The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

20 August 2006

'The Assassination Of Rush Limbaugh'


Talk Titan Again Used To Sell Books?

Borrowing a page from Al Franken, a Texas- based author apparently hopes that associating himself with talk titan Rush Limbaugh will send units flying off of bookstore shelves. Is it a mere marketing gimmick, or dream come true for El Rushbo's many enemies?

With his new political thriller The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh, author Tom Layne will soon find out whether placing into book form this longtime fantasy of some lefties will quickly propel him onto the bestseller lists.

After looking at the two preview chapters available online, it's hard to get a sense of the plausibility of the novel's story line. Here's a brief excerpt:

As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it was McCoff’s job to see that a democrat was the next occupant of the White House. He replied, “He’s got to be nearing retirement age. Maybe we’ll just get lucky, and he’ll go away quietly.”

Jacquiline Hill inserted herself into the conversation. “I’ve heard him say that he never intends to retire, that he’ll probably die behind that damned EIB microphone.” She was, in addition to being Edmund’s wife of thirty-five years, the senior United States Senator from Mississippi.

“We should be so lucky,” Governor Hill said.

“Maybe it’s time to stop leaving things to luck,” she suggested, her emerald green eyes angry, narrow slits.

If McCoff or Governor Hill took her words seriously, neither of them showed it.

McCoff said, “Why can’t we find a liberal talk show host to counter his venom?”

“Oh for Christ’s sake, Jerry, who would you suggest?” asked the governor, waving his arms about wildly. “Mario Cuomo tried it. Sam Donaldson tried it. Hell, Al Gore tried back in 2004 to establish a liberal TV network and the liberal Air America radio network. We all know how that turned out.” Edmund Hill was fifty-nine years
old, looked ten years younger. He was slim, fit, and handsome with wavy blond hair and gold-hazel eyes. He had attended Ole Miss, graduating Magna Cum Laude, and then topped his class at Mississippi Law but never practiced the profession, going instead immediately into politics. His enemies, as well as a few of his friends, liked to say that he had never held an honest job.

Senator Hill added, “Even if we could find someone, Limbaugh is too far ahead of us. The only way to have a fair chance is to start even. That means getting that son-of-a-bitch off the air.” The Hills and most liberal democrats insisted that Rush Limbaugh had been the main reason Al Gore had not defeated George W. Bush handily in
2000, and they were convinced that Limbaugh was responsible for W’s re-election victory over John Kerry and for Jeb Bush’s narrow victory over Hillary Clinton in 2008 and his humiliation of her in 2012.

“Even if we found a way to get him off the air, Sean Hannity or some other right-winger’d take his place,” offered McCoff, as he finished his gin and tonic and set the glass on the coaster before him on the coffee table.

“No,” the governor said, “not even Hannity could take Limbaugh’s place. Besides, if we could figure out a way to get Limbaugh off the air, we could do the same to Hannity or Savage or Boortz or any of the other right-wingers.” Governor hill stepped over to the bar, a refurbished Empire period cabinet, and poured himself another bourbon and water. He didn’t offer to make another drink for either his wife or his guest.

Despite a frequent unwillingness to even consider non- fiction titles from conservatives, Layne's Limbaugh novel was apparently a top priority for the New York Times. From reviews posted at the book's website:

"The perfect election-year thriller. A cleverly sinister blend of suspense, politics, organized crime, and America's #1 talk radio host. The who, how and why are so skillfully conceived, then mixed with fact and fiction, that the unthinkable becomes frighteningly plausible. An exhilarating ride with plenty of twists and surprises.” - New York Times Book Review

The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh by Tom Layne is an engaging and suspenseful novel about the coming struggle of the American Democratic party and the relentless political power embodied by the Republicans. Featured in the year 2015, The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh is about two immigrant families and their historical clashing as one of them was immediately taken by the right wing political spectrum and the other eased into the Democratic Party's enraged discontent. Very highly recommended reading, The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh is a gripping fictional tale of who, what, how and why Limbaugh’s assassination took place.” – Midwest Book Review

"A cabal of high-ranking Democrats plots to kill Rush Limbaugh...[a] political thriller...a devious plot...Ambitious." -- Kirkus Discoveries

For the reviewers, one question: if it were instead called "The Assassination of Al Franken", would you be so quick with the glowing reviews? It certainly appears that Mr Layne knows how to get the mainstream media's attention.

