Radiohead

Oh, here we go again.

Just when it appeared that the controversy surrounding Boston talk radio star Jay Severin would finally die down, along comes Bay Stater James Kirchick, assistant editor at the New Republic, to revive it. Kirchick writes, “…Jay Severin makes Mark Levin look like Diane Rehm. So it was with great displeasure that I heard about his return to the airwaves last week after a month long indefinite suspension.”

After recounting some of Severin’s more incendiary comments and past controversies, Kirchick notes that Severin’s apology was “…the sort of insincere expression of regret that politicians and celebrity abusers of the law and/or basic standards of propriety seem to offer on a weekly basis in response to popular outrage over their misbehavior. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who has a monthly radio show on WTKK, weighed in on the controversy, saying that while he ‘read and appreciated [Severin’s] apology,’ ‘we have got to figure out a way on this station and in our broader civic life to engage even on difficult issues without demeaning people who differ from us in background or point of view.’ Those are wise words from the Governor. A first step would be to start ignoring Severin and other blowhards, whatever their political leanings.”

If Severin has in fact cleaned up his act, why should his words be ignored in the future? Yes, his remarks were over-the-top, irresponsible, hurtful. But should he be shunned forever?

Kirchick should give the new and improved Severin a try. He just might like what he hears.

A Severin-Scot Summit?

It’s time for Jay Severin and Scot Lehigh to settle things once and for all.

The libertarian Boston talk-radio star and the center-left Boston Globe columnist have been feuding for the last half-decade, with no end in sight. Lehigh, who has strongly criticized Severin for his statements about America’s efforts to stop terrorism and has raised questions about the WTKK-FM broadcaster’s biographical claims, is now involved in a new endeavor known as “Jay Watch.” Lehigh says this is “…an effort to assist WTKK’s putatively penitent p.m. host as he tries to clean up his act” (Severin recently returned to the airwaves after a month-long suspension for using excessive rhetorical force in describing Mexico’s role in the recent swine flu scare.) “…Jay Watch will focus on utterances that debase the dialogue, like Jay’s recent comments about Mexicans. Declarations that this group or that person should be killed also qualify. So, too, do the misogynistic terms that Jay applies to women he disdains. I know that the odds against success are long. Still, elementary civility is worth the effort. So let’s try to help Jay with his resolution to stop polluting our airwaves.”

Lehigh probably shouldn’t waste his time on “Jay Watch.” This initiative will only result in more hostile e-mails in Lehigh’s in-box and a furtherance of the perception that Lehigh and the Globe have an ideological axe to grind with the main promoter of “Extreme Games.” Instead, how about Lehigh and Severin resolving their differences on-air?

A conversation between Severin and Lehigh would not only make for great radio, it would also heal whatever damage both men’s images have suffered in the eyes of their philosophical opponents. Let’s face it: the average Lehigh fan regards Severin as a right-wing reactionary, and the average Severin fan regards Lehigh as a member of the self-righteous elite liberal media. If both men had a civil conversation on WTKK, it might shatter both stereotypes.

Severin would be able to answer the questions Lehigh has raised about his biographical claims and incendiary language. In addition, Lehigh could respond to the constant claims by members of Severin’s hardcore fan base that he would like nothing more than to drive Severin and other non-liberals off the air.

Severin is big on apologies these days. Wouldn’t it be something if he apologized to the man he once characterized as a “pant-load?” Wouldn’t it be fascinating to hear these two rhetorical rivals attempt to find common ground?

“I’ve long been a critic of Severin’s crude, bombastic, xenophobic discourse,” Lehigh wrote last month. “Over the years, I have highlighted a few of his more blatant lies, outrages, and inventions because I thought his listeners should know what a bigot and a fraud he was.” Hearing Severin directly respond to Lehigh’s claims would allow other Severin skeptics to gain new insight into the controversial commentator.

