Nightly Ramble: Paul Harvey,Obama’s Bitterness, Iraq And More

• Scott Fybush over at NERW reports:

*Former MASSACHUSETTS governor Mitt Romney guest-hosted the Paul Harvey show on Thursday, the latest in a line of personalities helping out with the show in the absence of the ailing Harvey, who’s now 89. NERW hears that Romney hosted the show from the studios of former Harvey affiliate WBZ (1030 Boston); his guest-host stint wasn’t actually heard in Boston, where nobody’s carrying Harvey now that WTTT (1150) has flipped to Spanish-language religion.

That’s Odd; I thought he was on 1030/WBZ. I nkow they had ‘Rest of the Story” on during the 7 oclock hour, but WBZ’s been a little hard to get around here of late, with Bob Savage’s WYSL/1040 ripping up BZ’s sidebands… (and BZ, by the way, returning the favor, after Bob goes to night pattern…particularly with that damn digital hash) Course, with all the shuffling over there in Boston, who knows, anymore?

Speaking of Harvey…. Ya know, I have to say this; When Paul Harvey goes, it will be a loss, the size of which cannot be estimated, i think.  He is a link back to an America we need to be reminded of and refocused on. That need is seen on an instinctive level by so many Americans. I can’t help bu think that’s a major reason why he’s still so much in demand.And from an old radio hand, he represents hands on radio, as it used to be.

• According to Rasmussen Reports, 56% of Americans disagree with Obama’s comments on Rural America. I guess I’m a little suprised the figure is that low. But guess which party is the 44%? Assuming Obama makes it to the general election… as now seems likely… how do you suppose that’s going to play out?
• Ed Morrissey makes excellent points on Iraq.
  

  We are in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is arrayed against our troops. In fact, this is the best possible situation if we want to fight terrorists — to have them on a battlefield in straight-up fights against our military. It’s exactly what terrorists don’t want. If they wanted to fight our military, they wouldn’t use bomb commuter trains and fly civilian airplanes into their targets.
  We have plenty of politicians who still don’t understand the strategic advantage this gives us. Instead of forcing them to defend ground and fight against the best military machine in history, these politicians want the military to retreat and allow them safe haven in Iraq. The best commitment they’re willing to offer is that if they get too comfortable in their new digs, we’ll stage another invasion of Iraq — without considering the costs involved, both logistically and in human lives, and that it depends on finding another country willing to host us after twice leaving the Iraqis twisting in the wind.
  It also presupposes that we’ll get welcomed back for a third round of destruction by the people we would have abandoned twice. If we betray them a second time, don’t expect a third welcome. They already mistrust our honor after the 1991 bug-out that left them in the hands of Saddam Hussein. And it won’t just be the Iraqis who watch whether we keep our word; the Afghanis, the Saudis, the Jordanians all will take note of another retreat — and they will make their deals with radical Islamist terrorists accordingly.

  In short, the fastest way to damage our staning in the world (you may remember the left complaining on that subject) is to pull out of Iraq before the job’s done.

• In case you’re curious, you may like to know that the housing crunch isn’t just in the US, nor is it driven by US policy.
• Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell says we need to investigate Big oil on gasoline prices. Tell us, Senator, will this investigation inclue the fact that you voted against drilling in ANWR in 2005, thus helping to create our current shortage situation?  I mean, let’s put the blame on those keeping supplies low, such as yourself, Senator.

?