ALSO: In a Baytown Sun story on the book, the author says this:

Layne said he and his publishing company submitted galley proofs of the novel to the real-life Limbaugh’s company for comment, but received no response.

“I’m not sure he even saw it,” he said.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to support the Radio Equalizer's efforts. Thanks for your vital assistance!

Franken - Moore photoshop: Pete at IHillary


  • My Lord has this blog become lame-o. You are writing about someone using a famous person in their title to sell books? You mean like this one...?

    100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37) by Bernard Goldberg (Hardcover - Jul 1, 2005)

    or any of the hundreds of books that use a famous person's name to sell books.

    Just how hard is InsideRadio squeezing your balls to make this blog so lame? Or have they already lopped them off?

    Put some hair on your chest or continue to lose readers, Betty.

    By Blogger Lifa, at 20 August, 2006 22:18  

  • longtime fantasy of some lefties

    no no, Maloney. Lefties just want the hack off the airwaves, he is an ignorant moron, wrecking formally intelligent people's sense of perception. Such as Brian's. Rush turned you into a moron. Nobody wants him DEAD. I have compassion, even for vile people like Rush, his desire for money, his wrongfull speech and actions have brought him to the dark side. Along with Brian, enjoy the ride

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 20 August, 2006 22:24  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Butch, at 20 August, 2006 22:29  

  • Just by calling a blog lame doesn't make it so...

    Dumb arse...

    May I suggest you listen more to your parents than your lib professor. After all, your lib professor is just trying to make a buck.

    Brian, Glad you're back online...

    By Blogger Butch, at 20 August, 2006 22:32  

  • It's telling that in an election cycle where a couple of rational ideas could win the moonbats the House and Senate, they're still wasting their time on horrific murder fantasies. GWB (and BM) probably thanks his lucky stars every day that their opponents are so intellectually bankrupt.

    By Blogger Darin, at 21 August, 2006 01:14  

  • Did 100 People include referances to "who, what, where and why" anyone mentioned in that book should be killed?

    Wrongful speech? Hmmmmm sounds like the begining of "hate speech/crimes laws". Not surprising since libs want to take Rush off military radio even though the troops want to hear Rush. Which sounds like the begining of a drab re-education center with a weirdo on a giant tv speaking to a captive audience.

    The liberal media squirts in their pants collectively anytime an American servicemember dies, I have no reason to believe they don't desire, nor would they hesistate to celebrate Rush's death like a bunch of terrorists blowing up a school bus.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 21 August, 2006 01:29  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Butch, at 21 August, 2006 01:36  

  • I'm sure these people would get a kick out of the title if they could:

    To what extent is what today is called "liberalism" simply a mental disorder? Or, rather a host of mental disorders:

    * Self-flagellation
    * Murder fantasies
    * Paranoia
    * Persecution complex

    etc. etc.

    By Blogger Mandy Fujimori, at 21 August, 2006 01:39  

  • lone: obviously an ignorant , uneducated Republican. Wrongfull speech is buddhism my friend. Better educatate yourself, if you want to talk world affairs.

    manddy: read to much Michael Savage Weiner? Liberals are the ones with their heads on stright for the most part. Read too much Michael Savage, a demonic hatefulll shadow of a man? The only mentally ill person is YOu. Keep looking at politics as Liberals vs conservatives. You short sited ignorant, mypoic, sad excuse of an adult. Keep up the wrongfull thought.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 09:31  

  • Any proof any troops want to hear Rush? My friend served, and told me most do not even realize their is an A.F.R. Keep living your fantasy. I will tell you that Micheal Frenti, a musician who talks about bringing the troops home, got welcomed with open arms by the troops. Facts, wrongfull thinker, just the FACTS

    Your 32% world is collapsing around you. Hagel even gets it, this is not the Republican party that he voted for, you sad party over country clowns, do not even see the writing on the wall......... Only the most ignorant and hatefull support this administration. You do not have to be a liberal to get it. How does it feel to be part of the most hatefull and ignoranrt 32% of America?

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 09:35  

  • Hey, MOPe (great name), if you're going to continue to call people "hatefull" (which is such a kind, tolerant thing to do), could you at least learn how to spell it?