Lehigh would also change a few minds. Lehigh is the E. J. Dionne of the Globe, a clear thinker who can challenge conservatives without furthering the degeneration of discourse. Say what you will about Lehigh’s perspective, but he wasn’t the one who compared climate-change skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

Severin should ask Lehigh to walk over to the WTKK studios and finally put this dispute behind them. Hearing Severin and Lehigh discuss their grievances would be good for ratings, good for radio, good for rationality. Both men have something to contribute to the public square. Neither man should remain the other’s villain.

UPDATE: More from WGBH.

There Was A Crooked Man…

The Bay State’s tradition of (alleged) corruption continues. Can the Massachusetts Republican Party take advantage of this controversy? More from the Boston Herald, NECN and Boston Phoenix.

Jay Severin: Back in Business

Great news for Bay State talk-radio fans: WTKK-FM star Jay Severin will return to the airwaves Tuesday, June 2. Severin, who has been with the station for nearly a decade, was indefinitely suspended in late-April for caustic comments about Mexico’s role in the recent swine flu scare.

It is expected that we will hear a kinder, gentler Severin going forward. That’s a good thing: when Severin avoids incendiary rhetoric and focuses on addressing the national scene from a straightforward, conservative/libertarian perspective, he is at his best. Severin never needed to imitate Michael Savage to become the top dog of afternoon-drive talk radio in the Bay State.

It will be quite interesting to hear Severin address the recent controversy over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, whose 2001 remarks about diversity and the law were every bit as obnoxious as Severin’s 2009 comments about Mexico and swine flu. Severin must certainly have a new perspective on the need for civility in public debate: while his progressive critics may scoff at this notion, a chastened Severin might have more credibility in his criticisms of Sotomayor than a sarcasm-saturated Severin would.

The only downside to Severin’s return is the likelihood that his temporary replacement, Philadelphia talk star Michael Smerconish, will disappear from the Boston airwaves. Smerconish’s syndicated show was intelligent and well-produced; while he is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea (and his taste in Presidential candidates leaves something to be desired from a conservative perspective), he is a tremendously talented host. Hopefully WTKK will consider keeping his program on their airwaves in some capacity.

UPDATE: More from Randall Bloomquist.

Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

Will former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney run for President again in 2012?

Romney’s stepped-up schedule does seem to suggest a second bid for President Obama’s job in three years. However, considering what happened the last time he ran for President, the chances of Romney actually landing the nomination are Slim and None–and word on the street is that Slim just skipped town.

Romney came into the ‘08 Presidential game with two strikes against him: the perception that his ideological shift to the right was more fiction than fact, and the preference among many Republican primary voters for a candidate who was, ahem, a “Christian leader.” The one-two punch of Massachusetts and Mormonism was a knockout blow for Romney–a blow that led to the lame John McCain acquiring the nomination.

Republicans who regarded Romney as a crypto-moonbat or a cult member in ‘08 won’t change their minds in 2012, no matter how poorly Obama is performing as President. The GOP’s conservative base wants a nominee whose conservative credentials are not in dispute: unfortunately, Romney will never be viewed as such a candidate.

At this point, it seems likely that the GOP’s nominee in 2012 will either be former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (assuming, of course, that both choose to run). Gingrich has had his issues with grassroots conservatives in the past, but his legacy as a passionate crusader for the Right’s vision will serve him in good stead on the 2012 campaign trail. Palin will obviously receive plenty of conservative support in the primaries: her only obstacle will be the perception by some moderate and conservative Republican primary voters that she cannot “seal the deal” in a general election.

Romney is a great speaker, a strong intellect, a shrewd businessman. Unfortunately, he is also someone who stands beneath a glass ceiling. Deep-seated skepticism about the sincerity of his conservatism (and deep-seated bigotry about his religion) would prevent him from becoming the GOP’s standard-bearer in 2012. He has a role to play in the GOP’s future–but it will not be the lead role.

