George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/

Like Diane Rehm, Mr. Ashbrook creates a dynamic but respectful environment. Look folks, we need all the ideas we can get, liberal and conservatives.

However, I join people in protesting when public radio offers the opportunity for people (on either side) to spout propaganda or party talking points. There’s plenty of radio stations and television programs where that sort of thing goes on. We need to keep public radio as free from it as possible. In my opinion, Tom Ashbrook does a great job finding the balance between shutting people down and letting people get away with deceptive or manipulative messages.

Christopher, a big fan in Madison, WI

David your showing the whole world what a republican hack you are.

You keep trying to bait people, when the call you out you start crying like the baby you are, and then you start calling people names.

Nixon was the worst president we had until Bush came along. Funny that Nixon also had one of the worse VP’s as well, Agnew.

You have this knack to bring all conversations down to the level of an Elementary school yard spat.

I’m a moron for stating facts about Bush. That’s funny and it’s a typical Republican right wing tactic of using insults.

What’s your problem anyway?

You bring nothing to the table except banality.

In case you missed it:

Mr. Obama is qualified to be President because he is over the age of thirty-five and was born in the United States. A little Constitutional scholarship pays off now and then.

Essing maybe you should go on vacation you sound a little tense.

You’re welcome.

Mr. Obama is qualified to be President because he is over the age of thirty-five and was born in the United States. A little Constitutional scholarship pays off now and then.

And yes, your secondhand penetrating insight into my politics, character and mindset have reduced me to tears. How shall I carry on?

In addition to his dealing with national and international issues, Senator Obama was judged to have the intellect, temperment and experience by 18 million Americans in primaries and caucuses across the nation – with no shortage of seasoned statesmen as alternatives.

So far, one old man, denied his pal Lieberman as his runnung mate, precipitously picked Palin after a brief meeting or two, and virtually no vetting.

The facts will not stop THE BIG LIE, however. Repetition is essential.

Meanwhile there is a Sword of Damocles in the form of an ongoing ethics investigation involving an alleged impeachable offense by Palin, its finding scheduled to be issued five days before the election. Does one withhold judgment, prejudge, or pretend it doesn’t matter?

You’ve made it perfectly clear that you are one of the reigning morons on this forum. Congrats once again.

Now do us all a favor and go back to sleep.

You need to answer this yourself, I think you baiting people myself. What I mean is that on answer is going to be good enough.

Nixon had nothing but contempt for the constitutional laws
of this land just as Bush/Cheney have. I think Bush and Cheney and all his legal council are war criminals and should be tired as such. This wont happen, but we can all dream.

Here’s the deal sparky, about 70% of the American public think Bush is the worst President since Caligula.

Cheney is loathed that the Republicans at the convention
now truly believe God is on their side for bring forth a hurricane on the day he was to speak.

If you think I’m being mean to you, heres a hanky.
I thought you red meat eating, whiskey swigging Republicans were MEN, real MEN who dish it out and take it to.

Well no offense Mr.Essing but we’ve been around the block with this subject a few times, if you don’t get it that’s OK. I’m calling it a day.

The language “nimble and complex” is NOT a value judgement – in other words, I am not saying I APPROVE of their shenanigans. It is merely saying that they have been incredibly wily wrt the Constitution. In fact, it’s something I’m very concerned about. Perhaps the difference between a value judgement and an observation escapes you?

Thanks for the insults.

I’m still waiting to hear about Obama’s qualifications. He is after all still running to be President of the United States, isn’t he? I mean, you didn’t make the mistake of thinking that the Democrats have actually and already voted him into power, did you? Perhaps you’re one one of those on the left described so well by James Lewis:

“The Left is entitled to power, because in their own eyes they have Truth and Morality on their side. They are Mahatma Gandhi…. the vanguard of the marching proletariat. It’s not just Big O who has the incomprehensible egomania. His inner circle and vast numbers of his supporters do, too. Entitlement, grandiosity, narcissism: In psychiatric thinking they all suffer from secret feelings of inferiority, narcissistic wounds to their self-esteem. Every time they lose, those nagging feelings come up again. So they are always overcompensating, trying to bully reality into the shape they need.”

I’m sure you’re not one of those. Good. So, Obama’s qualifications are JUST AS IMPORTANT – nay, MORE THAN IMPORTANT to the US electorate than those of Palin. Too bad for you she comes out on top in every way.

Barack Obama was elected to the ticket by the Democratic Party primary voters. His qualification, or lack thereof (clearly your–incorrect–opinion), is immaterial to his being on the ticket. The VP on each ticket is appointed by the top of the ticket, and as such, is a reflection on the sober judgment and decision-making ability of the presidential nominees.

Mr. Biden is seasoned and well-qualified by traditional measures; Mrs. Palin is manifestly not well-qualified by those same measures. She may be dynamic, charismatic, perhaps even brilliant. She just doesn’t have the resume to be hired to step in for the President in an emergency starting on Inauguration Day.

You ARE absurd and wrong, and a fool on top of that if you’re not aware that you’re acting so. But that’s what I expect from the 28 percenters, the true believers who at this late date still think the Bush administration has a “nimble and complex relationship to the Constitution”. Their ‘relationship’ to the Constitution calls to mind “2 girls 1 cup.”