    By Blogger Darin, at 21 August, 2006 09:52  

  • It is a kind thing to do when you call somebody "hateful', you are helping them become aware of their form of suffering

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 10:45  

  • you know, i really don't like limbaugh, but i have to say that from those excerpts, it sounds like that book was written by a drunken fifth grader. my first grade nephew has better writing skills than what see here.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 21 August, 2006 10:49  

  • Minister of Propaganda (and you are just that for the terrorists and the DNC), Just thought you'd like to see yourself in a snip from an Q&A on

    7) This is a big one for me. Liberals genuinely believe there is no liberal bias in the media. In fact, I've seen on a number of left-wing blogs and even from some liberal politicians that they actually think that the media is biased in favor of conservatives. What do you have to say to those people? And do you think it would be acceptable for them to slant the news if they simply stated their bias? Why or why not?

    I would have to disagree with you on this. Most liberals know that the media is biased to the Left and they want to keep it that way. However, being liberals they can’t just say “you’re right.” Instead, they have to find a way to undermine reality and the way they do this is by using the methodology I call Feigning Confusion, also known as the Sucker Strategy. And guess who the sucker -- you, me and every other conservative who sits there trying to explain the same thing over and over again trying to someone whose only goal is to keep pretending they don’t understand.

    Just look at the ratio of journalists who openly identify themselves as liberals. I forget the exact number but it’s something like four or five to one. That in itself tells you everything you need to know. Besides, you never heard liberals attacking CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or anyone else, have you? No. The only mainstream news outlet they attack is Fox, the only one which may arguably be slanted to Right, but more often than not presents a more than balanced perspective of each situation. The reality is that liberals have become so biased to the Left that to them, any sort of objectivity is immediately interpreted as a bias to the Right.

    By Blogger PCD, at 21 August, 2006 11:51  

  • PCD: liberals. I forget the exact number but it’s something like four or five to one. That in itself tells you everything you need to know. Besides, you never heard liberals attacking CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or anyone else, have you

    WOW!!! 100000000% off base. visit, run by former right winger David Brock, 60% of the blurbs which prove the media is conservative are taken from CBS,ABC,NBC and CNN, not just FOX. Get a grip. You are gravely mis-informed. you need to educate yourself, the media is indeed right wing. I can easily prove it, but, speaks for itself.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 12:59  

  • PCD: liberals. I forget the exact number but it’s something like four or five to one. That in itself tells you everything you need to know. Besides, you never heard liberals attacking CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or anyone else, have you

    WOW!!! 100000000% off base. visit, run by former right winger David Brock, 60% of the blurbs which prove the media is conservative are taken from CBS,ABC,NBC and CNN, not just FOX. Get a grip. You are gravely mis-informed. you need to educate yourself, the media is indeed right wing. I can easily prove it, but, speaks for itself.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 12:59  

  • MediaMatters is a George Soros funded fount of misinformation.

    By Blogger PCD, at 21 August, 2006 13:36  

  • noce try. Misinformation, take right from transcripts, you are desperate. Prove one thing wrong from the site. The site simply reports what the media states. How is ONE SINGLE THING ON THE SITE WRONG????

    david brock a former right winger runs the site
    screaming Soros like a robot will not change the FACt, the site is BASED on TRANSCRIPTS.
    what are you afraid of??
    i know what scares you
    the site blows your "liberal media" myth , right out of the water and smashes it into a billion pieces.
    site one error on the site
    I will wait forever, screaming Soros does not change the FACT, the site is LEGIT. Jeezzzzzzzzz

    bu bu bu Soros
    your line of defense is so vacous, it is sad. Every last one of you fake-Republicans, debate the same childish way, bu bu soros, bu bu clinton, bu bu Move on. Who are you exactly fooling these days?

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 August, 2006 14:23  

  • Minister of Lies,

    That is what you are, period. Media Matters gets debunked all the time. To a blind, lying partisan like yourself, there is nothing that will prove it to you. AAR is a dishonest entitiy from top to bottom. The left in this country is nothing but dishonesty from top to bottom.

    I am not desperate. I am tired of liars like you wasting bandwidth and people's time.