Sever-ance III

Jay Severin–or at least, a modified version thereof–could return to WTKK’s airwaves soon.

According to WGBH-TV’s Greater Boston, Severin–who was indefinitely suspended last month for controversial comments about Mexico’s role in the spread of swine flu–may be brought back under three conditions: a restructuring of his salary (said to be around $1 million annually), a change in the overly sarcastic tone of his show, and an agreement to broadcast the show from WTKK’s Dorchester, Mass. studios, as opposed to his home.

A toned-down Severin will be a better Severin. The “Extreme Games” host had a less acerbic tone during his tenure on WRKO-AM in the late-1990s; he maintained that civil tone in the early weeks of his WTKK tenure, before moving to a rougher, Michael Savage-esque style. For years, this style drew ratings and revenue–but as of late, Severin’s sarcasm hasn’t succeeded.

There have been suggestions that Greater Media, the parent company of WTKK, would like its talk stations to have a less over-the-top style. Not for nothing did WTKK recently run Philadelphia talk-radio star Michael Smerconish in Severin’s slot: Smerconish’s positive, partisan-but-not-excessively-so style is clearly less potentially controversial than Severin’s approach.

A restrained Severin could once again defeat current afternoon-drive talk radio king Howie Carr (of WRKO-AM) in the ratings. Severin was under no real obligation to take the Savage approach: he had enough talent to conquer Carr with a sober, intelligent tone. If Severin does return to the airwaves, he should seize this opportunity to enhance the overall quality of his show.

The talk-radio industry is facing its share of problems– the continued concerns about a possible government effort to pull the plug on the industry, questionable on-air behavior by some of the most successful figures in the business. Severin was forced off the airwaves because he was apparently viewed by management as part of the problem. If he returns to WTKK, he has enough talent to be part of the solution.

UPDATE: More from Randall Bloomquist and the Boston Globe.

It’s (Not) Your Money

Some (many?) Massachusetts politicians simply refuse to leave your money alone.

State Senators Sonia Chang-Diaz and Jamie Eldridge now say it’s time to consider an increase in the state income tax. “It’s a difficult situation, and there are no easy solutions,” Chang-Diaz and Eldridge state. “But the tool to solve this budget crisis does exist, if we are willing to show the political leadership (emphasis mine) to use it: an increase in the personal income tax.

“Of course, reforms are still necessary, and it’s up to the Legislature to examine every expenditure and measure it against our priorities for public spending. Every bit of waste needs to be cut – but cutting alone will not get us out of this budget crisis.” (Really?)

Chang-Diaz and Eldridge then slip into sophistry. “…[Taxes] are the way that we, as a society, pay for the things we value: education, police and firefighters, and public transportation. Each day we rely upon government services, public infrastructure, and state regulation, paid for by our taxes, in order to allow us to work and raise a family. What’s so dirty about that – and why are we so afraid to talk about it?”

Everyone understands that we cannot have a society without any taxation whatsoever. The issue is the misuse of taxpayer dollars–and whether it’s a wise thing to give the state more tax money if the state has not demonstrated a willingness to use the tax money they currently receive wisely.

Despite their earlier disclaimer, Chang-Diaz and Eldridge don’t really address this issue. Instead, they assert that “…there is nothing more regressive than a budget cut, particularly to programs that help the most vulnerable among us. For that reason, we applaud the House on its tough vote to raise the sales tax, because any means of raising revenue right now (emphasis mine) is a better solution than drastic cuts to vital services.” Any means? Can we not reassess what government services are vital and what are not?

“Increasing the income tax by one percent would raise approximately $2 billion for the Commonwealth,” Chang-Diaz and Eldridge assert. “Cuts will still be necessary to balance the budget, but that revenue would go a long way toward protecting core services, such as schools, shelters, public safety, and hospitals.”

