The Larry Kane Report

Ralph Nader is back in the game, declaring once again that he is not a spoiler, which he knows very well that he is, having destroyed Al Gore’s chances in Florida along with The Supreme Court in 2000.

Nader, who I have interviewed on several occasions, has every right to run. That doesn’t mean it is the smart thing to do. This is a guy, first in his VERY SELECTIVE consumer crusading ,  and then in his electoral efforts, always made his own persona bigger than the cause. All of his Presidential runs have been about Ralph Nader, not about America.  His assertions that he cannot affect the other parties is a lie. In a very close November race, even in one state, Nader can affect the outcome. As I said, that is his right, but what’s the purpose?

Let’s take a look at the recent history of third party politics.

In 1980, Congressman John Anderson, a former Republican, ran as an independent for President. He was very impressive, so much so that he ruined Jimmy Carter’s chances at re-election and gave a big boost to Ronald Reagan’s victory.

In 1992, Ross Perot gave a gift to young Bill Clinton. His dramatic third party effort destroyed any chance that the first President Bush could beat the young Arkansas Governor. Perot ran in 1996, but with much less impact.

So here we have Nader again. Nader says Al Gore lost the election. According to the law, Gore lost. But he did win the popular vote. And in Florida, along with the voting mess, Ralph Nader took enough votes to do him in.

So what is he after?  Raising awareness is a good thing, but his positions are not far off from Obama and Clinton.

He’s a wrecker, that’s what he is. And in the end, John McCain, a formidable candidate in his own right, will be the beneficiary of Nader’s ego trip.

Comments(29)

For years, I have placed my hand over my heart during the singing of the national anthem. It is just my practice. During my time in the military, I would offer a salute to the flag.  It was just my way.

Several “speculation” pieces this weekend by bored journalists suggest that Republicans will go after Barack Obama because he doesn’t wear a flag on his lapel , and he has, at times, failed to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

That is the biggest pile of barnyard refuse that I have heard so far in this campaign, even worse than the trash leveled at John Kerry in 04.

First of all, for all of you liberal haters, I take no stand on any candidate, nor will I.

But I do take a stand against hatred spurred-on in high places, against racism used under the cover of broadcast extremists, against people who lie on a daily basis, Republican or Democrat, and against people who insist on symbols over substance.

Substance over symbols. I like that, even if I did write it.

I could care less if Barack, Hillary and John wear American flags on their lapels. I have no doubt about either of them defending America at any cost. I don’t think that you can judge a person on whether they are draped in red , white and blue, but rather on their penchant for truth, justice and the real American way borne out of loyalty, dedication to country, and caring for others.

In my world, you are judged by your actions, not by some phony test of whether you love America.

One exception - burning the flag is not what I call a great American action. It is disgusting.

So, I support any form of patriotism. I even support the concept of wearing your religion on your sleeve, your lapel, or in your campaign commercials, which Mike Huckabee does.

This is a free country and we are free to express ourselves, but no one is going to tell me or you how to do it. No one will tell us what to wear or when to wear it.

Comments(21)

I’ve always enjoyed watching Roger Clemens, as a member of the Red Sox and the Yankees. He played hard and always seemed to embody the American dream of hard work. He did on occasion throw at players, which I’ve always felt is a case of assault with intent to kill, although baseball accepts it as a way of life. Baseball, its timid commissioner Bud Selig, and its greedy owners, also accepted steroid use as a way of life until it became politically incorrect to do so. Fortunately the current management of the Phillies has a no tolerance policy, which you can’t say for the Mets and the Yankees and the Giants and all the other so called power teams.

When Clemens went before Congress he denied ever using performance-enhancing drugs. His former trainer contradicted him. Clemens also says he never attended a party thrown by drug user and whistle blower Jose Canseco. Canseco even said Clemens wasn’t there.

Now, the New York Daily News reports that a photo taken by a young fan shows Clemens at the party! The boy was eleven at the time. The moral of this story: never throw away old pictures. You never know, do you?

If that is accurate, Clemens could face perjury charges. This is serious business. It is apparent that someone is not telling the truth.