    By Blogger PCD, at 21 August, 2006 14:37  

  • PCD,

    The problem with hacks like you is you take all your talking points from Fox News and treat it like gospel. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. Anytime anything is written that criticizes a Bush policy you run to your Fox talking points and yell LIBERAL BIAS.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 21 August, 2006 15:33  

  • Minister of Propoganda (such a fitting title!),

    How about the Pew Research Poll where the press self-identify at a rate of liberal versus conservative of 5:1? Not willing to accept that the press THEMSELVES consider themselves much more liberal than conservative?

    To deny a liberal bias to the media is as bad as Baghdad Ali denying the Americans were even in Iraq, as tanks rumbled behind him in the streets...

    This is one dog that just doesn't hunt; the press has a MASSIVE left-lean to it. Try to deny all you want, but time and again EVERY SINGLE POLL shows otherwise.

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 21 August, 2006 15:42  

  • Elmonica,

    No, the hack with the George Soros/Daily Kos/DNC talking points is you. Even the Pew Research center published poll results shoing the the Media, reporters, and editors are LIBERALS by their own admission. Last I saw PEW was not funded by Rupert Murdoch.

    The hack is you, elmonica.

    All you have to do is a little googling, reading of the news sites and noting Reuters, CNN, CBS, etc. get caught faking stories and you have CONFIRMED LIBERAL BIAS.

    By Blogger PCD, at 21 August, 2006 15:46  

  • PCD, i'm not here to deny that some of the media is liberally biased, or to counter the fact that they are producing fake news stories from time to time. BUT, i seriously suggest that you check out your false idol of Fox News before you start accusing. there have been over 2 dozen books written on how Fox lies, punishes whistleblowers (jane akre), and blatantly promotes a right-wing agenda. and most of those same books (FUBAR and Talking Right come to mind) illustrate just how other news organizations like CNN, ABC, and CBS use derogatory phrases about liberals almost 40% more often than they do about conservatives. just remember, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or at least not do so until they have read a book or two.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 21 August, 2006 16:04  

  • I thought that the proper way to do politically based novels - such as this one - was to thinly (Albeit very thinly, perhaps) disguise the characters. In Primary Colors, one knew that the candidate was Willie Clinton, but it was never blatantly stated. Now that was an enjoyable politically reality-based novel.

    This effort seems crudely done, as well as poorly written. Surely, the Democrats would first go after the evil incarnate™ Karl Rove before taking on his talking puppet™ Rush. That would be like shooting Charlie McCarty. Satisfying for some no doubt but rather ineffective in the end. One has to wonder how such a weak effort got published.
    Then again, fantasy-pornography like this appeals to a certain demo(crat)graphic.

    By Blogger Lokki, at 21 August, 2006 16:08  

  • Hardcore,

    You make an ASSumption, that I watch Fox News. I haven't watched Fox in years.

    Second, I have seen a newspaper photographer here in town rearrange protestors at a Bush visit to make 24 people look like the 100 the reporter/photographer was claiming there were.

    Oh, Hardcore, just because you can cite a number of books, doesn't make ANY of them truthful. You didn't check any of your factoids, boy.

    Also, cite where you get your horse-hockey about the MSM being more derogatory on Democrats. I don't belive that study exists, or that the definition of what is derogatory fits the Webster's definition.

    By Blogger PCD, at 21 August, 2006 16:15  

  • Buddhism? Hmmm so now the left is trying to push theology down our throats.....this is a theocrasy remember? Anyway Buddhism is right speech not wrongful speech, they shoot for the positive side.

    I know the troops want to hear Rush I was a troop, I didn't have to search around for my one uncowardly friend to hear from the troops, that was all the people I had to talk to.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 21 August, 2006 16:44  

  • Don't bust on "former right-wingers".

    Everyone has to grow a set and become a real man with a real mind sometime.

    As far as Rush, America's become a land of big-assed drug-addled morons, and Rush's popularity amongst certain elements reflects that reality.

    That's all. Not hard to figure out.

    Wasn't "Roseanne" a hit TV show, not too many years back? Wasn't "Married With Children"?

    This is the same, just with a political backdrop, and seamy headlines to boot.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 21 August, 2006 16:45  

  • Hashfanatic said: "Everyone has to grow a set and become a real man with a real mind sometime."

    Care to tell us when you plan to do so?