If the average Bay Stater believed that an increase in the state income tax would in fact go to “schools, shelters, public safety, and hospitals,” the average Bay Stater would in fact support such an increase. However, if the average Bay Stater suspects that an increase in the state income tax will be used for, say, pensions, the average Bay Stater would justifiably oppose such an increase. Can we be reassured that the state will not misuse this new money?

“Increasing the income tax is the one tool we have that could help close the enormous budget gap we face without overburdening those who can least afford to pay,” Chang-Diaz and Eldridge conclude. “In other words, if we put aside the political calculations for a moment and focus on the facts, raising the income tax is the best solution to our fiscal crisis.” In theory.

Perhaps Chang-Diaz and Eldridge overstate things when they refer to a budget “crisis.” As Beacon Hill Institute’s David G. Tuerck points out, “According to a [Boston Globe] article of Oct. 15, 1994, the budget ‘was a chronic source of anxiety for taxpayers’ and ‘a ticking time bomb on the verge of wrecking havoc with Massachusetts’s economy’ during most of Governor William F. Weld’s first term in office. That period of fiscal anxiety came to an end, however, with the FY 1995 budget, which was, according to the article, ‘in vintage ways, a vital Weld achievement,’ aided by ‘original thinking’ and ‘good fortune.’ Members of both parties praised the governor, who went on to easy reelection, for this fiscal accomplishment.

“Now fast-forward to the 2010 budget,” Tuerck continues. “How much, we might ask, would the state have to spend in 2010 in order to achieve what was seen as sound budgeting just 15 years ago? The answer, after adjusting for inflation and population growth, is $26.78 billion. Next let’s ask how much the state could budget for 2010, given the existing revenue outlook. If we take the average of the highest and the lowest forecasts offered at the Senate hearing, we get $18.35 billion in state tax revenue. Combining this revenue with various non-tax revenues already figured on by Governor Patrick in crafting his budget, the state could spend $26.79 billion in 2010, $10 million more than it would need in order to match what Weld accomplished with his vaunted 1995 budget.

“True, the state has come to spend more generously in recent years, but a return to the standards of 1995 can hardly be seen as ‘catastrophic.’ To argue otherwise is to engage in Chicken Little economics.”

Doesn’t it sound like Chang-Diaz and Eldridge are engaging in what Tuerck condemns?

You Can’t Get What You Want (‘Til You Know What You Want)

Let me state for the record: I forgive Christy Mihos!

Eric Fehrnstrom obviously doesn’t. Fehrnstrom, the senior communications adviser for Mitt Romney’s 2008 Presidential campaign, insists that Bay State Republicans won’t soon forget Mihos’ rhetorical burial of 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey.

“What is surprising is that Mihos is back and running for governor in 2010, this time as a Republican,” Fehrnstrom writes. “If he learned anything from his off-beat [2006] campaign, it’s that independent candidates rarely win. Without the organizational strength and fund-raising network of a major party, a statewide candidate faces very long odds.

“In 2006 Mihos finished a distant third. He wasn’t even the spoiler he wanted to be,” Fehrnstrom continues. “His 7 percent of the vote, added to Healey’s total, wouldn’t have made a difference in the contest against Deval Patrick, who won with 56 percent of the vote to Healey’s 35 percent.

“So how does Mihos convince Republicans to overlook his disloyalty and make him their standard-bearer? After all, Mihos used to seethe resentment about a Republican Party that he felt was unworthy. ‘There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans,’ he told voters. And he’d complain that ‘people are checking out because what the Republicans are selling people aren’t buying.’ Even more problematic are Mihos’ positions, which are poles apart from those of most Republicans.”

Fehrnstrom asserts that Mihos’ past will surely come back to haunt him. “Mihos committed enough gaffes to turn his last campaign into a running joke. He started the race with a groan-inducing joke about his wife. ‘My wife says I’m awful fast, so I’ll try to stick to that,’ he told biotech executives. He ran a vulgar TV ad depicting animated characters with their heads up their rear ends.

