Talk Radio PLEDGEBOMB:

~
To the mods here

On September 24th, 2009 BaneMaler says:

I would suggests that we put our media watchdog machine back into overdrive. This worked wonders for us during the campaign and will have even greater precision today with our numbers growing and messengers receiving much limelight.

Can we get a call in program started on the Daily Paul where we can log on and see who's saying what, call and e-mail the shows and leave our comments. If we could only do this as it is happening. If we can pre-empt some radio interviews, throw the numbers out there, and call in as some of these people like Beck, Palin, or whoever tries to co-opt our message. Just a friendly reminder to them to be honest and that we support the position that they have finally found.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/108439#comment-1182744

I am on board with this. In fact, although I haven't been successful at talking to Hannity (tried many times) I have done this with our local fox affiliate here in St. Louis (97.1 FM) on their Conservative talk program in the AM. I even had a series of Email conversations with one of the former hosts... which turned into a hilarious example of a neo-con being presented with basic logic applied to obvious fact, and him laboring mightily to ignore the whole thing and change the subject. I've wondered whether Crane Duham (the particular neo-con in question) has trouble sleeping at night with the thought of this lopsided debate being in email form and completely at my disposal.

But here's a thought. In order to maintain the highest degree of honesty and integrity (which, at the most fundamental level, is really what our movement is about), perhaps we ought to do our best to be on the up and up with call screeners. I know the fear would be that such clarity would likely interfere with getting on air. Nevertheless, I think it is important.
In reality, almost every subject these Neo-cons engage can be directly tied to one or more of our core issues. For example:
- If they wish to discuss "the war on terror" (which they are starting to talk less about), then we can call and chime in on that subject. When on air, we can simply ask, "Do you believe that all three branches of the Federal Government should obey the Constitution? Well why would you support an undeclared 'war on terror' then? It seems the only federal official of any note who does obey the letter of the Constitution is Ron Paul, do you agree?" And "How is it that we can afford to pursue trillion dollar, undeclared wars when the Federal Government is bankrupt already? And in such economic times, why have troops guarding Iraq... what's wrong with guarding the Mexican/American border?"
Of course they will do their little dance and cut you off, but the more people who call in and say such things, the better. Their listeners will get the impression that the point is being evaded, not answered. And these arrogant cowards thrive by making their gullible fans believe they are deep thinkers who can vanquish political opponents in 'on air' debate. The whole thing is a sham. They screen their callers carefully, then they control every aspect of the microphone - from volume to cut-off point - ensuring their words appear to come out on top, even when they don't.
Still, I think it is very possible to stay on their chosen subject, and still turn the conversation into something positive... and prove them wrong in the process