    As to MMFA: The Strawman's favorite on-line reference, Wikipedia, has this to say about the funding of Media Matters for America: "The New York Times reported that Media Matters has received 'more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals' and 'was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress'.[2]" And who, praytell, funded the Center for American Progress? Why none other than George Soros, according to that well-known GOP house organ, the WashPost.

    Founded by wealthy liberals. Funded by George Soros and his pals. Headed by Duncan Black (aka Atrios) and David Brock. Assistance from John Podesta, also from Ruy Teixeira and Tom Daschle through CAP. Yep, MMFA is designed to be straight and true, all right...NOT!

    One example of the MMFA "thought" process can be seen in this MMFA report decrying the fact that too many conservatives were seen on the Sunday shows from 1997 to 2005. An abstract, with my commentary: "The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left." During that time the White House was in Dem Hands, both houses of Congress were in GOP hands - IOW, a reasonable distribution of political guests.

    It continues: "But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent." Again, a reasonable distribution of guests, as the GOP held both houses of the Congress and the White House, and the 9/11 attacks occurred less than eight months into the Bush-43 presidency.

    Note that they started the compilation of data with the 105th (1997) Congress. What would the distribution have been in the last two years of Bush-41 and the first two years of Clinton's first term, from 1993 to 1995? All MMFA did was manipulate figures to achieve the outcome they wished to bleat all over the airwaves, and as we see on this board, they had all sorts of people ready to lap this tripe up.

    Figures lie, and liars figure. All MMFA is trying to do is to spin their side of the political story. But for anyone to suggest that they should be some sort of repository of trust or truth is absolutely ridiculous. David Brock is every bit as much an ideological hack as is Rush. The only difference between the two is that Rush gets his money from companies that advertise their products on his program, and Brock gets his money from George Soros.

    By Blogger JD, at 21 August, 2006 20:28  

  • I find it encouraging that most media peple have liberal core values even though they likely bend over backwards not to show it. Most of the nation's university faculty also have liberal core values with the science and technology fields having the highest percentage. I imagine that conservatives absolutely hate this trend and would much rather see "home schooling" continue through college and into graduate school. I predict one day we will see a "home-schooled" PhD with a thesis on the merits of "excellence in broadcasting".

    By Blogger WHT, at 21 August, 2006 20:31  

  • Look, our REAL fighting men and women don't spend a moment worrying about when Lardass Limbo's pathetic broadcast is aired.

    I've never known one who's returned, who hasn't marked him as filth (and as far as I'm concerned, who needs any of them that might?)

    The truth is, he should be tried for incitement (or at least narcotics trading).

    An absolute, permanent cleansing is required of media in general, and talk radio in particular.

    And no one has the courage to admit it.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 August, 2006 00:19  

  • "An absolute, permanent cleansing is required of media in general, and talk radio in particular.

    And no one has the courage to admit it.

    And that means what exactly? Content standards? Litmus tests? Acceptability guidelines for rhetoric? And exactly should make that decision as to what the people will hear on the radio and from whom? You? A carefully selected panel of broadcast experts? The board of directors of NPR? POTUS?

    Stalin is dead, long live Hashfanatic!

    By Blogger JD, at 22 August, 2006 02:39  

  • Here's that pesky Pew Poll again - the one in which journalists self-identify as liberals by an almost 5-1 margin.

    The fact that "hash fanatic" can't surmise that a "cleansing" of the media is wholly incompatible with the First Amendment tells you all you need to know about the hard left. They aren't in favor of free speech - they're in favor of their speech and nobody else's. How "tolerant" of "hash fanatic."

    And by "cleansing," he merely means more left wingnuts on radio by government mandate -or that the ones on radio should just be successful because he says so. Completely against the First Amendment as well.

    Pathetic, just like their much hyped and abyssmaly performing "Air America."

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 22 August, 2006 04:58  

  • typical filth.

    I am going to consider starting a website with fictional stories about killing off the NAZI-like left in this country. I am sure their lawyers will see nothing wrong with "Killing Hillary" and "Nuking New York".

    By Blogger GeronL, at 22 August, 2006 05:24  

  • Who cares?

    Without any sort of coherent message and nothing but abject failure, who'll notice you're gone anyway?

    Why be namby-pamby about it?

    Why whine?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 August, 2006 05:57  

  • "Without any sort of coherent message and nothing but abject failure, who'll notice you're gone anyway?"