“Because Mihos was a long shot, the media overlooked his many missteps even as they gladly lapped up his criticisms of the GOP. The good news is that Massachusetts Republicans have strong potential candidates in the wings…But so far, Mihos is the only declared Republican candidate, a demoralizing prospect. Last year, in a TV interview, Mihos wondered if it makes sense to run for the GOP nomination, given that he spent the last election riding shotgun for Patrick. ‘I don’t know if the Republicans are going to embrace me,’ he said. It’s a point worth pondering, since he refused to embrace them.”

Fehrnstrom is correct to note that Charlie Baker, Michael Sullivan and Scott Brown would make great gubernatorial candidates. However, if these men opt not to enter the race–or, if they do, and Mihos manages to conquer them in the 2010 GOP primary–then what sense does it make to continue to hold a grudge against Mihos?

Yes, Mihos was obviously had issues with the state Republican Party in the mid-2000s. Yes, he was more aggressive against Healey in the 2006 gubernatorial debates than he was against Patrick. It’s all true. It’s also all in the past.

Mihos is not perfect. No one is. However, if he can oust Patrick from power and return some semblance of fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth, then it’s not really constructive to bash him for past errors, is it?

By the way, that Mihos commercial wasn’t “vulgar.” It was quite funny.

Sever-ance II

Is hate speech merely in the ear of the listener?

In a bizarre editorial, the Boston Phoenix has called on Boston talk-radio station WTKK-FM (96.9) to consider ending its nearly ten-year association with afternoon radio host Jay Severin, who was recently suspended for hyperbolic comments about Mexico’s role in the spread of swine flu. While Severin’s rhetoric did go over the edge, the Phoenix may be going too far.

“Severin was being more than an advocate for his anti-immigrant point of view, more than provocative, more than even incendiary,” the editorial states. “In our opinion, he was being hateful, trying to deny the basic humanity of Mexicans so as to render them unworthy of being afforded rights.”

While Severin’s description of Mexico’s problems was, shall we say, intense, he was not attempting to “deny the basic humanity of Mexicans so as to render them unworthy of being afforded rights.” Over the years, Severin has been clear in his belief that those who (as he would put it) “break into the country” have no rights–not because they are Mexicans, but because they have arrived in the country illegally. (Note that the Phoenix characterizes Severin’s views as “anti-immigrant,” when his views are actually anti-illegal-immigrant.)

“…The Phoenix is close to being absolute in its defense of anyone’s right to say, write, or broadcast almost anything,” the editorial continues. “This paper affirms Severin’s constitutional right to say what he said. Likewise, we recognize WTKK’s right to broadcast Severin if the station so wishes. Still, WTKK should think twice about putting Severin back on the air. Does Severin’s right to hold noxious opinions, and his parallel right to express them using intemperate language, override the station’s right to hold itself to a higher standard? If WTKK thinks about the situation with any depth of conscience, it might realize that, though it profits handsomely from Severin, his on-air presence does nothing to enrich or elevate public debate.”

Who gives the Phoenix the right to determine what does or does not “enrich or elevate public debate?” If the station feels that a more civil Severin will in fact “enrich or elevate public debate,” then why not bring him back?

Then the editorial truly goes over the edge.

“Should WTKK management have any doubts on this matter, we suggest it compare Severin’s remarks about Mexicans with what Adolf Hitler wrote about Jews in Mein Kampf. History surely has taught that Hitler’s intentions were hideous, monstrous. But it’s uncomfortable to realize that Hitler, at least in his early days, used language to attack Jews that was more temperate, or at least more carefully measured, than what Severin said about Mexicans. Comparing anyone’s words to Hitler’s is a tricky exercise. Hitler, after all, did more than talk. He presided over the murder of approximately six million Jews, as many as 500,000 gypsies, at least 250,000 physically or mentally disabled people, and a smaller, undetermined number of homosexuals. We are not suggesting that, as foul as Severin was, he was advocating violence or murder —
on any scale. Still, denying the essential equality of any individual, or group of people, is often a step in establishing or maintaining the supposedly second-class status of the group into which that individual was born. Hitler and anti-Semites did and still do this to Jews, segregationists to African-Americans, homophobes to gays and lesbians, and nativists to immigrants — legal and illegal.”

