Meghan McCain Brings Virtual ‘Fairness Doctrine’ To Talk Radio

Meghan McCain (Photo credit: David Shankbone)

Meghan McCain (Photo credit: David Shankbone)

I admit that I am truly baffled and quite irked by the decision of Premiere Radio Networks to hire Senator John McCain’s daughter, Meghan McCain, to host the nationally syndicated radio talk show, America Now.  I’m baffled, because America Now is carried on conservative talk radio stations, and Meghan McCain is not a conservative (more on that in a moment), so conservative talk show listeners will tune out each time she signs on.  That’s a fact.  We are bombarded with leftist media tripe everywhere we turn.  We don’t want it on our conservative talk stations, too, thank you very much.

Premiere has several shows hosted by liberals, but why would it set itself up for a massive, nationwide tune-out by hiring this non-conservative hostette to be imposed on conservative talk radio stations?  Perhaps out of deference to the commie Democrats’ desire to saddle conservative media outlets with a so-called “fairness doctrine,” Premiere is ingratiating itself with the hard Left, because this can in no way be called a smart decision for success based on “Time Spent Listening,” which is a very big deal for radio revenue.

According to the show’s website, America Now is carried on 130 affiliates across the nation.  No, it’s not a huge network, and many of you may not have even heard of it, but if you’re in a market in which your conservative talk radio station is an America Now affiliate, you may be as irked as I am about this development.

America Now debuted back in 2011 with host, Andy Dean, a very sharp young man who tends more toward the “establishment” Republican wing, but at least he had enough noticeable conservatism about him to “pass” on conservative talk radio.  He left the show last year.  The network carried the Joe Pags Show as an interim fill-in from last August until last week when news broke that Premiere had hired Meghan McCain to be the permanent host of the show.  She signed on Monday of this week.

Many of us already know her politics.  For those who don’t, here are a few points, and there are plenty more besides these.  She is all-aboard the “climate change” express.  She strongly supports same-sex “marriage,” and she is on the board of directorsthe board of directors!—for GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), a radical homosexual propagandist group.  She has the typical, blind liberal view of the TEA Party, claiming it represents “innate racism.”  She is a former columnist for the hard-left “Daily Beast” website and contributor to the MSNBC network (but, hey, she’s now been picked up by FOX News), and yet she calls herself a “Republican.”  Well, I must say, in light of some of today’s “Republicans,” like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and even her Dad, she may have a point.  She proudly admits to being a social liberal.  No doubt about it.  But a social liberal is not a conservative.

In a few of her own words, from her Daily Beast column from November 2012, you can learn pretty much all you need to know about Meghan McCain:

Woodrow Wilcox


I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice.

… I also don’t believe it’s the government’s role to tell gays and lesbians that they can’t be given the same opportunities in American just because of who they love. I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.

… We must accept each other and the different opinions within the party instead of trying to cannibalize people that diverge from an arbitrary purity test. I refuse to let the extremists win. We can’t let the Tea Party bully us any longer. We can’t keep worrying about ultraconservative white male voters.  At the end of the day, I still believe I’m on the right side of history, and we can’t let this party sink away. We can and we must evolve.

Did you get that?  She called us “wingnuts.”  She called us “extremists.”  She called us bullies.  She seems to have a problem with “ultraconservative white male voters.”  And, she thinks we’re going to listen to her on our radio stations?  Fat chance, chickie.  She’s a liberal, who is one of many who have infiltrated the Republican Party in order to mold it into the desired image of the commie Democrats.

I predict that her show, as carried on conservative talk radio stations, will bomb in a big way, because the millions of us who listen daily to talk radio are sick to death of being maligned, misunderstood and stupidly lectured by girls like her.  We have no desire to hear more of her Columbia University-indoctrinated liberal bunk.  We know who she is, and we won’t listen.  Now, let’s see how long it takes “Big Radio” to figure this out.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Gina Miller, a native of Texas and current resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, is a radio/television voice professional.
Gina Miller
View all articles by Gina Miller
Print Friendly
  • American Now hired a girl in her 20s to lecture us about social issues?