    That wins ironic statement of the year coming from a defender of Air America.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 22 August, 2006 06:51  

  • For the most part, Air America programming really does carry a coherent message.

    It simply doesn't happen to carry one you're prepared to face up to yet.

    And that's why Air America is disappearing off the air.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 August, 2006 09:12  

  • how do you DEBUNK actual quotes from the T.V. This is all media matters is, QUOTES, from TRANSCRIPTS. Nothing to DEBUNK, you wildly insane HACKS. You cant debunk ACTUAL transcripts.
    bu bu bu soros Soros Soros, soros soros, you sad people sound like robots
    soros soros soros soros soros

    Soros or Not, Media Matters is Brock's website, he was one of yours until he GREW UP,
    again you can debunk TRANSCRIPTS. I don't care what politics affiliation journalists claim, the MEDIA is NOT LIBERAL. They follow ORDERS by a large corperation, which slants to the RIGHT
    soros soros soros

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 22 August, 2006 10:02  

  • "It simply doesn't happen to carry one you're prepared to face up to yet.

    What are you smoking? Hash?

    Your "coherent message" is total and complete bullsh*t and people know it. Your uninformed hatered of people and institutions you know nothing about is palpable. Your incessant faux-counterculture negativity is repulsive to listeners. The hosts are talentless hacks, washed up actors, flacid comedians and radio amatuers who are not funny, intelligent or compelling. They're losers. AA's ratings are in the toilet as a result.

    Get over it. Nobody cares about your "coherent message." There is no message except for CONSERVATIVES BAD LIBERALS GOOD. It was played out over the past 4 decades by the flower power generation, and we see the results in the inner cities of America every single day. Crime, high taxes, bad schools, corruption, gangs, drugs, racism, urban decay, public housing nightmares, welfare statism, apathy, etc.

    Liberalism - been there, done that, not doing it again. Hence, Air America's slow, hilarious death.

    Either way, liberal radio is a running joke - just like their supporters.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 22 August, 2006 10:13  

  • he was one of yours until he GREW UP

    Media Matters is a site run by leftwingers for leftwingers, funded by well known leftwingers.

    Brock "switched" after he came out of the closet, as well as after being dropped from his publisher in 1998 after his "full expose" on Hillary Clinton turned out to be bland and boring. A bitter person "getting his revenge" on those who "destroyed him."

    The poor baby.

    Anyone telling you that Media Matters is a nonpartisan organization is simply lying. Yes -its that simple - they're lying to you because they assume you don't know anything about David Brock, George Soros, Eric Altermann, etc. and that you can be duped.

    You aren't making any converts here, MiniPropaganda and hashsmoker. You're making fools of yourselves.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 22 August, 2006 10:21  

  • For the most part, Air America programming really does carry a coherent message.

    "Donations welcome"?

    By Blogger Snowed In, at 22 August, 2006 11:19  

  • Who cares about your dumbass personalities and character assassinations, "Lou"?

    If you'd applied your Billy Bad Ass attitude in equal measure on the battlefield the way you attack progressives, maybe we wouldn't be supporting your sorry, lazy ass now (every conflict in the past sixty years a complete failure from a military standpoint!)

    You hate America, and free speech. Go cry to Viagra-boy Limbaugh or Alterboy Hannity...maybe he'll diaper your ass and validate you as a "True American Hero"....God knows you're worth nothing to the human race.

    Brock, Soros, etc?

    Anyone taking marching orders from "Nab-A-Nip" Malkin and Ann "She's-A-Man" Coulter really needs to get a grip before you start skulking around and criticizing your betters.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 August, 2006 12:07  

  • "Donations Welcome?"

    Nah, man, we can't suck Abramoff off the way you can.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 August, 2006 12:08  

  • Nah, man, we can't suck Abramoff off the way you can.

    Wow. Tactless, yet rude. (And nice straw man argument there, to boot.)

    All right, then, HF, what is AA's "coherent message", other than Bush is evil, Republicans are evil, etc?

    By Blogger Snowed In, at 22 August, 2006 12:25  

  • One phrase, hash addict:


    All you need to know about the "value" of Air America and its "message."

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 22 August, 2006 12:42  

  • "Anyone taking marching orders from "Nab-A-Nip" Malkin and Ann "She's-A-Man" Coulter really needs to get a grip before you start skulking around and criticizing your betters."