The Phoenix says they’re not comparing Severin to Hitler. Oh, of course not!

The editorial goes on to state that “…Like all good civil libertarians, we support the right of neo-Nazis — or any other haters for that matter — to demonstrate, or publish, or communicate in any form they might choose. But just as we would defend WTKK’s right to have a neo-Nazi or a racist as a guest on one of its talk shows, so, too, would we question the wisdom of giving someone of such questionable sentiments a permanent soapbox as a talk-show host.

“Rather than give Severin back his radio platform, WTKK should exercise its countervailing right to broadcast something else. In other words, Severin’s right to say what he wants is trumped by WTKK’s right to broadcast as it sees fit. The Phoenix will be fast to congratulate the station if it does the right thing and tells Severin to peddle his views elsewhere. We’re under no delusion that he’ll not find a taker.”

In other words, the Phoenix evidently regards Severin as akin to a neo-Nazi or KKK member, when in reality Severin’s worst sin is his self-perceived need to copy Michael Savage’s act.

Look, Severin has a foul mouth, and his cartoonish remarks about Mexico’s problems aren’t pleasant, to say the least. However, the Phoenix is clearly advocating that Severin be tossed from the airwaves for crudely expressing unpopular (in their eyes) views. Why not encourage WTKK to bring Severin back, but keep him civil?

UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe.

Shut Up

Is free speech being suppressed at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst?

Apparently, former Boston Herald columnist Don Feder agitated the wrong people when he appeared at UMASS-Amherst a few weeks ago. As UMASS-Amherst senior Greg Collins notes in Human Events, Feder “…had to end his speech abruptly after ten minutes due to repeated heckling and interruptions. Protesters incessantly yelled, booed, hissed, jeered, and shouted at him during his talk. Others surged into the room through the side door after admittance was halted, and many of them turned chairs around rambunctiously to incite further disruptions. One protester even brought a rat into the auditorium. Overall, leftist demonstrators successfully and intentionally created organized chaos at the event.

“Astonishingly, UMass officials have blamed Feder for the ruckus, not those students who prevented him from speaking. In a letter to the Boston Globe, Ed Blaguszewski, a spokesman for UMass, wrote, ‘Feder chose to discontinue his speech,’ thereby absolving the police officers, the protestors, and the administration of any culpability.”

There’s something about the sight of a conservative Republican on a progressive college campus that seems to rouse certain people into a hateful fervor. Collins asks: “Does this incident demonstrate liberal bias at the University of Massachusetts Amherst? Try a thought experiment with me: would UMass officials have allowed conservative students to interrupt and shout down Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick, both of whom have spoken on campus within the past few years? Furthermore, would have UMass administrators then blamed Kerry and Patrick for the commotion?

“Truth be told, conservatives would never engage in that type of disrespectful behavior, for we understand that tolerance is a two-way street. Students should be allowed to explore all ideas, not just the ones that liberal students and administrators prefer. A balanced education, after all, is not attained when only one side of an issue is presented.”

The sabotage at free speech at UMASS-Amherst is no surprise–it’s been happing at major colleges and universities for years. It’s bizarre that college leftists are so threatened by conservative speakers: it’s not like conservatives have any real power right now, in this state or in any region of the country besides the South.

Feder has always had a knack for riling up the left. His Herald column, which ran from 1983 to 2002, took dead aim at progressive ideology and its internal contradictions. Certainly, progressives were relieved to see Feder leave the Herald, since they wouldn’t have to read his words anymore. It appears, however, that some progressives don’t even want his voice to be heard.

Next Page »