2. how did I defend Bush and Cheney? Why should I be required to “answer” for them? The strawman you just created has nothing to do with me. Indeed, I have nearly the same beef with FDR and his rampant disregard for the Constitution in pursuit of his agenda.

3. If I am “absurd and wrong” simply explain to me why. And grant me the same courtesy I extend to you.

Nixon.

You want to defend Bush and Cheney go right ahead.

Your entitled to voice your opinions, however absurd and wrong they may be.

I think you can find a lot people in Congress who don’t understand the Constitution and how it relates to our very fiber as a nation.

How do you answer to the idea that some of Bush’s and Cheney’s legal counsels thought of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as the Geneva convention as antiquated documents and as mere obstacles to transverese in order to carry through their agenda.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I respectfully have to disagree with you, while acknowledging that since I haven’t heard every moment of the Convention coverage by Mr. Ashbrook, I may have missed some of what I’m speaking to.

Anyway, it just seems to me that Obama has gotten a free ride via all the celebratory interviews and discussions regarding his candidacy – I just thought On Point would rise above that and do a little digging wrt his biography and experience and competency. And yet, when it comes to Palin it’s a different story. And it just seems to me that even On Point is being unfair here.

I think, in general, that the novelty of his candidacy has unfairly biased the entire national dialogue. I never thought I’d say this, but I even feel sorry for Hilary.

Anyway, I appreciate your response and will of course continue to listen. Personally, I think Mr. Ashbrook should throw in his hat. LOL!

Cheers, ~david

Name one president we’ve had that doesn’t “understand the Constitution.” Before you name Bush, remember that his administration has had an incredibly nimble and complex relationship to the Constitution. You may not like what he has done wrt to Constitution. In some respects, nor do I. But he does NOT display an ignorance of it – far from it.

What you want is a president who is highly intelligent (they all are), with strong principles. Obama is not a principled candidate. McCain/Palin are to a fault practically.

I’m not and you know something, I want a smart president.

I want my president to be smart enough to be a Rhodes Scholar and not a hockey mom who graduated near the bottom of her class. I want a president who knows what it is work for a goal and not be born with silver spoon in his mouth as well. McCain got into the Annapolis due the legacy of his father, he also graduated near the bottom of his class.

I want my president to understand the Constitutional and the laws of this land.

After 8 years of one who clearly did not it’s time for one who does.

Palin’s “extractive industries” experience – which she has more knowledge of and experience with than any of the candidates combined – addresses core issues facing the nation both economically & in terms of national security.

Obama has no such experience or core competency that touches on areas of truly national concern. Can you name and describe one? On what issues has Obama been a leader on in the state of federal senate? What has he accomplished – specifically? What has he ever run?

Yes, I’m new around these parts. I’ve been listening to Mr. Ashbrook forever though.

Anyway, hello & cheers!

Yes, I do. You obviously weren’t here when Obama first announced, and the question came up of whether his color would be a problem and I suggested that his color is a problem – too green.

I was quite critical of him running not only because of his relative lack of national experience, but also because he’s obviously bright and charismatic and he would have been a major asset to the Democrats in the Senate. It’s (almost) unheard-of for a President to return to the Senate after his term (I believe it’s been done once), so going so quickly into the Presidency seemed wasteful of his young talent.

Still, as Senator Obama has more experience with national issues than Palin; in Chicago he’s had way more experience dealing with the issues that are typical of modern post-industrial America that a politician of a rural state with an economy based on extractive industries, and as president of the Harvard Law Review and a teacher of Constitutional law his academic background is very strong. So objectively he’s still better prepared to be President than Palin.

In any case, we’re talking here about the Republicans, so Obama is not really relevant. If the Dem’s had picked Ronald MacDonald as their candidate it would not justify Palin’s candidacy.

THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Your feedback is much appreciated, and we take it very seriously, I assure you. All I can say is that we strive for balance in both the tone and substance of all our coverage: in the guests we invite on the show, the sound clips we use, and the calls we take on the air. And I know Tom is acutely aware of the scrutiny that listeners (like you) bring to every aspect of his on-air presence: his tone, his questions, his handling of guests and callers, everything.

To respond to your three specific points:

1) I simply disagree that Tom’s “entire line of questioning” yesterday was negative toward the GOP convention, or that “the general tenor” of our coverage has been “negative in the extreme.” I’d be curious to know if other listeners heard it that way. But consider that we had as full-hour guests last night two of the most prominent and astute conservative commentators in the country: Byron York of National Review and Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter and close advisor to President Bush.

2) We had a number of callers during last week’s DNC who were critical of Obama, and we make a real effort to screen calls in order to achieve balance. Of course, our callers are not a scientific sample of the electorate. We do the best we can in the course of a live hour of radio.

3) We did, in fact, play sound of protesters outside the DNC. They were anti-war protesters, and Tom made note of the fact that only about 1,000 showed up (as opposed to the 25,000 the organizers hoped for).

Again, we truly appreciate the seriousness with which you listen to the show — and that you care enough to take time to offer your criticism. That’s what this medium is all about. I hope you’ll keep listening, and keep the feedback coming.

Wen Stephenson
Senior Producer, On Point