be useless for people like the aforementioned to appear on Fox News. The host will drop these code words and automatically make the viewer tune out.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:14:18 +0000

Adam,

I’m sorry I missed that. I have a feeling Mr. Bovard won’t be back on, for Hannity can’t handle intelligent guests. He can only deal with those dumber than he is. He had Cong. Ron Paul on one time and got so mad at Paul that I haven’t heard of him being on the show since.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:10:28 +0000

Jim,

That he is. He is a rarity among talk radio types– someone who actually knows his subjects unlike his ignorant peers whose main qualifications seem to be snarling and yelling over a guest unless they simply kill the other person’s mike. Most of these clowns could learn something from Charles when it comes to callers that disagree with him, particularly the nasty ones. Charles can make an intelligent argument.