    In the arena of ideas and persuasion, busting that type of stuff out sure does help prepare folks for the message that AAR wishes to send...

    By Blogger JD, at 22 August, 2006 12:53  

  • Good Lt.
    Brock grew up and stopped being a mindless lemming, as most ADULTS do, when you grow out of the junior high school mentality, you stop being a Republican.
    The only one making a fool out of themselves is someone who thinks a site quoting T.V transcripts is factually wrong. THEY ARE QUOTES. DEAL WITH IT, THE MEDIA IS NOT LIBERAL, MEDIAMATTERS.COM PROVES IT. They simply report what was said on the t.v. This is not HARD. Little green footballs, specualates and puts on a tin foil hat to say "liberal media'. MEDIA MARTTERS, simply reports the TRANSCRIPTS to prove the media is CONSERVATIVE. Where is a well DOCUMENTED site on "liberal media"? LGF screaming "the media are terrorists" does not COUNT. Mediamatteers PROVES IT, by simple printing TRANSCRIPTS. Scream Soros all you want, soros soros soros, you guys are so f*cking LAME. It does not matter who puts the site together nor who funds it , the TRANSCRIPTS ARE REAL, there is NO LIBERAL MEDIA, the site proves it.

    Until, you can site a SINGLE fallacy on the site, you are the FOOL. Not me, YOU. You are actually saying 'the transcripys media matters uses are not real, nobody really said those things, its made up". YOU CAN GET THE TRANSCRIPTS from EACH SHOW INDIVIDUALY, not a single fake tid nit on the site.
    for pete's sake, you cons are indeed mentally sick

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 22 August, 2006 15:31  

  • MOP,

    So Brock is no longer a conservative, but a liberal. And he's immune to bias?

    Still haven't addressed the Pew Research poll of the media themselves. They consider themselves liberal - give all the "facts" or "proof" you want; we can find an equal number (I'd wager a much larger number) of equivalent "facts" and "proof" that the media is liberal.

    But why not just take their word for it? The media considers itself liberal, when asked point-blank. You don't think that's enough proof of the liberal bias?

    How about Bernard Goldberg's excellent book, Bias? After all, he worked for 30 years at CBS News, and saw first-hand how the bias works there. And he's not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination...

    I'll leave you with the following quote:

    Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
    - Sir Winston Churchill

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 22 August, 2006 17:52  

  • While is partisan, it is also accurate in its analysis, with possible rare exception.

    But like good drones of Fox News, they demagogue it because Bill O'Reilly does. There are plenty of sites that identify examples of liberal bias in the media. It just so happens MediaMatters identifies conservative bias in the media - therefore right-wing hacks discredit it instead of accepting it for what it is.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 22 August, 2006 18:06  

  • Well, Elmonica, here's one point that you and The Strawman and Hashfanatic keep missing: Whilst y'all bust on FNC for its "bias," when you turn on FNC you know what you'll get - much like a person choosing between two newspapers in a given city. What is perceived by libeals as 'bias' is by and large telling the story in a fashion that would not be allowed on the legacy networks or CNN. Further, FNC doesn't have a documented history of institutional bias or the will to manufacture news to meet its desired outcome.

    FNC hasn't been busted for fabricating U.S. Governmental documents pertaining to the sitting President's National Guard service two weeks before election - CBS has.

    FNC hasn't been busted for covering up stories about Saddam's atrocities for the purpose of keeping its Baghdad bureau open - CNN has. As an aside, that same person negotiating with the Saddam guvmint also decided to accuse the U.S. Military of intentionally targeting journalists in Iraq.

    FNC hasn't been busted for trying to manufacture news - NBC has on multiple times, with the Chevy C/K pickup truck fire story and, most recently, the NASCAR "anti-Muslim" sting story.

    FNC hasn't acted in concert with a labor union to try to economically harm a grocery chain that has resisted unionization - ABC has - and got sued by Food Lion, and ended up losing a judgment in excess of $5M against CapCities/ABC.

    MSNBC has Olby-wan - 'nuff said.

    The Legacy networks all try to cast themselves as NPOV - which is absolute bullcrap. CNN long ago forfeited its NPOV status with the nickname "Clinton News Network." FNC has long declared itself to be more to the right side of the spectrum and has allowed its viewership to take that into account when choosing whether or not to view its programming.

