Someone I read recently made a good point about the women’s daytime talk show The View. They noted that the show is named The View and not Views. And that name holds great meaning. It represents the fact that there is only one view on each issue talked about on the show, and that is the liberal view of the three liberal hags: Joy Behar, Whoopi ‘rape-rape’ Goldberg and Barbara Walters. No other views are allowed to be treated with respect or are open for discussion. Oh, sure, they have conservative-ish Elizabeth Hasselbeck there as the token “conservative”. But they don’t give her any respect whatsoever and constantly talk over her, demean her and smear her. And they do so knowing that she is too submissive to stand up for herself against their ridiculous bullying.
What would be a truly good show is to have four strong, informed, opinionated, yet respectful women on the show. Off the top of my head, I can think of Michelle Malkin, Kirsten Powers, Dana Loesch and Camille Paglia. That would actually be a good diverse panel of women to watch. Granted, Kirsten Powers is pretty much a liberal hack, but at the very least she can discuss things with a reasonable amount of respect and decorum. Which is much more than we can say for Whoopi and Behar.
Anyone else have some suggestions for some strong, informed, opinionated, but respectful liberal and conservative women who could makeover the show The View?
Some feedback from where I had this posted on Facebook:
I like that, though some alternates I’d throw in there are Megyn Kelly, S.E. Cupp, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, or Ann Coulter for the conservative view. I’m much less well versed on liberal women, maybe Megan McCain‘s chunky butt, or Rachel Maddow. My only problem with this show is you know it’d devolve into a cat-fight eventually. I don’t see most of the conservatives suffering fools for long.
I thought of Megyn Kelly, but forgot about S.E. Cupp. She’s another good one. I left out Kelly, because I was trying to go for women who didn’t already have their own shows. Ingraham, Cheney and Coulter are good ones too though. Coulter especially, because I think she’d really surprise people about how intelligent and well spoken she is, if she had time on her own show to articulate her points, instead of always having to be on the defensive and be pressed for time when on the talk shows where she is interviewed. When Rush had her on for an extended interview, she did fantastic. I think she’d be great on a new The View.
Meghan McCain doesn’t fit, because I’m going for someone who is actually intelligent and informed. Meggy Mac is just an ignorant twit attention whore. I’m going for a new The View that combines personality, entertainment and intelligent, informed discussion. The only thing Meggy Mac would bring would be her boobs and her whining about everyone picking on her.
Maddow seems to be an even worse hack than Powers. She seems to be the female — or at least less male — version of Olbermann. Which is to say she’s basically a butch, unattractive version of Meggy Mac. Plus she has her own show, so she’s out.
Unfortunately, there just are not that many good liberal choices out there. I think Paglia would be good though. Even though I disagree with her a lot, she is respectful and makes her points well.
And here is a prime example of why I suggested Dana Loesch. Not only is she beautiful, but she’s sharp, intelligent and knows her stuff. And she doesn’t back down to anyone. Replace Hasselbeck with Loesch and she’d put Whoopi and Behar in their place.
I first posted about this here: Boycott the Sponsors of The View?
I have been thinking about this some more and I am even more convinced that I am right and we are starting an extremely bad trend if we start forcing people off the air through boycotts instead of simply not tuning into their shows and letting them go off the air due to lack of viewership.
Most people who read my blog know about, as Charles Johnson rightly refers to it, the Saudi-funded radical Islamic front group calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.)“. Most people also know about how much power they wield in this country, forcing shari’a based law slowly into our society. You also know about the cowardice of the media and Hollywood in not standing with Denmark and printing the Mohammad Cartoons. The media and Hollywood, not to mention our own government, cowtowed to C.A.I.R. and the Muslim community in condemning the cartoons and censoring themselves from showing them.
Also, recall how C.A.I.R. pressured the producers of “24” to make dhimmi statements in some of their shows to make sure Muslims were not offended that Muslims were shown as criminals and terrorists in the show. (Imagine that! Muslims as terrorists. The show is actually trying to be realistic, yet they are forced by Muslim terrorist-front groups, funded by Saudi Arabia, to apologize. Anyone see anything wrong here?)
Now, imagine if C.A.I.R. decided to organize and get smut off our TV? Bye-bye Desperate Housewives. Bye-bye The O.C. Bye-bye daytime soap operas. Bye-bye American Idol. Bye-bye Grey’s Anatomy. Bye-bye (fill in any TV show which has any sort of sexual context to it).
Do you want that to happen?
While I do not like those shows and cannot stand how they are what represent the culture of America, I am not going to organize a boycott of the sponsors of the shows to get them off the air.
And I don’t think we should be doing it for The View either, regardless of the fact that I think Rosie O’Donnell is an idiot moonbat.
Unless we want our public TV, Radio and print media censored by mob rule, we should stop with this boycotting nonsense. That is what liberals and fascists do to suppress free speech and ideas with which they do not agree. That is NOT the Conservative way.
I say again, boycott The View the right way: by not watching it.
A friend sent me this blog post about boycotting the sponsors of The View in order to get Rosie O’Donnell fired: Boycott of “The View’s” Sponsors
Here was my response to him:
Personally, I think Conservatism should be against boycotts and should be in favor of simply turning the channel. We are starting a very dangerous trend if this is to become the norm, where anyone can be put off the air if enough pressure is put on sponsors and such. I think the best way to tell ABC that people do not like Rosie is that they lose viewership. Apparently, The View has enough people watching, so they don’t take Rosie off the air. We cannot have the free market turn into mob rule. Things should succeed or fail on their own, not because some mob threatened the sponsors of a show.
Imagine if this was a show that you liked and you found out that a bunch of fascist liberals forced it off the air based on putting pressure on the sponsors and making it into a big media ordeal. Simply because they did not agree with what the person was saying.
Remember what the liberals tried to do with The Path to 9/11. Do we want to start a trend in which shows such as that can be stopped from airing based on a bunch of liberals using mob rule to pressure sponsors to not air a show? Recall that ABC specifically did not allow sponsors for that mini-series, because they did not deem it appropriate for the sensitive subject matter. But imagine if they had. Liberals would have pressured those sponsors, they would have withdrawn support and then The Path to 9/11 would have been pulled. Is this what we want the future to be? Remember that liberals control the media and liberals also are MUCH more organized than Conservatives. Mostly, because they have nothing better to do. But if you want more of an idea of the fascist goals of the American Left, read this: MEDIA MATTERS: AN AGENDA TO SHAPE AMERICA
I don’t like the path this country is taking if we are simply going to start forcing things off the air this way. As I said, people should succeed or fail on their own. And people succeed when they have listeners or viewers and they fail when people stop tuning into their shows. That is how it should be. This boycotting stuff is borderline fascism.
Boycott The View the right way: by not watching it.