“Radical” Isn’t As Scary as Hannity Is

June 6, 2008 · Posted in Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Election 2008, Uncategorized 

Andy Ostroy is all het up over the right wing framing of Barack Obama as a “radical”.

Radical, defined: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

The fact that the right is trying to frame Barack Obama as a ‘radical’ is not a bad thing. Anyone other than the very few who are profiting from the war, the dying economy, the rape of the US Constitution, lying politicians, and a government owned by Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin and a few others should support a radical change, not reject it.

By his very appearance, Obama represents radical change. The pathetic attempt of the pundits on Faux News to frame that as a bad thing shows their desperate gasps and grasps for relevance.

As their ratings drop and viewers flock to less idiotic choices for news, their rhetoric becomes shrill and off-key, because somewhere deep down they know the truth: Barack Obama represents change — radical change — that will turn this country back from the dark place their boys Bush and Cheney have led us.

While Faux News may try to frame Obama as a ‘radical’ and paint him as a country-wrecking throwback to the rebellious sixties, the reality is that the only way to put this country back on track is through radical change. Here are some of the changes Obama will bring:

  • Respect for the United States Constitution
  • Responsible fiscal management
  • Ending the war in Iraq
  • Responsible diplomacy
  • Restoring accountability in government

What REALLY scares the Hannitys of the world is the possibility that the crimes that have been wrought upon each and every citizen of this country will be exposed, and those who extolled their virtues will be irrelevant.

Of course, to me, Hannity is already irrelevant. So is Faux news. One radical change I’m looking forward to is seeing the FCC hold them responsible for their irresponsibility.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

  • daveinboca
    Yeah, the First Amendment is meaningless to "radicals" whose first move, like Fat Hugo's and Fidel's, is to control the media. You liberal fascists are rotters to the core, and the laugh is going to be on you when McCain is elected.

    I suppose you think the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is constitutional? What a bunch of loo-zers. And tell us how Obama is going to end the war in Iraq. By your loo-zer surrender standard?

    You are completely irrelevant, and more importantly, Hannity has 20 million viewers/listeners, Rush has over 20 mm, and you have zilch. The only way loo-zers like you can ever "win" is by cheating.
  • daveinboca,

    Kiss my ass. and cast your vote.
  • daveinboca
    Where should I start? You're all ass.
  • I appreciated that Roland Martin called Hannity "a little ball of hate." Perfect description.
  • Roland Martin and David Gergen are the two best commentators CNN has. Martin holds nothing back, which is why I love him. :)
  • ursulas
    What makes me nervous is the fact that he went to Diane Feinstein's house to meet with Hillary last night. Why wasn't it John Kerry's house? Or Harry Reid's house? Feinstein and her husband are war-profiteers. It just makes me sick. She stood to gain the most by a Hillary Clinton presidency. Why? No investigations.

    Obama, be the promise you say. No more of these fat cats.
  • DiFi is one of Clinton's last-stand supporters. She brokered the meeting, so that's why it was there. I wouldn't worry about her -- it's unlikely she'll survive re-election for another term. She's just about done.
  • Great post, Karoli. I adore that bulleted list.
  • Radical also means working to fix the root of the problem. "Radical" should be our friend, just as "change" is. :>
blog comments powered by Disqus