It is one thing to allegedly lie to the public. It is another to allegedly lie before Congress and under oath.

There is one thing that surprises me about the Clemens controversy. If he did use booster drugs, why not just fess up? Is it ego, pride or confidence that you might be able lie and get away with it?

Most sports writers have already condemned Clemens.  They shouldn’t be so quick to judge. Who knows the real truth? But if this photo exists, Roger Clemens is in real trouble and could be pitching for the softball team at a Federal prison.

Comments(11)

More on the New York Times report on John McCain’s friendship with a lobbyist for a Television company. The timing of the report and the lack of on-the-record testimony, except for one former McCain staffer, would suggest that this was not the great paper’s finest moment. There was no confirmation that there was anything more than a friendship, but the implication in the Times piece was that there could have been more.

All of this brings me to a vibe that I’m getting from voters and readers who are getting angrier at the media for floating stories that have no definitive meaning. The public, tired and tested by the Clinton scandal and other buzz out there, have to be fully convinced of impropriety before they will make a judgment. A partial and incomplete report that is vague and foggy, will simply not do.

What concerns me is the fine line between truth and tabloid. Truth is facts, pure and simple. Tabloid, which can be a very exciting format, embellishes to the point that you are not quite sure where the truth ends and the excitement begins.

In my career,  I’ve watched many people tarred and feathered for relationships that didn’t exist. I’ve also seen people’s lives upset by rumor, buzz and innuendo.

The net result is a dramatic decline in respect for media.

We get blamed for everything, from the weather, to political failures. The truth is that we use “unnamed sources” too freely, and that we don’t check and verify.

I have complained here frequently about desperate local TV stations who are so hungry to be first that they are quite often wrong. Bad information is hazardous to the public safety.

It is hard to believe that the New York Times would  take risks just to be first.

One would hope that their follow up reports will have more specificity and a clearer understanding of John McCain’s alleged conduct. After all, he could be the 44th President.

In the meantime, I hope that we, as a business, don’t take more unjustified hits for this.

On the political front, the good news is that Republicans and Democrats despise us with equal fervor.  That is usually a good sign that we are doing our jobs. But, more than the feelings of politicians, we need to guarantee that our bond with the people of America remains based on trust and mutual respect, and of course, solid information.

Comments(14)

By now you know that the NY Times, after much newsroom debate, and with little factual credibility or confirmation , has released a news story that insinuates that John McCain had pushed for further TV deregulation after having an alleged romantic friendship with a lobbyist for a TV company that could benefit from the legislation. Is this is a smear? Or is there something to it?

The story seems to be a rehash of an old story, but to the radio and TV business, it is no shocker, at least the part about pushing for expanded media ownership by a single company.

The relationship part of the story is fuzzy in the NY Times Report. There is no verification of the allegations about the female lobbyist in the story. So why did the Times release the story now, rather than months ago when it apparently had it?

There is something else missing in the Times story. The Times failed to report that John McCain was the leading figure in the deregulation of TV ownership and media consolidation, bills that were especially favorable to large media moguls, who according to the Times report, flew him around the country in corporate jets.

Some call McCain the Father of Media Deregulation, a move that gave broadcast companies freedoms to own many stations in one market, a boon to large companies and the virtual end of locally-owned operations. Some people think it is great for the business, others think it destroyed incentives for local stations to carry their share of community responsibility. I have a variety of emotions on  this.

But back to the story.

So, the Times story concentrates on the sexy angle of a lobbyist and a Senator without any proof that there was a relationship. And it fails to document the bigger story — that McCain, for better or worse, influenced the path of the American broadcast industry. It is odd that America’s finest newspaper is relying on innuendo and second-hand reports on the angle of the “friendship” with the lobbyist. You expect that from a torrid tabloid.

McCain is also, by the way, a supporter of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has waged war against Cable Companies, and at the same time, played Mr. Softee with satellite and phone companies. That, in itself, is quite suspicious. Martin is the same man whose FCC is more concerned about brief moments of nudity than about the scarcity of children’s programming , except on Cable Companies that Mr. Martin is trying to limit in their scope.

If John McCain becomes President, he should take a look at the FCC, and fix it.

Comments(29)