    You may disagree with the programming or the editorial slant that FNC takes, but the ratings suggest that most cable news viewers prefer clarity to hidden agenda.

    By Blogger JD, at 22 August, 2006 21:09  

  • Dear Propoganda:

    If you want examples of MMFA making errors, check out this website:

    Two of my favorite errors are listed:

    1) #3 where Bill O'Reilly's ratings are explained

    2) In the first response to MMFA's attacks on Ann Coulter's endnotes for "Godless", the final entry for part I, where they discuss what the 9-11 commission really said, not what MMFA reported

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 22 August, 2006 22:47  

  • Snowed in....I'd describe the message in two words...neoconservative lawlessness.

    It's not the ideological differences as much as the Bush Crime Family continuing to get off scot-free.

    Forget about being held to the same standard Clinton or even Pappy Bush was. There ARE no standards anymore.

    If the "unitary executive" wants to break the law and spy on people, that's fine by you. Corruption's okay as long as it's someone with an "R" behind their name, doing the dirties. We have laws requiring transparency and assumption of responsibility, and again, that is flouted. If the president sends down the word that it's okay to simply look the other way and ignore even existing laws when hordes of foreigners invade our shores and place our nation at peril, and it's like, hey, this is for your own good. If torture in imprisonment is discovered, well, the president doesn't think it's a big deal, and he's the decider. If Osama bin Laden stays free after five years, an old man wandering around the desert with a dialysis machine, and the president says he's not really concerned with it, well, let him off easy.....the real bad guys are in Syria...and Israel must be protected at all costs, using US taxpayer money, armaments, our soldiers' blood, and our respectability amongst every other nation...but GOD told the president so. Foreign domination of our industries and record-setting deficits are okay, despite commercial and monetary restrictions, because after all, who cares about those OLD laws anyway?

    The United States of America under the Bush Crime Family has actually become a rogue nation, and the biggest threat to stability and security throughout the entire world.

    Do you think that perhaps these might be valid questions and challenges to any (s)elected American president, given such lawlessness and such a comprehensive, lasting legacy of failure?

    Can you understand that total incompetence and fraudulence might have to trump party loyalty at some juncture?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 23 August, 2006 00:43  

  • BlahblahblahleftwingBSblahblah

    That's some mighty strong hash you're smoking.

    Once more, here's breakdown of that Pew poll identifying the "objective, non-partisan" media for what it self identifies as, since you apparently need to have it pounded into your thick little skull. Kind of undercuts every argument you make regarding Fox, since it is painfully evident that there is a left-bias to most news outlets. I know its hard to accpet that the conservatives are right on this one, but you'll deal.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 23 August, 2006 05:08  

  • HF, I love how you imagine you can pin down my views based on two questions.

    First of all, you're dreaming if you think this is the first administration to using spying. And anyway, why shouldn't we be concerned about calls made to people with known terrorist connections? Of course, they should have fixed the warrant process to get those warrants much faster, rather than simply flouting the regulations. But that doesn't mean that there is no reason to monitor those types of calls. The method currently used is not fine by me, but the goal is a good thing.

    Corruption's okay as long as it's someone with an "R" behind their name, doing the dirties.

    Does this mean I should assume that it's okay with you as long as a "D" appears, also? That's a rather broad brush you are using.

    Careful with the Israel comments...some might assume you're anti-Semitic. But seriously, remind me why it's not okay for us to defend our allies? Should we simply pull out of all other countries and tell them, "you're on your own"?

    I will, however, agree with you on the seriousness of the deficits. Why haven't the Democrats run on the platform of cutting runaway government spending, rather than making statements about adding even more earmarks next year if the Democrats take Congress? Face it, forcing through a tax increase and taking more of our money away from us is not going to be politically popular unless government can tighten its own belt. A platform of tax increases and spending increases, which I see in every single Democratic Congressional campaign I've viewed, is not going to fly.

    Do I think your questions are valid? Some of them. It's certainly more fruitful to ask questions in that manner than it is to make sexual allusions to Jack Abramoff. (Although you really should stop assuming what people's views are before you ask them.)

    Thanks for a serious discussion.

    By Blogger Snowed In, at 23 August, 2006 09:11  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger