Column
Fischer Was the Go-To “Conservative” for Idaho Media
By Sharon Fisher, 6-02-09
 | |
|
Editor’s note: Ms. Fisher’s column is a companion to mine, here.
What was good about having Bryan Fischer here? And what is bad about having him leave?
1. Like it or not, he represents the views of a number of Idahoans. We in our vast left-wing echo chamber don’t listen often enough to opposing viewpoints, and we couldn’t escape his, including his strange fascination with and seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of homosexuality and deviant homosexual practices. Heck, he even had a blog devoted to deconstructing his missives.
2. He did a good job of promoting himself and his views, no matter how reprehensible some of them were—including to other Christians. I believe he’s the person who came up with the “nonprofit” dodge that we’ve seen a number of other Idaho conservatives espouse, where they set up a nonprofit front with themselves as the primary beneficiary of donations, and which allows them to look like they represent an entire organization, rather than just themselves. He has a web page, he’s on Facebook (where I’ve been his friend, incidentally), he’s on Twitter. He worked it.
3. He was the go-to guy for Idaho media, especially in the Treasure Valley, whenever they needed a conservative comment. In the execrable “he said, she said” school of journalism, there has to be an “opposing viewpoint” to any sort of progressive action, and he was it. The downside was that he often didn’t accurately represent the views of all Idaho conservatives, either, who could be as upset as liberals at why this guy seemed to be on every reporter’s speed dial. But who’s the Idaho Statesman going to go to now? Brandi Swindell, who got thrown out of China? Randy Jackson, the “concerned father” in the Nampa Library censorship issue? Second Amendment defender Clayton Cramer? Former staffer and current columnist Wayne Hoffman? None of them can compare to Bryan.
There is, however, one reason I’m relieved that he is leaving, and one that I am fairly sure no one else will bring up: I can stop having to explain that he’s Fischer, I’m Fisher, and no, we’re not related.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I bet it will not take too long to find a replacement as Idaho is a target rich environment for those who want to pander to the public.
Mr. Fischer likes to define himself as a "conservative." Obviously, this category provides cover for a wide spectrum of political types. It is employed by the likes of Mr. Fischer to market his theocratic political positions. Properly understood, Mr. Fischer's views should be categorized as variant form of "theocratic fascist." He and his supporters want to employ state power to impose their peculiar theocratic interpretations to legitimate imposing sectarian norms on all the citizens of Idaho. For students of the history of fascism in all of its varieties, Mr. Fischer should be defined as a fascist demagoge who employs inflammatory rhetoric to incite people to acts of political terrorism against sexual minorties.
As one doctor who performs late abortions put it the other day in commenting on his colleague's murder last weekend in Kansas and the terrorist campaign against women's rights and homosexual rights in the US, the only difference between the Taliband and many so-called "Idaho conservatives" like Mr. Fischer is 8,000 miles.