    • WXRGina

      She’s the “fresh voice of the millenials,” don’t cha know?! I guess we’re just out of touch, Ms. Publius. HA.

      • DCM7

        Translation: She a “voice of people who have been fed lies all their lives and haven’t grown up enough to figure that out.”

        • WXRGina


      • Thisoldspouse

        For being so “fresh” she sure is putrid.

  • DCM7

    Note the usual misleading euphemisms: killing a preborn child is called “choice,” and acting on an unhealthy sexual attraction is called “love.”

    When referring to these things, people like her can’t even use terms that are merely polite; they have to use ones that actually obscure reality.

    • WXRGina

      Exactly, DCM.

    • franklinb23

      There’s a lack of clarity on both sides.

      Abortion: at some point, the fetus has all the signs of life (heartbeat, lung and brain function). It’s not just a clump of cells. It’s a sentient being. At the same time, do we really want to insist that those who seek to terminate a pregnancy within the first week are guilty of “murder”?

      Homosexuality: lust is not love, and for too many, homosexuality is expressed in promiscuity and a lack of regard for the well being of themselves and others. However, there are gay men and women who have been partnered for decades and who have sacrificed a great deal for the good of their partners. Relationships that involve commitment are never easy. If you’re married, this doesn’t need an explanation. Besides, the emphasis on sex tends to decrease as the relationship matures (and both people age). To insist that there’s nothing of value or merit in any gay couple’s relationship is cruel and dismissive.

      • DCM7

        “do we really want to insist that those who seek to terminate a pregnancy within the first week are guilty of ‘murder’?”
        Women generally don’t even know they’re pregnant until the baby’s heart is already beating. So it isn’t realistic to talking about terminating a pregnancy “within the first week.”

        “However, there are gay men and women who have been partnered for decades and who have sacrificed a great deal for the good of their partners. Relationships that involve commitment are never easy. If you’re married, this doesn’t need an explanation… To insist that there’s nothing of value or merit in any gay couple’s relationship is cruel and dismissive.”
        No doubt there is a grain of truth in what you say, but there is much more that you’re either missing or glossing over.

        Sure, years of commitment and shared experiences can generate some definite love between people. But love is one thing, while sex is another. Genuine love between any two people is possible and right, but sex can only be right within certain boundaries. Sex outside those boundaries is always inappropriate, regardless of what else may be subjectively considered “good” about the relationship between those involved. Appropriate same-gender love is called “friendship,” and that can be very deep indeed. Same-gender sex is something utterly and totally different, and it’s been observed that those who seek it tend strongly not to have had healthy same-gender relationships in their lives.

        And you miss the point by your general statement that committed relationships in general are never easy. Nothing compares to real marriage in that regard. It is the joining of opposites - of people with very different needs. Anybody could live with someone who has the same needs as they do, is on the same sexual schedule, etc. Those who talk about how “good” their same-sex relationship is are not really making any point at all. They are not dealing with challenges like those in a real marriage, nor would they likely be able to.

        While you get points for acknowledging some of the realities of homosexuals’ lives that aren’t popularly discussed, you’ve still ended up speaking in terms of the public face of “gay” relationships. You’re speaking in terms of how we’re supposed to think they work — and, in many cases, how those involved them may actually be convinced they work, because they don’t understand real marriage, the thing they’re trying to make a comparison to, at all.

        • Thisoldspouse

          Excellent response, DCM. Can’t add to it in any way.

      • Thisoldspouse

        Love flourishes in many forms, between many different people of different relationships. Does that justify qualifying all such relationships with the “marriage”-type status? Come one. Lifelong roommates, friends, can have a profound love, even if they’re sisters. What’s to prevent them from getting the “bag of government goodies” that homosexuals are always clamoring for?