LA Observed blogger Kevin Roderick runs one of the very best city blogs in the land, and I have said so on many occasions.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't throw spokes.

Today he writes about a bit I did on the program yesterday where I had callers repeat three sentences from which I will produce a drop-in that I will use in the program from now until the election.  I posted the text yesterday:

"Any vote for any House or Senate Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.  Vote for victory. Vote Republican."

I probably had 40 callers repeat it from which I will cobble together a "we are the world" version of the message. It was a very popular bit, generating lots of calls and e-mails, and many laughs as some voice-over wannabes fell, well, short of the mark.

Kevin writes:

Cutting to his personal chase

SoCal talk radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt's message and worldview can almost always be reduced to a simple statement: Republicans good, Democrats bad. On yesterday's nationally syndicated show, he asked listeners to call in and recite this line — "Any vote for any House or Senate Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability. Vote for Victory. Vote Republican" — so he could record their voices for a pro-GOP ad he's making. Didn't hear it myself, but a reader wonders if such blatant partisanship on the public airwaves gets declared as an in-kind campaign contribution.

First, Kevin does not record his response to "reader," but I hope he had the good sense to refer him or her to the First Amendment.  Perhaps he went further and asked what, exactly, was the connection between "the public airwaves" and "in kind contributions" given that the latter very little to do with the former.  It would have been interesting to ask the "reader" what the definition of a media "in kind" contribution is.  Would it extend to almost every columnist in the Los Angeles Times? All programming at Pacifica?  The NPR/PBS 24/7 pipeline of lefty news and commentary?The absurd insinuation that endorsement of a party or candidate on the radio is an in-kind contribution is the sort of statist approach to speech that the left hopes to impose in the vain quest to get the old media its monopoly back.

My producer Duane just called Kevin and extended him an invitation to appear on the program right now.  Kevin declined and said "No, I don't want to do that. I said everything I wanted to on the blog,  I really don't want to go on."

Kevin's drive-by slander --the unsourced insinuation that my programming is somehow an illegal use of the public airwaves-- is very disappointing, but not nearly as disappointing as a refusal to appear and defend it.  It is an absurd charge, one that is just as silly as his characterization of my "message and worldview."  When it comes to federal elections, I believe that Republicans are generally serious, and Democrats mostly silly.  I rarely make judgments about any candidate's character, and depart from my general beliefs --I hope Lieberman wins and Chafee loses-- when it is justified.

What Kevin's "reader" suggests and Kevin writes are more examples of a simultaneously elitist and ill-informed approach to politics that believes party affiliation and loyalty are illegitimate --if they are pro-Republican.  It is a junior high sort of debating tactic, and one that dominates places like the Times, and the thinking of those who worked there for long periods, like Kevin.

That having been said, LAObserved is still a fine blog.